HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2019.04.15City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, April 15, 2019
STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A
Discussion of 877 Burlway Proposala.
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 4/11/2019
April 15, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for April 1, 2019a.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Agreement with MCImetro Access Transmission
Services Corp. d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission Services for Installation of
Underground Conduit and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Encroachment
Agreement
b.
Staff Report
Resolution
Agreement
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to P .C. Inc., for the Police
Station Emergency Generator Project, City Project No. 84640, and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute the Construction Contract
c.
Staff Report
Resolution
Bid Summary
Project Location Map
Construction Contract
Bid Protest Correspondence
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Ordering and Calling a General Municipal Election to be Held on
November 5, 2019
d.
Staff Report
Resolution
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Shoreland Subdivision Water Main Improvement
Project by Stoloski and Gonzales Inc., City Project No. 83521
e.
Staff Report
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Carolan -Rollins Easement Sanitary Sewer Main
Relocation Project by Cratus Inc., City Project No. 84850
f.
Staff Report
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2019
April 15, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Adoption of a Resolution Encouraging the Residential and Business Communities to Take
the Idle Free Pledge
g.
Staff Report
Resolution
Attachments:
Approval of a Proclamation Recognizing April as Autism Awareness Monthh.
Staff Report
Proclamation
Attachments:
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Code Sections 25.32.030
(Burlingame Avenue Commercial District) and 25.70.090 (Off-Street Parking) to Allow
Commercial Recreation as a Conditional Use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial
(BAC) District
a.
Staff Report
Ordinance
Attachments
Attachments:
Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 of the Burlingame
Municipal Code to Establish Management of Polychlorinated Biphenyls During Building
Demolition Projects
b.
Staff Report
Proposed Ordinance
PCBs Demolition Program Applicant Package
Attachments:
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
Mayor Colon's Committee Reporta.
Committee ReportAttachments:
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.
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/11/2019
April 15, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
14. ADJOURNMENT
15. CLOSED SESSION (after adjournment) - Conference Room A
Approval of the Closed Session Agendaa.
Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the Public May Address the Council on
any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time
b.
Adjournment into Closed Sessionc.
Personnel Matter: Annual Evaluation of the City Attorney (Government Code Section
54957)
d.
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
Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting - Saturday, April 27, 2019 at
9:00 a.m. in the Burlingame Main Library Lane Room
Next regular City Council Meeting- Monday, May 6, 2019
Budget Study Session - Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:30 p.m.
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 4/11/2019
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on April 1, 2019
STUDY SESSION (6:00 P.M.)
a. CASA COMPACT AND ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS IN CALIFORNIA HOUSING LAW
CDD Gardiner stated that the CASA Compact is a series of policy proposals that came out of an 18-month
ABAG/MTC stakeholder group to address housing supply and affordability matters in the Bay Area. He
noted that subsequent to the CASA Compact being released, State lawmakers introduced legislation intended
to implement various aspects of the Compact.
CDD Gardiner discussed the “Three Ps” of the CASA Compact:
1. Production – increasing housing production at all levels of affordability
2. Preserving – preserving the existing affordable housing
3. Protecting – protecting vulnerable households from housing instability and displacement.
He explained that the “Three Ps” are the basis of the policy direction in the CASA Compact.
Mayor Colson stated that the CASA Compact contains 10 elements:
1. Just Cause Eviction Policy
2. Rent Cap
3. Rent Assistance and Access to Legal Counsel
4. Remove Regulatory Barriers to Accessory Dwelling Units
5. Minimum Zoning Near Transit
6. Good Government Reforms to Housing Approval Process
7. Expedited Approvals and Financial Incentives for Select Housing
8. Unlock Public Land for Affordable Housing
9. Funding and Financing the CASA Compact
10. Regional Housing Enterprise
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Linda Fields voiced concern about the CASA Compact and SB 50. She stated that both
were flawed and urged the Council to oppose the power grab by the State Legislature, MTC, and ABAG.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
2
Burlingame resident Cynthia Cornell discussed the City’s updated General Plan and stated that it doesn’t
include enough housing to accommodate the predicted jobs growth. She asked what the City Council plans
to do about the housing gap if the State Legislature doesn’t pass legislation like the CASA Compact.
Burlingame residents Joel and Phyllis Mittler talked about their desire to modernize their ADU. They
explained that they aren’t able to increase the size of the ADU because of the property size requirements
under the Municipal Code. They asked the Council to review the ordinance.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the applicant could apply for a variance. CDD Gardiner stated that the
ADU ordinance doesn’t allow for variances. He explained that ADUs are reviewed by staff, and because
they are handled as administrative permits, the expectation is for the ADU to comply with all requirements.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if this was a City or State regulation. CDD Gardiner stated that it was
City.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if ADUs that don’t comply fully with the standards could go to the
Planning Commission for further review. CDD Gardiner replied in the negative.
Burlingame resident Sandra Lang discussed the areas in the CASA Compact that are identified as vulnerable
and stated that she wanted to understand the data and what is being proposed for those areas.
Mayor Colson closed public comment.
Mayor Colson asked her colleagues for their opinions on the first three elements of the CASA Compact:
1. Just Cause Eviction Policy
2. Rent Cap
3. Rent Assistance and Access to Legal Counsel
Vice Mayor Beach explained that rent control and just cause eviction were twice voted down by Burlingame
citizens. She stated that the citizens’ decision should be acknowledged and upheld.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she concurred with Vice Mayor Beach.
Councilmember Keighran discussed the third element of the CASA Compact. She noted that the City has
discussed utilizing residential impact fees for emergency rental assistance. She stated that the third element
has a means test which states: “Emergency rental assistance should be limited to those whose incomes do not
exceed 80% of AMI. Legal services should be provided to all qualified tenants regardless of income.” She
asked if these are two different concepts. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran stated that there should also be a means test for legal services. She voiced concern
for the source of funding of the third element.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
3
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he agreed with his colleagues about rent control and just cause eviction. He
added that he agreed that there should be a means test for legal services.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that it was his understanding that the CASA Compact was meant to be a
package deal. He explained that this was being undercut by the State Legislature’s decision to implement the
Compact piece-by-piece. He stated that the first three elements are meant to protect tenants. He noted that
there are other protections that the City should discuss to assist renters. He gave the example of
Councilmember Keighran’s idea of incentivizing landlords to upgrade their units in exchange for keeping
their rent affordable.
Vice Mayor Beach noted that the CASA Compact was drafted by a non-elected committee. The CASA
Compact is now being interpreted by the State Legislature. She stated that she thought the Council’s
conversation should focus on the State legislation. She explained that by doing this, the City could be
proactive about what legislation works and doesn’t work for the City.
Mayor Colson stated that she agreed with her colleagues. She voiced concern about using blanket legislation
for the entire State. She noted that while rental control could work in some markets, it won’t work for all.
Mayor Colson stated that she believed the Council had reached a consensus that the Council was not in favor
of rent control for the City but that the Council wanted to explore flex support programs.
Mayor Colson directed her colleagues’ attention to the next two elements of the CASA Compact:
4. Remove Regulatory Barriers to Accessory Dwelling Units
5. Minimum Zoning Near Transit
Mayor Colson stated that the City needed to review how the City handles ADUs and stated that overall the
City is in compliance with State legislation.
Councilmember Keighran discussed potentially amending the ADU ordinance so that there are two tracks:
1. Administrative – all requirements are met and therefore can be approved by staff, or
2. Request for a variance – Planning Commission reviews it
Vice Mayor Beach discussed the fifth element of the CASA Compact and stated that not all transit is created
equal. She noted that while bus stops can change and routes can vary, train stops are more permanent. She
stated that she is in support of reduced parking requirements near transit and felt that there was a way to
create incentives for more affordable housing. She stated that if the City is going to reduce parking, then the
City needed to ensure it was by robust transit.
Councilmember Keighran voiced concern about increased density interfering with the R1 District.
Additionally, she questioned how high-quality bus service is defined. She thought the City should have local
control to prevent multifamily dwellings next to the R1 District.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
4
Councilmember Keighran stated that increasing density along bus service routes would be El Camino Real.
However, SB 50 benefits don’t apply if tenants are already living in the multi-family dwelling units. CDD
Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He explained that under SB 50, a developer is only able to apply for a
special permit if there have been no tenants in the building in the last seven years. If there haven’t been
tenants in that time period, SB 50 allows a developer to qualify for reduced parking and increased height on
their project. He noted that the tenant requirement would disqualify most of El Camino Real in Burlingame.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if the tenant requirement in SB 50 was to prevent displacement. CDD Gardiner
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran noted that unlike many cities, Burlingame has housing along El Camino Real
instead of commercial. She noted that the CASA Compact restricts the ability of developers to improve and
increase housing along El Camino Real.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that an expert at a Senator Hill housing legislation discussion informed the
public that El Camino Real bus service wouldn’t qualify as high-quality transit.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she believed that whether El Camino Real would qualify as high-
quality transit was still in question.
Councilmember Ortiz voiced concern that the legislation doesn’t consider what neighborhoods look like. He
explained that the City had approached increased density in a thoughtful manner that worked for the City
when the General Plan was updated.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that another issue of SB 50 is allowing unlimited density within a certain height
restriction. She stated that this would allow multi-dwelling units in R1 Districts as long as the height is the
same. She explained that the City has been thoughtful about how the additional urbanization can work for
Burlingame, but these State mandated requirements could be an issue in R1 neighborhoods.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he agreed. He explained that the State housing legislation often starts
from a premise that the local legislators are the problem and are the reason that units aren’t being built. He
added that the real challenge is private landowners that don’t want to upgrade their land. He gave the
example that ten years ago the Council approved amending the downtown height restrictions to 55 feet. He
stated that since this amendment, only two buildings have utilized the increased height.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the State Legislature needs to focus on incentives that will motivate
long-time property owners.
Mayor Colson directed colleague’s attention to the next three elements of the CASA Compact:
6. Good Government Reforms to Housing Approval Process
7. Expedited Approvals and Financial Incentives for Select Housing
8. Unlock Public Land for Affordable Housing
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
5
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the City is already working on the 8th element with the Lots F and N
project.
Mayor Colson agreed and noted that the Council is considering rebuilding City Hall, which might include
multi-dwelling units on top.
Councilmember Keighran stated that under the 7th element, she is concerned about CEQA exemptions. She
discussed the importance of CEQA.
Mayor Colson asked her colleagues for their thoughts on the last two elements of the CASA Compact:
9. Funding and Financing the CASA Compact
10. Regional Housing Enterprise
She explained that it will cost approximately $2.5 billion annually to implement the CASA program.
Councilmember Keighran voiced concern about the creation of another bureaucratic group that would
require funding. She discussed the work that is happening at the County level with the assistance of Measure
K funds ($110 million into housing projects in the past five years.) She explained that she was concerned
about submitting additional tax measures to the public.
Councilmember Keighran stated SB 50 creates fines for cities. She explained that the City would only have
30 days to complete an application review for a project of 150 units or less and 60 days for a project over
150 units. If the City isn’t able to complete their review in the allotted time, the City would be fined $10,000
per unit. She explained that she believed this was extreme and that for the City to meet these requirements,
more staff would be needed.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that the State Legislature was discussing limiting the fees that cities place on
projects. She noted that the fees that the City charges are not to make money but to pay for the project
review. She explained that if the State limits fees, the State would need to find another way to assist the
cities in paying for these services.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that she believed that expediting CEQA for housing was directed towards court
decisions. She voiced support for expediting court decisions as long as there is due process. She noted that
this measure would be expensive for the State.
Vice Mayor Beach discussed a chart in the CASA Compact that outlines the top ten landowners for publicly
owned parcels suitable for housing near transit. She stated that the Peninsula Health Care District has nine
acres, and she noted that they should be encouraged to build affordable housing.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he believes the CASA Compact is fatally flawed because no city that
is affected was part of the discussion. He discussed the CASA Compact’s calls for action:
• Redevelopment 2.0
• Lower the voter threshold for housing funding measures
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
6
• Fiscalization of land use
• Homelessness
• Grow and stabilize the construction labor force
He stated that he supported these calls for actions. He added that he was in support of the first bullet point,
creation of a new redevelopment agency.
Mayor Colson and Councilmember Ortiz agreed that they could support these calls for actions.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that his one concern about a new redevelopment agency is that it could give the
City unfunded mandates.
Mayor Colson asked if her colleagues wanted the City to write a letter voicing the Council’s position on SB
50 and the CASA Compact.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that she wanted the City to focus on what is happening in the Legislature versus the
CASA Compact. She stated that she believed the main takeaways were that the Council is supporting
housing but the State has to respect that local jurisdictions are the best equipped to enact housing legislation
in their own communities. She noted that cities need an infusion of funds for affordable housing and that
this is the most important thing that the State could do to assist. She stated that the State should also give
cities targets and incentives instead of penalties.
Councilmember Keighran voiced support for the City issuing letters to address SB 50 and the CASA
Compact. She stated that the CASA Compact failed by not having input from any San Mateo County
officials. She asked that the Mayor focus on what the City has done and the need for local control in the
letters.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed the City should stand against the CASA Compact. He
explained that the CASA Compact is being presented as the idea of local governments, and the City needs to
push back against this notion.
Councilmember Brownrigg concurred with Councilmember Ortiz. He added that he believed it was
important that the letter address supporting “responsible local control.”
Councilmember Brownrigg addressed Ms. Cornell’s public comment. He explained that he didn’t believe
the City was going to get as many jobs as were forecast. He stated that the County needs to address the
housing jobs gap as a whole.
Mayor Colson stated that the Home for All is working to consolidate this conversation in order to present a
Countywide response.
Mayor Colson asked if staff had direction. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He stated that he
believed that the Council wanted two letters: one directed at SB 50 and the other at CASA Compact.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
7
City Manager Goldman stated that for the CASA Compact letter, the draft would include the things that
trouble the City but also the things that their support for CASA’s Calls for Action.
Mayor Colson concurred.
Mayor Colson asked that staff look into the ADU ordinance and how the City can be a little more
accommodating. She stated that she believed Councilmember Keighran’s suggestion of two tracks was an
excellent suggestion.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Andrea Pappajohn.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Colson reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. PRESENTATION OF CPRS DISTRICT 4 AWARD OF EXCELLENCE TO THE
BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT’S FALL FEST KID’S
ZONE
Recreation Coordinator Nicole Rath stated that on February 28, 2019, the California Parks and Recreation
Society (“CPRS”) District 4 held their annual awards and volunteer recognition dinner. She explained that
the event honors outstanding individuals, departments, and organizations for their professional and volunteer
contributions in the fields of parks and recreation and human services. She stated that an award of
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
8
excellence recognizes outstanding projects, events, or programs in the categories of recreation programming
promoting healthy communities, parks planning, facility design, or other related areas.
Ms. Rath stated that this year, CPRS presented its award of excellence to the Fall Fest Kid’s Zone. She
explained that Fall Fest event was the brainchild of Aim-orn Selig (“Pookie”) from DBID. The event has
expanded since its inception and is now two full days with several events for children.
Ms. Rath presented Ms. Selig and DBID President Jenny Keleher with the award of excellence from CPRS.
The City Council thanked Ms. Selig and Ms. Keleher for their hard work and collaboration with the City.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Colson asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the
Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Beach pulled item 8e. Mayor Colson pulled item 8h. Item 8f was pulled to
allow Councilmember Brownrigg and Councilmember Keighran to recuse themselves from the vote.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d and 8g; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 13, 2019
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes for March 13, 2019.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 18, 2019
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes for March 18, 2019.
c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES ON NEW RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT TO SUPPORT WORKFORCE HOUSING
CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1961.
d. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.55.030
REGARDING PROMULGATION OF PARK RULES
City Attorney Kane requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1962.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
9
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE STREET RESURFACING PROJECT
TO COMPLY WITH SENATE BILL NO. 1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-2020
Vice Mayor Beach asked if the City looks at the resurfacing opportunities through the lens of multi-modal
transportation uses. DPW Murtuza stated that the primary objective of SB 1 funds is to perform street
repairs like potholes. He stated that the resolution before the Council would send a list of streets that will be
resurfaced to the State. He explained that as part of the City’s resurfacing program, staff has a complete
streets review and incorporates when possible pedestrian and bicycle improvements.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 29-2019; seconded by Councilmember
Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the public’s concern about El Camino Real. He explained that El
Camino Real is a State highway and therefore is not included in the City’s resurfacing program. He added
that in his committee report is an update of the process that is underway with Caltrans to take care of El
Camino Real.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT FOR A STORM DRAIN FACILITY AT 2300 ADELINE DRIVE
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 30-2019.
Councilmember Brownrigg and Councilmember Keighran stated that they believed that they lived within
500 feet of the project and therefore had to recuse themselves.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 29-2019; seconded by Vice Mayor Beach.
The motion passed by voice vote, 3-0-2 (Councilmembers Brownrigg and Keighran abstained).
g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 2017 CITYWIDE SANITARY SEWER
POINT REPAIR PROJECT BY EPS, INC. DBA EXPRESS PLUMBING, CITY PROJECT
NO. 84380
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 31-2019.
h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY BROADWAY AVENUE
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 AND
SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 6, 2019; AND APPROVING THE DISTRICT’S
ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-19
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
10
Mayor Colson stated that the budget page provided by Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District
includes an expenditure column with items like advertising, beautification, and maintenance. She noted that
on Exhibit A, there is a much more robust discussion about Broadway BID’s proposals for the upcoming
year. She explained that it would be helpful if the Broadway BID could include additional details about what
is envisioned.
Councilmember Brownrigg voiced his support for that inclusion.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she had a question about item number 4 on Exhibit A, which discusses
a people-mover between Broadway and the hotel district. She asked if this was in reference to the existing
shuttle service. Finance Director Augustine replied that she would get back to Council with more
information.
City Manager Goldman stated that this item will come back to Council on May 6, 2019 for final approval.
She noted that staff would ask the District to add detail for that meeting.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that it should also be included in the e-newsletter.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 32-2019; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME ADJUSTING THE STORM DRAINAGE FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20
BY 2.0% BASED ON THE CPI – SAN FRANCISCO AREA AS PUBLISHED ON MARCH 12,
2019
Finance Director Augustine stated that pursuant to the citizen-approved measure, the City is able to annually
increase the storm drainage fee by CPI, but not to exceed 2%. She explained that the CPI increase was over
3%, and therefore the City is proposing an increase to the storm drainage fee of 2%.
Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked how much of the original storm drain project has been completed. DPW
Murtuza stated that in 2009 when the measure was passed, the City identified $39 million in necessary
improvements. He explained that about $24 million has been completed. However, in undertaking this
project, staff has uncovered additional projects that need to be done beyond the original $39 million. He
stated that in the next five to seven years, the City will have completed the high priority projects.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
11
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that at some point the Council should have a discussion about the
additional projects. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. He added that as the City moves forward with
sea level rise projects, the scope of storm drainage projects will change.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that it wasn’t easy to get the bond passed. He explained that he wasn’t
optimistic about getting another bond passed in the near term. Therefore, if there are new priorities with
approximately $15 million left, then he wanted the Council to think now about whether there are other
projects that should take priority.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 33-2019; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
10. STAFF REPORTS
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY FLOOD AND
SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCY AGENCY PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING FUNDING
FOR AGENCY START-UP
City Manager Goldman introduced former San Mateo City Manager Larry Patterson. Mr. Patterson is now
working with the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) to create the Flood and Sea Level Rise
Resiliency Agency (“Agency”).
Mr. Patterson began by discussing the need for a sole Agency representing the county’s interests. He
explained that through collaboration, the cities of San Mateo County will have an easier time obtaining
federal funding and advocating for their needs at the State level. He noted that the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (“RWQCB”) voiced its support for the creation of the Agency.
Mr. Patterson discussed the process that C/CAG undertook to form the Agency. He explained that C/CAG
formed the Standing Countywide Water Coordination Committee. He stated that at this point, he became
involved in the project, and the Staff Advisory Team (“SAT”) was formed. The SAT worked with a
consultant to develop a proposal for a Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency. He explained that the
SAT held multiple outreach meetings with agency staff and elected officials to understand their concerns.
Mr. Patterson stated that the proposal and executive summary for the Agency are available at:
https://resilientsanmateo.org.
Mr. Patterson discussed the proposal that the SAT drafted for the Agency. He explained that the SAT
proposes to modify the existing county flood control district into the new Agency. The proposal outlines a
three-year start up period where costs will be shared 50/50 between the County and the cities. During the
start-up phase, the proposal calls for the development of a flood and sea level rise investment plan that
defines what it is the Agency needs to do. Additionally, he stated that in the start-up phase, there will be a
significant amount of public outreach to explain what the Agency is for and what it plans to do. Lastly,
during the start-up phase, the Agency will need to identify permanent funding.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
12
Mr. Patterson stated that the Agency wouldn’t disrupt current work that is under way in the county. He
discussed the County’s three-year flood resiliency program that is scheduled to end later this year.
Additionally, he stated that the current flood control district collects $3.8 million annually to conduct work in
three specific geographic areas of the county. He noted that this work would not be disrupted.
Mr. Patterson reviewed the funding for the agency:
Services Annual Budget Funding Source
Agency Start-up $1.1 million County - $350,000
Cities - $750,000
MOU Services $400,000
Staff Resources
County
Participating cities
Flood Control District $3.8 million – subzone funding
$1.5 million – C/CAG
Existing Property tax
Existing Fee
He noted that the initial $1.1 million would fund the sea level rise investment plan and the public outreach.
He explained that while the chart shows the County giving $350,000 for Agency start-up, the County is also
giving $400,000 to continue the flood resiliency program.
Mr. Patterson explained that the initial three-year start-up city funding requests were based on population
size.
1. Cities with less than 20,000 citizens would pay an annual cost of $25,000
2. Cities with populations between 20,001 and 60,000 would pay an annual cost of $40,000
3. Cities with populations greater than 60,000 would pay an annual cost of $55,000
Therefore, the City’s proposed annual cost would be $40,000.
Mr. Patterson discussed the endorsements the Agency has received. He explained that the following cities
have approved the proposal: Belmont, South San Francisco, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Brisbane,
Colma, San Bruno, San Carlos, Pacifica, and Millbrae. He stated that the following cities are pending action:
Atherton, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, and Daly City. He noted that Foster City has a number of questions
about how the creation of the Agency fits in with their bond program to improve their levees. He stated that
staff is meeting with Foster City to determine how to work together. He added that Woodside did not
approve the resolution because the per capita cost evaluation leaves their town at a disadvantage.
Mr. Patterson stated that the requested action is for each city to endorse the proposal and agree to the three-
year annual funding plan.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the fees would change if all the cities didn’t sign on. Mr. Patterson
replied that the SAT believes they will get all cities to sign on and that their recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors is the move forward with the project.
Councilmember Keighran asked about funding beyond the original three-year period. Mr. Patterson stated
that the plan is to utilize the start-up funding to identify projects and to aggressively pursue funding.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
13
Vice Mayor Beach asked if the flood control district is under C/CAG or the Board of Supervisors. Mr.
Patterson stated that it reports to the Board of Supervisors. He added that the boundaries of the district are
countywide, and therefore the boundaries wouldn’t change.
Vice Mayor Beach asked how the Agency would be governed. Mr. Patterson stated that the Agency would
be governed by a seven-member board. The board would be comprised of five elected city officials
appointed by C/CAG and two San Mateo County Supervisors. He noted that the five elected officials would
be representatives from: North, Central, South and Coastside districts of San Mateo County and one at-large
member. Additionally, one of the San Mateo County Supervisors would be from District 3.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if she was right that the Agency wouldn’t fall under the oversight of C/CAG. Mr.
Patterson replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if any of the larger cities had concerns about the requested funds. Mr. Patterson
stated that he had only heard concerns from smaller cities like Brisbane and Woodside.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that it was misleading to state that the start-up costs are 50/50 because the
County is including the funds that have already been expended for the flood district. Mr. Patterson discussed
the work that the County would continue to do and how this led to an equal split.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the governing board for the Agency would be C/CAG representatives.
Mr. Patterson replied in the negative. He stated that the seats are for San Mateo County elected officials but
C/CAG would appoint the members.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that if Burlingame is not represented on the Agency’s board, he would
want someone in the room from the City, as this is an important issue for the City.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he believed that the Agency should use the three-year start-up phase
to devise funding formulas for different projects. He voiced his concern about the Agency utilizing tax
measures for general projects within the county. He explained that he believed a more targeted effort would
be necessary to fund projects. He stated that he predicts that the City will need to ask property owners for
assistance in the future to combat sea level rise. Therefore, he felt it was more important for the Agency to
identify projects and available funding.
Mr. Patterson stated that the proposal for the Agency is to utilize the initial funds to develop expertise and
identify projects and funding sources. He explained that in the future, if the City needed permits for projects
on the shoreline or maintenance of a facility, the Agency would be able to assist. Additionally, he voiced his
agreement with Councilmember Brownrigg concerning the funding of local projects. He stated that it would
be a coalition of the willing who had a direct interest in the project being completed that would be funding
the project.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he appreciated this and thought this was a great use for this district.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
14
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Mayor Colson asked if the resolution called for a three-year funding commitment. City Manager Goldman
stated that the City has room in next year’s budget for this allocation. She stated that it would be subject to
budget each year but the resolution states that the City would be agreeing to funding for three years.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed that this is a great regional approach.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 34-2019; seconded by Councilmember
Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE 2019-20 FISCAL YEAR; SET THE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR SUCH AMENDMENT FOR MAY 6, 2019; AND APPROVE REVISION TO
THE CITY’S USER FEE COST RECOVERY POLICY
Finance Director Augustine stated that as part of the annual budget process, the City Council is asked to
review and tweak the Master Fee Schedule. She explained that this process got easier last year when the
Council approved a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy. She noted that last year, the Council approved tweaks
to the schedule so that the fees were at an appropriate level of cost recovery.
Finance Director Augustine stated that not all of the fees are based primarily on cost recovery. She also
noted that staff discovered that they had previously failed to put the CPI index in the policy. She explained
that this was corrected.
Vice Mayor Beach discussed the Library Lane Community Room fee. She stated that staff proposed a slight
increase to this fee to cover the cost of technical assistance. She explained that the community gathering
space is important and wanted to ensure that the fee was set at a level to allow access for all. Finance
Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. She explained that this fee is kept below market rate and is at
a lower rate than that in neighboring libraries.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that impact fees are not part of the Master Fee Schedule and that the last nexus
study was done in 2007. She asked if this should be discussed at the budget study session. City Manager
Goldman stated that if Council prioritized a nexus study, then staff would need to rebalance their priorities.
She explained that currently staff is working on several projects like the Rollins Road Specific Plan and the
new ERP System. Therefore, if Council wants a new nexus study, then they should wait until after these
projects are completed.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if staff felt that it would be worth the time and effort to conduct a new nexus study.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the City’s only impact fees that don’t have any sort of escalator are
public facility fees.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/15/19
Burlingame City Council April 1, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
15
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed creating a discount program for non-profits to ensure access to the
Lane Room. City Librarian McCulley stated that a 2011 staff report from former City Manager Nantell
delineates emergency preparedness and education having the ability to use the rooms for free. He stated that
differentiating between profit and non-profit would could create legal issues for the City. He added that the
City’s fees are already low compared to other libraries.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the Downtown Burlingame Parking permits are not included in the
Master Fee Schedule. She noted that this would be added.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 35-2019; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCMENTS
a. MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT
b. VICE MAYOR BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT
c. COUNCILMEMBER BROWNRIGG’S COMMITTEE REPORT
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Brownrigg asked the Mayor to agendize a discussion on street-sweeping and off-street
parking. Councilmember Keighran seconded.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Colson adjourned meeting at 8:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8b
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 15, 2019
From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7234
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Agreement with MCImetro Access
Transmission Services Corp. d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission Services
for Installation of Underground Conduit and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute the Encroachment Agreement
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an Encroachment
Agreement with MCImetro Access Transmission Services Corp. d/b/a Verizon Access
Transmission Services (MCImetro) to install conduit in the City’s right-of-way. Staff also
recommends that the Council grant authority to enter into substantially similar agreements in future.
BACKGROUND
MCImetro is a facilities-based local exchange service with an approved certificate of public
convenience and necessity from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). To improve
internet access and data transport services, MCImetro desires to install conduit in the City’s right-
of-way at various locations within Burlingame. MCImetro is authorized by the CPUC to occupy the
public right-of-way. The Encroachment Agreement allows the City to exercise its rights to regulate
the terms and conditions of use of the right-of-way. The City Council previously approved a similar
Encroachment Agreement with Zayo Group, LLC in September of 2018.
DISCUSSION
MCImetro’s installation of conduit shall be subject to the terms and conditions of an Encroachment
Agreement, which is a license agreement with individual encroachment permits to be obtained as
conduit needs to be installed. The Encroachment Agreement is the result of considerable
discussions and negotiations between City staff and MCImetro. The Encroachment Agreement
states that MCImetro shall provide the necessary assurances and covenants so that the installation
of the conduit will not interfere with the use of the property by the City, and MCImetro shall remove
or relocate the conduit should the needs of the City require such action in the future. The
Encroachment Agreement does not include installation of commercial radio transmitting, relaying
and/or receiving antennas, or antenna support structures and equipment.
Approving an Agreement with MCImetro Access Transmission Services Corp. April 15, 2019
d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission Services for Installation of Underground Conduit
2
Staff also recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute similar
Encroachment Agreements with telecommunications service carriers for the installation of
underground conduits.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN ENCROACHMENT
AGREEMENT WITH MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES CORP.
D/B/A VERIZON ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES FOR INSTALLATION AND
USE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUIT AND AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR AGREEMENTS IN THE FUTURE
WHEREAS, MCImetro Access Transmission Services Corp. d/b/a Verizon Access
Transmission Services (“MCImetro”) is a facilities-based local exchange service with an approved
certificate of public convenience and necessity from the California Public Utilities Commission;
and
WHEREAS, telecommunications service is an important element of life in the San
Francisco Bay Area and in Burlingame specifically; and
WHEREAS, MCImetro‘s installation of conduit shall be subject to the terms and conditions
of an encroachment permit and an Encroachment Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Encroachment Agreement states that MCImetro shall provide the
necessary assurances and covenants so that the installation of the conduit will not interfere with
the use of the property by the City, and MCImetro shall remove or relocate the conduit should the
needs of the City require such action in the future; and
WHEREAS, Council review is not required for future substantially similar Encroachment
Agreements with telecommunications service carriers for the installation of underground conduits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The City Manager is authorized to execute the Encroachment Agreement attached as
Exhibit A on behalf of the City of Burlingame.
2. The City Manager is authorized to enter into substantially similar future agreements that
ensure equal or better protections to the City’s interests, provided, however, that if any material
terms in a subsequent negotiated agreement differ in a manner that could injure the City’s
interests, such agreement must come to Council for approval prior to execution.
____________________________
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 15th day
of April, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
City Clerk
Page 1 of 15
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
AND MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES CORP. D/B/A VERIZON
ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
This Agreement is entered into as of _________________, 2019 (“Effective Date”) by and
between the City of Burlingame, California, a municipal corporation (the “City”) and MCImetro
Access Transmission Services Corp., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission
Services (“Company”).
RECITALS
A. Company is authorized to provide Telecommunications Services (as defined herein)
in the State of California by the California Public Utilities Commission.
B. Company desires to install Facilities (as defined herein) from time to time within the
Public Rights-Of-Way within City in order to provide Telecommunications Services.
C. City has the authority to regulate the terms and conditions for use of the Public Rights-
Of-Way and land use within the corporate limits of the City.
D. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide the general framework within which
Company will apply for necessary encroachment permits and install the Facilities within the
corporate limits of the City. The parties do not intend the Agreement to give Company a right to the
award of any such permits.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the Recitals set forth above, the mutual promises and terms and conditions
of this Agreement and other valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
1.1 Company – means Company, and its lawful successors or assigns.
1.2 City – means the City of Burlingame, a municipal corporation of the State of
California, including the duly elected or appointed officers, agents, employees, and volunteers of the
City of Burlingame, individually or collectively.
1.3 City Engineer – The City Engineer of the City of Burlingame, State of California,
acting either directly or through properly authorized agents, such agents acting within the scope of
the particular duties entrusted to them.
1.4 Public Rights-Of-Way or “Rights-Of-Way” – means the surface of and the space
above and below any street, road, highway, right-of-way, alley, easement, pathway, sidewalk and
other public way, including driveway, curb, gutter, paving or other surface and subsurface drainage
structure or facility and any public place, or City property, now or hereafter existing as such within
the City.
1.5 Telecommunications Services – means services that Company is authorized to offer
and/or provide as of the date of this Agreement pursuant to any applicable Certificate of Public
Page 2 of 15
Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public Utilities Commission, including
its existing CPCN approved by D98-12-083 which authorizes Company to provide resold and full
facilities-based local exchange service, including access service, in the territories of the five Uniform
Regulatory Framework companies, and interexchange services throughout the State of California.
Telecommunications Services also includes provision by Company of internet access services, data
transport service, cell site front- and back-haul and Facilities leasing to affiliates and third parties.
This Agreement does not authorize Company to install wireless antennas or radios or provide
personal wireless services.
1.6 Facilities – means fiber optic cables, coaxial and copper cables, Ethernet cables,
conduits, converters, splice boxes, cabinets, handholes, manholes, vaults, equipment, drains, surface
location marker, appurtenances, and related facilities located or to be located in the Public Rights-
Of-Way of the City and used or useful for the transmission of telecommunications or provision of
the means of transmission of telecommunications. This shall not mean commercial radio
transmitting, relaying and/or receiving antennas, antenna support structures and/or ancillary
facilities, including, but not limited to, equipment cabinets, facility components and similar structures
or equipment and/or overhead service/transmission lines used for the purpose of transmitting,
relaying and/or transmitting and/or receiving data, voice and/or paging services.
ARTICLE 2
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES
2.1 Permitted Installations. During the term of this Agreement, Company may install,
maintain, operate, relocate and remove the Facilities within the City’s Public Rights-Of-Way subject
to the issuance of required encroachment and building permits and approvals. The Facilities shall be
shown and described in permit applications filed with the City Engineer and may be modified by
subsequent permits approved by the City. All Facilities to be installed, maintained, operated,
relocated and removed under this Agreement shall be underground in areas where all existing utilities
are already underground or all new utilities are being installed underground; provided, however, that
in those areas where poles exist and electric and telephone lines are overhead, Company may install
fiber optic cables overhead if using the same poles (subject to the approval of the pole owner and
City); and further provided that whenever and wherever the owner of the poles moves its plant from
overhead to underground placement in an area, all Company’s facilities must be relocated and moved
underground as directed by the City Engineer, at Company's expense, and in accordance with then-
existing City practices, policies and regulations.
2.2 No Cost to City. The construction, installation, operation, maintenance, and removal
of any Facilities shall be accomplished (i) without cost or expense to the City and (ii) subject to the
prior approval of the City Engineer. Company shall maintain any such Facilities at all times in good
and safe condition and free from any nuisance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2.3 Compliance with Code. Company shall comply with the provisions of the
Burlingame Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time (the “Code”), including Title 12
Streets and Sidewalk, Chapter 12.10 Encroachment Permit and, if applicable, Chapter 25 Wireless
Communications Facilities. Company shall also comply with applicable provisions of the City’s
Zoning Code, as amended from time to time (the “Zoning Code”). In the event of a conflict between
this Agreement and the Code and/or the Zoning Code, the provisions of the Code and/or the Zoning
Code shall apply.
Page 3 of 15
2.4 Encroachment Permits. All work performed by Company under this Agreement
shall be made pursuant to individual encroachment permits. Company shall obtain encroachment
permits from the City for the installation of the Facilities and for any other work or activities within
the City’s Public Rights-Of-Way as required by Chapter 12.10 of the Code. Company shall submit
all plans, schedules, and information required by the Code and the City Engineer, consistent with the
Code and all applicable laws. Company also shall pay all required processing, field marking, plan
review, engineering and inspection costs, cash deposits, bonds or other security required by the City
Engineer, consistent with the Code and all applicable laws, and the City’s actual reasonable legal
costs for outside counsel assistance in the preparation of this Agreement, prior to issuance of said
permit in accordance with the City’s rates in effect. All work within the Public Rights-Of-Way shall
be performed in strict compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Code, and
the pertinent encroachment permit. Once a permit is issued, Company shall commence work and
complete the construction and installation of the Facilities in accordance with the Code and any
construction schedule approved by the City Engineer in the applicable permit.
2.5 Compliance with Laws and Regulations. Company shall at all times during the
duration of this Agreement, comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws and regulatory
requirements, including, without limitation, compliance with Company’s Certificates of Public
Convenience and Necessity, the California Environmental Quality Act, zoning laws, and construction
codes. Company shall at all times employ reasonable care so as not to endanger personnel or property
or unreasonably obstruct travel on any Public Rights-Of-Way and shall install, maintain and use
commonly accepted industry methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents that are likely
to cause damage, injury or nuisance to the public or other users of the Public Rights-Of-Way, public
property or private property.
2.6 Coordination of Excavation with Other Permittees. Company shall coordinate
work with other utilities using the Public Rights-Of-Way in accordance with Title 12 of the Code
and the requirements imposed by any applicable encroachment permit.
2.7 Membership In Underground Service Alert. Pursuant to California
Government Code Section 4216.1, Company shall become a member of Underground Service Alert-
Northern California and shall field mark, at its sole expense, the locations of its underground
Facilities upon notification in accordance with the requirements of Section 4216 of the State of
California Government Code, as it now reads or may hereinafter be amended. Company shall
furnish written proof of such membership to the City Engineer within thirty (30) days of obtaining
such membership (or within 30 days of the date of this agreement if such membership has been
obtained prior to the date of this agreement). Repeal or amendment of Government Code Section
4216.1 shall not negate Company’s obligation to maintain such membership, unless such repeal or
amendment disbands or eliminates Underground Service Alert-Northern California, and shall not
negate any notice requirement to City. Company shall undertake and perform any work authorized
by this Agreement in a skillful and workmanlike manner, free of defects.
2.8 Facilities Maps. Company shall promptly submit to City accurate as-built maps,
plans and record drawings showing in detail the location, depth, and size of all Company Facilities
in the Public Rights-Of-Way (collectively, the “Maps”) within thirty (30) days of a request by the
City Engineer. Such Maps shall be submitted in the form and with the detail reasonably required by
the City Engineer. The Company shall provide, upon demand, copies of the Maps to other third
parties interested in performing work within Public Rights-Of-Way for a reasonable charge
upon request within thirty (30) days after such demand. The Company shall, moreover, at its sole
Page 4 of 15
cost and expense, pothole its subsurface Facilities to a depth of 1' below the bottom of its
subsurface Facilities within thirty (30) days of receipt of a written request from the City to do
so.
2.9 Contractors. Any contractor or subcontractor used for the construction, installation,
operation, maintenance or repair of the Facilities must be properly licensed under the laws of the
state and all applicable local ordinances, and each contractor or subcontractor shall have the same
obligations with respect to its work as Company would have under this Agreement and applicable
law if the work were performed by Company. Company shall be responsible for the work of its
contractors and subcontractors and that such work is performed consistent with this Agreement and
applicable law, shall be responsible for all acts or omissions of contractors or subcontractors, and
shall be responsible for promptly correcting acts or omissions by any contractor or subcontractor.
This section is not meant to alter tort liability of Company to third parties.
ARTICLE 3
LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
3.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as granting or creating any franchise
rights.
3.2 This Agreement is not a grant by City of any property interest but is made subject and
subordinate to the prior and continuing right of City to use all the Public Rights-Of-Way, including
but not limited to, public use as a street and for the purpose of laying, installing, maintaining,
repairing, protecting, replacing and removing sanitary sewers, water mains, storm drains, gas mains,
poles, overhead and underground electric and telephone wires, electroilers, cable television and other
utility and municipal uses together with appurtenances thereof and with right of ingress and egress,
along, over, across and in said Public Rights-Of-Way.
3.3 This Agreement shall not create a vested right of any nature in Company to use the
Public Rights-Of-Way. This Agreement is made subject to all easements, restrictions, conditions,
covenants, encumbrances and claims of title which may affect the Public Rights-Of-Way, and it is
understood that Company, at its own cost and expense, shall obtain such permission as may be
necessary consistent with any other existing rights. No reference herein to “Public Rights-Of-Way”
shall be deemed to be a representation or guarantee by City that its interest or other rights to control
the use of such property is sufficient to permit its use for such purposes. It is not a warranty of title
or interest in any Public Rights-Of-Way. It does not confer rights other than as expressly provided in
the grant hereof, and, except for rights Company has under federal or state law, Company shall be
deemed to gain only those rights to use as are properly in City and as City may have the undisputed
right and power to give.
3.4 This Agreement only authorizes Company to use the portions of the Public Rights-
Of-Way specifically described in one or more encroachment permits if and when issued by the City.
It does not require the City to approve any particular encroachment permit applications (provided
City is acting consistent with applicable laws and regulations), nor does it provide Company with
any i nterest in any particular location within the Public Rights-Of-Way. This Agreement shall not be
deemed to approve any particular design or installation technique. Certain specific physical design
aspects of the Facilities and detailed approvals of the installation of the Facilities will occur through
the issuance of specific permits and approvals by the City.
Page 5 of 15
3.5 If Company proposes and is authorized by the Public Utilities Commission of
California or the Federal Communications Commission to provide cable service (as such terms is
defined in 47 U.S.C. § 522) and/or wireless telecommunications services to customers within the
corporate limits of City, Company shall notify City in writing, as soon as practicable, but in no event
later than thirty (30) days following such as decision by the California Public Utilities Commission
and comply with City’s applicable local ordinances, including any fee, franchise and/or permit
requirements. Company acknowledges that any expansion or change in the character and nature of
the services in general may increase City’s regulatory authority over such service and/or product, and
this may, at City’s election, require Company to enter into a new Agreement consistent with the
requirements of an existing or hereinafter-enacted City ordinance regulating such services, if all or
any part of such services fall under the regulation, jurisdiction and authority of City.
3.6 This Agreement shall be for the non-exclusive use of the Public Rights-Of-Way. By
executing this Agreement, City does not agree to restrict the use of the Public Rights-Of-Way in all
or any part of the City by any person in the same business, a related business, or a competing business
as Company.
3.7 Company is not authorized to use any City property located outside of the Public
Rights-Of-Way nor any City-owned infrastructure located within the Public Rights-Of-Way without
the prior express written agreement of the City.
ARTICLE 4
REQUIRED CASH DEPOSIT OR BOND
4.1 Security. Company will furnish and deliver to City, the following securities, each of
which must be issued by a surety company duly and regularly authorized to do general surety business
in the State of California, or such other surety as may be acceptable to the City Engineer:
(a) Performance Security. Company shall furnish and deliver a surety
security (the “Durable Performance Security”), naming the City of Burlingame as the obligee, in the
amount of not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the installation Work or
concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, which security must be reasonably acceptable to
the City Engineer. The Durable Performance Security shall be conditioned upon the faithful
performance of this Agreement and any work performed thereunder and shall be released by City
one-year following the termination of this Agreement. This one (1) year period is to guarantee that
any work is of good quality and free from any defective or faulty materials or workmanship. City
may draw on the Durable Performance Security in the event of a default by Company or in the event
that Company fails to fulfill any of its obligations under this Agreement. City may also draw on the
Durable Performance Security to cover any reimbursements owed to City by Company. If City draws
on the Durable Performance Security, it will notify Company of the amount drawn, and Company
will promptly restore the Durable Performance Security to the full amount of not less than one
hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the installation Work. Upon completion of the
installation Work, Company will replace the existing Durable Performance Security with an ongoing
Durable Performance Security in the amount of $25,000 for the term of this Agreement, including
all Renewal Terms. In the event that a bond issued pursuant to this Section of this Agreement is
canceled by the surety, after proper notice and pursuant to the terms of said bond, Company shall,
prior to the expiration of said bond, procure a replacement bond that complies with the terms of this
Section of this Agreement.
Page 6 of 15
4.2 Additional Security.
4.2.1 Whenever Company applies for an encroachment permit to perform work
under this Agreement, it will provide City with an estimate of its cost for the work, including
estimated labor costs. If City, in its sole discretion, determines that the Durable Performance Security
provides insufficient security in relation to the proposed work, it may require Company to obtain an
additional performance security in an amount City determines necessary to provide adequate security,
but not in excess of the estimated cost of the work Company will perform (an “Additional
Performance Security”), which security must be reasonably acceptable to the City Engineer. Each
Additional Performance Security shall be conditioned upon the faithful performance of this
Agreement and any work performed thereunder and shall be accepted by City one-year following the
date the work for which it was obtained is completed, inspected, and accepted by the City Engineer.
With respect to any proposed work, City may recover against both the Durable Performance Security
and any applicable Additional Performance Security obtained to insure that work. If City draws on
any Additional Performance Security, it will notify Company of the amount drawn, and Company
will promptly restore such Additional Performance Security to its full original amount.
4.3 Recovery. So long as any securities described in Section 4.2 and 4.3 remain in place
(each an “Existing Security”), they may be utilized by the City as provided herein for reimbursement
of the City by reason of Company’s failure to pay the City for actual costs and expenses incurred by
the City with respect to the Facilities, including any expenses for removal under this Agreement.
4.3.1 In the event Company has been declared by the City to be in default of a
material provision of this Agreement and if Company fails, within 30 days of receipt of the City’s
written default notice, to perform any of the conditions of this Agreement, or fails to begin to perform
any such condition that may take more than 30 days to complete, and provided that Company has not
been affected by a force majeure or other event beyond its control, City may thereafter obtain from
the applicable Existing Security, after proper claim is made to the surety, an amount sufficient to
compensate the City for its actual damages and/or expenses. Upon such withdrawal from an Existing
Security, the City shall notify Company in writing, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, of the
amount withdrawn and the date thereof.
4.3.2 Thirty days after receipt of City’s written notice of the cash deposit or bond
forfeiture or withdrawal authorized herein, Company shall deposit such further cash or bond, or other
security, as the City may require, which is sufficient to bring the amount of each Existing Security
back to its original amount.
4.3.3 The rights reserved to the City with respect to any Existing Security are in
addition to all other rights of the City whether reserved by this Agreement or authorized by law, and
no action, proceeding, or exercise of a right with respect to any cash deposit or bond shall constitute
an election or waiver of any rights or other remedies the City may have.
4.4 Other Security Provisions.
4.4.1 If any Existing Security is a corporate surety bond and, in the reasonable
opinion of the City, any surety or sureties thereon become insufficient, Company shall renew or
replace any such surety with good and sufficient surety or sureties within ten (10) days after receiving
from City written demand thereof.
Page 7 of 15
4.4.2 Any Existing Security consisting of corporate surety bonds shall be kept on
file with the City Engineer. If a corporate surety bond is replaced by another approved bond, the
replacement shall be filed with the City Engineer and made a part of and incorporated into this
Agreement. Upon filing and approval by the City Engineer of a replacement bond, the former
Existing Security shall be released.
4.4.3 If there is an increase to the estimated cost of any work, City may require
Company to increase the amount of any Additional Performance Security and/or Additional Payment
Security so that the applicable securities cover the entire estimated cost of the work. In addition, if
there is any increase to the estimated cost of any work, City may also require Company to obtain an
Additional Performance Security and/or Additional Payment Security even if such additional security
had not been originally required with respect to the work.
ARTICLE 5
TERM AND TERMINATION
5.1 Duration. This Agreement shall remain in force for ten (10) years, subject to the
City’s authority to regulate the terms and conditions of Company’s use of the Public Rights-Of-Way,
and its right to terminate the Agreement pursuant to Section 5.2 below. If none of the grounds for
termination listed in Section 5.2 exist at the end of the initial term (or any Renewal Term), the
Agreement shall automatically renew for a one (1) year period (a “Renewal Term”) on the same
terms and conditions unless either party provides written notice to the other party at least six (6)
months prior to the expiration of the then-current term stating it does not wish to renew the
Agreement. For the sake of clarity, at the end of each Renewal Term this Agreement will renew for
an additional Renewal Term unless it is terminated as described in the preceding sentence. In the
event that Company loses its authorizations to use the Public Rights-Of-Way, including any CPCN,
at any time during the initial term or a Renewal Term, then this Agreement shall automatically
terminate.
5.2 Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days
written notice of termination upon the occurrence of any of the following:
5.2.1 Reasonable determination by City that the provisions herein interfere with the
use or disposal of the Public Rights-Of-Way or any part thereof by City. Where only a portion of
Company’s Facilities interfere with the use or disposal of the Public Rights-Of-Way, the City, at its
sole discretion, may elect to require Company to relocate the said portion in accordance with Article
6 of this Agreement.
5.2.2 For failure, neglect, or refusal by the Company to fully and promptly comply
with any and all of the conditions of this Agreement, or for nonuse in accordance with Section 6.2
herein, unless Company confirms within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice that the cited
condition has ceased, been corrected or, subject to the City’s reasonable agreement, is diligently
being pursued by the Company;
5.2.3 An order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction approving a petition in
bankruptcy or ordering the dissolution, winding up or liquidation of Company or appointing a
custodian, receiver, trustee, or other officer to administer a substantial part of Company’s property.
Page 8 of 15
5.2.4 The revocation, expiration or other loss of applicable permits or authorizations
required by City, state or federal law for the use, maintenance or operation of the Facilities.
5.3 Occupancy/Removal/Abandonment upon Termination. Unless Company has
another basis for its authorization to remain in the right-of-way, Company shall discontinue use of
the Facilities immediately upon termination of this Agreement and within one hundred and twenty
(120) days after termination of this Agreement, Company shall either completely remove the
Facilities at Company’s sole cost and expense or, with City approval, abandon the Facilities in place.
The provisions of Articles 6.2-6.4 shall govern any such removal or abandonment. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the City Engineer may require a shorter period due to exigent circumstances and may
authorize a longer period if it is in the public interest. If Company fails to remove the Facilities
within the prescribed time period and the City has not approved abandonment in place, and Company
has not been subject to a force majeure or other event beyond its control, the City may remove the
Facilities at the expense of Company, and Company shall promptly reimburse the City for any and
all expenses, including but not limited to administrative, legal and consultant costs, within thirty (30)
days after receiving an invoice from the City.
ARTICLE 6
REMOVAL, RELOCATION AND ABANDONMENT
6.1 Upon receipt of a written demand from the City, Company, at its sole cost and
expense, shall remove and relocate any Facilities installed, used and/or maintained by Company
under this Agreement when such removal or relocation is made necessary (a) due to any work
proposed to be done by or on behalf of the City or other governmental agency, including but not
limited to, any change of grade, alignment or width of any street, sidewalk or other public facility,
installation of curbs, gutters or landscaping and installation, construction, maintenance or operation
of any underground or aboveground facilities such as sewers, drains, pipes, power lines, and tracks
or (b) due to a reasonable determination by the City that the Facilities are detrimental to
governmental activities. Company shall complete the removal or relocation within ninety (90) days
of receipt of notice from the City or according to an agreed upon schedule with the City of no less
than ninety (90) days. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Engineer may require a shorter period
due to exigent circumstances and may authorize a longer period if it will not delay the public project.
If Company fails to remove or relocate the facilities within the prescribed time period and Company
has not been subject to a force majeure or other event beyond its control that would prevent removal
and/or relocation, City may remove the facilities at the expense of Company, and Company shall
promptly reimburse the City for any and all expenses, including administrative, legal and consultant
costs, within thirty (30) days after receiving an invoice from the City. Any removal or relocation
work by Company shall only be done pursuant to an encroachment permit. All of the foregoing shall
be subject to all applicable rules, requirements and procedures of the California Public Utilities
Commission.
6.2 Abandonment of Facilities. If any portion of the Facilities laid, installed, or
constructed in the Public Rights-of-Way, other than redundant Facilities or Facilities for emergency
use, are no longer used by Company or are abandoned for a period in excess of six (6) months,
Company must notify the City Engineer and promptly submit all necessary applications for permits
prior to commencing work to vacate and remove the Facilities. Alternatively, in its sole discretion
the City may allow Company to abandon the Facilities, or any part thereof, in place and convey the
Facilities to the City.
Page 9 of 15
6.3 If Company fails to remove the Facilities as required by the City pursuant to Section
6.2 and provided Company has not been subject to a force majeure or other event beyond its control
that would prevent removal, the City may, in its sole discretion, after providing written notice to
Company (a) remove the Facilities at Company’s sole expense, which expense Company shall
promptly reimburse to the City within thirty (30) days after receiving an invoice for such expenses,
including all administrative, legal and consultant costs or (b) deem the Facilities, or any part thereof,
to have been abandoned and conveyed to the City.
6.4 Repair of Public Rights-of-Way. Whenever the removal or relocation of facilities
is required under this Agreement or the Code, Company shall promptly repair and return the Public
Rights-Of-Way and adjacent property to a safe and satisfactory condition to the City in accordance
with the Code and with the generally applicable construction-related conditions and specifications
established by the City according to its standard practice. If Company removes any Facilities from
the Public Rights-Of-Way, company shall, within ten (10) days after such removal, give notice
thereof to the City specifying the Right-Of-Way affected and the location thereof as well as the date
of removal. Company agrees to promptly complete all restoration work and to promptly repair any
damage caused by such work at its sole cost and expense. If Company fails to do so and provided
Company has not been subject to a force majeure or other event beyond its control that would prevent
repair and restoration work, the City shall have the option to perform such work at Company’s sole
expense, which expense Company shall promptly reimburse to the City within thirty (30) days after
receiving an invoice for such expenses, including all administrative, legal and consultant costs.
Before proceeding with removal or relocation work, the Company shall obtain an encroachment
permit from the City.
ARTICLE 7
DAMAGES
7.1 The Company shall be responsible for any damage to the City’s street pavements,
existing utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks due to its installation, maintenance, repair, or removal
of its Facilities in the Public Rights-Of-Way and public utility or service easements, and shall
repair, replace, and restore in kind the said damaged facilities at its sole expense.
7.2 Company shall be responsible to repair any premature deterioration of the surface
or subsurface improvements caused by the Company’s activities. This responsibility shall
survive this Agreement or any abandonment of its Facilities for a period of two (2) years from
the last date of any of Company’s work in the City’s right of way. The Company shall
immediately on written notice from the City cause all necessary repairs to be completed;
however, under no circumstances may the time for repairs exceed thirty (30) days from the date
of City’s notice to Company. In the event the repairs are not made, the City shall make repairs
and bill the Company.
7.3 If any Public Right-Of-Way to be used by the Company has preexisting
installation(s) placed in said Right-Of-Way, the Company shall assume the responsibility to verify
the location of the preexisting installation and notify the City and any third party of the Company's
proposed installation. The cost of any work required of such third party or the City to provide
adequate space or required clearance to accommodate the Company's installation shall be borne
solely by the Company.
Page 10 of 15
ARTICLE 8
TAXES
8.1 Company agrees that it will be solely responsible for the payment of any and all lawful
taxes, fees and assessments relating to its use and maintenance of the Facilities including but not
limited to all taxes, fees and assessments listed in Company’s Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity issued by the California Public Utilities Commission. Pursuant to Section 107.6 of the
California Revenue and Taxation Code, the City hereby advises, and Company recognizes and
understands, that Company’s use of the Public Rights-Of-Way may create a possessory interest
subject to property taxation and that Company will be subject to the payment of property taxes levied
on such interest.
ARTICLE 9
INDEMNIFICATION
9.1 Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Company, jointly and
severally, for itself, its successors, agents, contractors or employees agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold
the 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
actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the Company, its employees,
subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the services, except for any
such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees,
agents, or volunteers. Company shall indemnify for any loss of or damage to property caused, directly
or indirectly, by an act or omission of Company or its personnel or by any structures of encroachments
placed in, on or under the surface of any Public Rights-Of-Way and the use, misuse or failure of any
equipment or facility used by Company, or by Company personnel regardless of whether such
equipment or facility is furnished, rented leased or loaned by or to Company. It is understood that the
duty of the Company 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 by state law. Acceptance of
insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve the Company
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.
9.2 Duty to Defend; Notice of Loss. Company acknowledges and agrees that its
obligation to defend the City under Section 9.1 (a) is an immediate obligation, independent of its
other obligations hereunder; (b) applies to any Loss which actually or potentially falls within the
scope of Section 9.1, regardless of whether the allegations asserted in connection with such Loss are
or may be groundless, false or fraudulent; and (c) arises at the time the Loss is tendered to Company
by the City and continues at all times thereafter. The City shall give Company prompt notice of any
Loss under Section 9.1 and Company shall have the right to defend, settle and compromise any such
Loss; provided, however, that the City shall have the right to retain its own counsel if representation
of City by the counsel retained by Company would be inappropriate due to conflicts of interest
between City and Company. City’s failure to notify Company promptly of any Loss shall not relieve
Company of any liability to City pursuant to Section 9.1, unless such failure materially impairs
Company’s ability to defend such Loss. Company shall seek City’s prior written consent to settle or
compromise any Loss if Company contends that City shares in liability with respect thereto.
Page 11 of 15
9.3 Assumption of Risk. Company shall assume all risk of damage to any and all other
property of Company, or any property under the control or custody of Company while upon or near
the Public Rights-Of-Way incident to the use of the Public Rights-Of-Way. Company releases City
from any liability, including claims for damages or extra compensation, arising from construction
delays due to any activities by City. Under no circumstances shall City be liable to Company for any
loss of service downtime, lost revenue or profits or third-party damages.
9.4 Survival. Company’s obligations under this Article 9 shall survive Termination of
this Agreement.
9.5 No Waiver. The failure of either party on one or more occasions to exercise a right
or to require compliance or performance under this Agreement or any other applicable state or federal
law shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of such right or a waiver of compliance or performance
by such party nor to excuse the other party from complying or performing, unless such right or such
compliance or performance has been waived in writing.
ARTICLE 10
INSURANCE
10.1 Minimum Insurance Requirements. The Company shall procure and maintain for
the duration of the Agreement 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 by the Company,
Company’s agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
10.1.1 Minimum Scope of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(a) Insurance Services Office form number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering
Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering
Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General
Liability coverage ("occurrence" form GC 0001).
(b) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering
Automobile Liability, code 1 "any auto" and endorsement CA 0025.
(c) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of
the State of California and Employers Liability insurance.
10.1.2 Beginning of Work
Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
(a) General Liability: $2,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence
for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance
or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply
separately to this Project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence
limit.
Page 12 of 15
(b) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident
for bodily injury and property damage.
(c) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability: Worker's
compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability
limits of $1,000,000 per accident.
10.1.3 Deductibles and Self-insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At
the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured
retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor
shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration,
and defense expenses.
10.1.4 Other Insurance Provision
The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain the following provision:
(a) General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages
(i) The City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by
or on behalf of the Contractor, products and completed operations of the Contractor, premises owned,
occupied or used by the Contractor, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the
Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to
the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. The endorsement providing
this additional insured coverage shall be equal to or broader than ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 and must
cover joint negligence, completed operations, and the acts of subcontractors.
(ii) The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance
as respects the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance
or self-insurance maintained by the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or
volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s Insurance and shall not contribute with it.
(iii) Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or
volunteers.
(iv) The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each
insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's
liability.
(b) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage
(i) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation
against the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers for losses arising from
work performed by the Contractor for the City of Burlingame.
(c) All Coverages
Page 13 of 15
(i) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed
to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage
or in limits except after thirty days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt required, has
been given to the City of Burlingame.
10.1.5 Acceptability of Insurers
(a) Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less
than A-:VII and be authorized to conduct business with regard to the proffered lines of insurance in
the State of California.
10.1.6 Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements
effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance
policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The
certificates and endorsements are to be on forms approved by the City. All certificates and
endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. Company shall
make available for inspection, upon request from the City, a copy of insurance policies providing
required insurance at Company’s local office in the City or Company’s nearest office to the City.
10.1.7 Indemnification Not Limited
Any insurance required to be obtained and maintained by Company under this Agreement
shall not limit in any way Company’s indemnification obligations under Article 9 of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 11
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
11.1 Representations and Warranties. Each party represents and warrants that it has the
full right and authority to enter into, execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this
Agreement and that this Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation enforceable
against such party in accordance with its terms, subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, creditors’ rights
and general equitable principles. The Company represents and warrants that it has any and all
authorizations and approvals from state and federal regulatory agencies including the California
Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Communications Commission as are necessary for the
activities and Facilities contemplated by the Agreement and that Company is in compliance in all
material respects with its obligations under such authorizations.
11.2 Notices. All notices which shall or may be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be
in writing and transmitted through first class United States mail, or by private delivery systems, to
the following address or such other address of which a party may give written notice:
City:
City of Burlingame
Public Works Director
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Company:
Verizon Access Transmission Services
Attn: Franchise Manager
600 Hidden Ridge Drive, #E02E102
Irving, TX 75038
Page 14 of 15
With CC (except for invoices) to:
Verizon Business Services
1320 N. Courthouse Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22201
Attn: General Counsel, Network & Technology
11.3 Service of Process. Company shall designate a person in California who is authorized
to accept service of process on behalf of Company.
11.4 Operations Center. Company’s Operations Center shall be available to City staff 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, regarding problems or complaints resulting from the Facilities installed
pursuant to this Agreement and may be contacted by telephone at: 1-800-MCI-WORK regarding
such problems or complaints.
11.5 Assignment. Company shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor
the performance of any of Company’s obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of
City (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld), and any attempt by Company to so assign
this Agreement or any rights, duties or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect;
provided, however, Company may assign its rights and delegate its obligations hereunder without
first obtaining the City’s consent to a corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other
business entity wholly controlled or owned by Company or to the purchaser of all or substantially all
of the Company’s assets. An assignment shall not be effective until the Assignee agrees in writing
to comply with and be subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Code, and the
Zoning Code. This Agreement may be assigned in its entirety; however, Company shall remain liable
for any outstanding obligations incurred prior to such assignment.
11.6 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding
between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. There are no representations,
agreements or understandings (whether oral or written) between or among the parties relating to the
subject matter of this Agreement that are not fully expressed herein.
11.7 Amendments. This Agreement may not be amended except pursuant to a written
instrument signed by both parties.
11.8 Severability. If any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held by
a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable, or unenforceable, such
provision(s) shall be deemed separable from the remaining provisions of this Agreement and shall in
no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement.
11.9 Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of this Agreement shall
be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Company may have to the City at
common law, by statute, or by contract, and shall survive the City’s Agreement to Company and any
renewals or extensions thereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations, and requirements
contained in this Agreement shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors,
administrators, legal representatives and assigns of the parties and all privileges, as well as all
obligations and liabilities of each party shall inure to its heirs, successors and assigns equally as if
they were specifically mentioned wherever such party is named herein.
Page 15 of 15
11.10 Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be subject to, and governed and
construed by and in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. In the event that suit is
brought by a party to this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested
exclusively in the state courts of California in San Mateo County, or in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California.
11.11 Successors. This Agreement is binding upon the successors, assigns and transferees
of the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth
below.
CITY OF BURLINGAME, a California
municipal corporation
_____________________________
Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager
MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION
SERVICES CORP. D/B/A VERIZON ACCESS
TRANSMISSION SERVICES
By: __________________________________
Its: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney
Attest:
_____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8c
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 15, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to P.C. Inc., for
the Police Station Emergency Generator Project, City Project No. 84640, and
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Construction Contract
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a construction
contract to P.C. Inc., for the Police Station Emergency Generator Project in the amount of $178,500
and authorizing the City Manager to execute the construction contract.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has authorized funds for removal and replacement of the standby emergency
generator at the Police Department. The standby generator is outdated and no longer meets
current air quality standards. The new generator was sized by an electrical engineer at 80 kilowatts
(KW), which is smaller than the existing generator at 125 KW. The new generator with a 74 gallon
belly tank has sufficient power to supply the essential needs of the Police Station and can fit within
the footprint of the existing generator building. In addition, the automatic transfer switch (ATS),
which automatically transfers power to generator power in the event of a PG&E power outage, will
be replaced.
The new generator with a belly tank will fit within the footprint of the existing building and allow the
existing 4,000 gallon underground storage tank (UST) to be removed as required by San Mateo
County in compliance with regulations. Staff is in the process of issuing a separate construction
contract for removing the existing 4,000 gallon underground diesel tank, and the 12,000 gallon
underground gasoline tank.
DISCUSSION
The project was advertised for bids on February 19, 2019, and the sealed bids were opened on
March 14, 2019. The City received five bids ranging from $178,500 to $207,387. P.C. Inc., is the
apparent low bidder with its bid amount of $178,500, which is approximately 10% lower than the
engineer’s estimate of $197,736. Staff has reviewed P.C. Inc.’s proposal and finds that the
contractor has met all the project requirements and has a past history of performing similar work
successfully for other agencies.
Award of Construction Contract to P.C. Inc., for a New Standby Generator at the Police Station April 15, 2019
2
Staff received two bid protests from ARAM Electric, Inc., and Edward R. Bacon Company, the
second and fourth apparent low bidders respectively, requesting that P.C. Inc.’s bid be rejected.
Edward R. Bacon’s protest alleges that P.C. Inc. and all other bidders did not list in the designation
of subcontractors a qualified professional electrical contractor to perform the electrical testing
requirements. P.C. Inc. provided a response which states that the subject electrical testing
electrical work is less than $10,000, and is therefore not required to be listed in the bid proposal as
stated in the project specifications. ARAM Electric, Inc.’s protest alleges that P.C. Inc. does not
hold a valid electrical contractor license (C-10) and therefore is not qualified to perform the work.
P.C. Inc. provided a response which states that the bid documents require a Class A or Class C-
10 license. City staff reviewed their response and determined that a Class A Contractor with
certified licensed electricians is qualified to perform the scope of work on the project. A general
engineering contractor with a Class A license is defined as a general engineering contractor with
specialized engineering knowledge including power plants, powerhouses, water power,
hydroelectric plants, as well as other civil engineering disciplines. Additionally, staff has confirmed
that P.C. Inc. employs licensed electricians who will perform the specialized electrical work. City
staff has thus rejected the bid protests and determined that P.C. Inc. meets the requirements of the
specifications and is the successful lowest responsible bidder.
As a result, staff recommends that the City Council award the project to P.C. Inc., and authorize
the City Manager to execute the construction contract. Staff also recommends that the City Council
authorize a 15% construction contingency budget to deal with unforeseen conditions with the
existing structure, which may present problems during construction.
The project is anticipated to begin in May 2019 and be completed by September 2019.
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated Project Expenditures:
The following are the estimated project construction expenditures:
Construction $178,500
Construction Contingency $26,775
Engineering Administration and Testing $94,725
Total $300,000
Funding Availability:
There are adequate funds available in the Facilities Capital Improvement Fund to complete the
project.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Bid summary
• Project location map
• Construction contract
• Bid protest correspondence
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT FOR THE POLICE STATION EMERGENCY GENERATOR PROJECT
TO P.C. INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 84640
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the City issued a notice inviting bid proposals for the
Police Station Emergency Generator Project, City Project 84640; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2019, all proposals were received and opened before the City
Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, P.C. Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of
$178,500.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and
Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of the Police Station Emergency Generator
Project in the amount of $178,500, and the same hereby is accepted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the
successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said
work, and that the City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said
contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to
be furnished by the contractor.
____________________
Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15TH day of April,
2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________
City Clerk
Police Station Emergency Generator ProjectCity Project No. 84640BID SUMMARYBID OPENING: Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 2:00 P.M.ITEMITEM DESCRIPTIONNo. QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT1 Mobilization / Demobilization LS LS 12,936.00$ 12,936.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,689.00$ 5,689.00$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐ ‐2Remove Existing Generator including and not limited totransportation and disposal of generator and auxiliary apparatus; removing and disposing of existing exhaust piping; removing and disposing of all fuel in existing underground storage tank and abandoning tank in place; disconnecting, capping and abandoning existing fuel lines; and removing and disposing of existing building facilities associated with the existing generator.LS LS 36,000.00$ 36,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 21,395.00$ 21,395.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ ‐ ‐3Purchase and Install new Generator. Including but not limited to housekeeping pad; design and installation of all anchorage and braces; exhaust piping; silencer; building and roof modifications; conduits and wiring; startup, testing and training; Bay Area Air Quality Management District permits to construct and operate; and all auxiliary apparatus and accessories required for a fully functional engine generator.LS LS 120,000.00$ 120,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 124,868.00$ 124,868.00$ 115,000.00$ 115,000.00$ ‐ ‐4Replace Automatic Transfer Switch including but not limited to all required conduits, wires and testing.LS LS 24,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 13,000.00$ 13,000.00$ 13,256.00$ 13,256.00$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ ‐ ‐5Provide and Install temporary backup power during construction including but not limited to protable generator and all equipment and wiring.LS LS 2,400.00$ 2,400.00$ 9,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 10,821.00$ 10,821.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ ‐ ‐6Provide and Install temporary backup power during construction including but not limited to protable generator and all equipment and wiring.LS LS 2,400.00$ 2,400.00$ 4,500.00$ 4,500.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 6,722.00$ 6,722.00$ 18,000.00$ 18,000.00$ ‐ ‐Total Base Bid 197,736.00$ 197,736.00$ 178,500.00$ 178,500.00$ 182,000.00$ 182,000.00$ 182,751.00$ 182,751.00$ 191,000.00$ 191,000.00$ 207,387.00$ 207,387.00$ Edward R Bacon Co. ERA Construction Inc. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE P.C. Inc. ARAM Electric Inc.James Day Construction, Inc. dba Coastal Mountain ElectricPage 1 of 1
AGREEMENT - 1
AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
POLICE STATION EMERGENCY GENERATOR PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 84640
THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame,
County of San Mateo, State of California on ___________________ , 2019 by and
between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City",
and P.C. Inc., a California Corporation, hereinafter called "Contractor."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of
the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this
Contract; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly
published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2019, after notice duly given, the City Council of
Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter
described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsive, responsible
bidder for these improvements; and
WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the
construction of said improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of work.
Contractor shall perform the work described in those Contract Documents entitled:
Police Station Emergency Generator Project, City Project No. 84640.
2. The Contract Documents.
The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following
documents: this Agreement; Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A;
the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions,
addenda, complete plans, profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid documents
titled “Police Station Emergency Generator Project, City Project No. 84640” attached as
Exhibit C; the State of California Standard Specifications 2010, as promulgated by the
AGREEMENT - 2
California Department of Transportation; prevailing wage rates of the State of California
applicable to this project by State law; and all bonds; which are collectively hereinafter
referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor
are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents, which are hereby
incorporated as if fully set forth herein. All of the above described documents are intended
to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice
versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents.
3. Contract Price.
The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work
above agreed to be done, the sum of one hundred and seventy eight thousand, five
hundred dollars ($178,500), called the “Contract Price”. This price is determined by the
lump sum and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is
performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the
Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained.
Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents.
4. Termination
At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any
portion of the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice
in writing to Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor
will be granted an adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for
Completion, or both, directly attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a
claim therefor was provided in the Contract Documents.
The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justify termination
of the contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractor’s persistent failure to perform the
work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor’s disregard of Laws or
Regulations of any public body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor’s disregard of the
authority of the Engineer; or (4) Contractor’s violation in any substantial way of any
provision of the Contract Documents. In the case of any one or more of these events, the
City, after giving Contractor and Contractor’s sureties seven calendar days written notice
of the intent to terminate Contractor’s services, may initiate termination procedures. Such
termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against Contractor then existing
or that accrue thereafter. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor will not
release Contractor from liability. At the City’s sole discretion, Contractor’s services may
not be terminated if Contractor begins, within seven calendar days of receipt of such
AGREEMENT - 3
notice of intent to terminate, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure
such failure within no more than 30 calendar days of such notice.
Upon seven calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may, without cause
and without prejudice to any other right or remedy of City, terminate the Contract for City’s
convenience. In such case, Contractor will be paid for (1) work satisfactorily completed
prior the effective date of such termination, (2) furnishing of labor, equipment, and
materials in accordance with the Contract Documents in connection with uncompleted
work, (3) reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination, and (4) fair and
reasonable compensation for associated overhead and profit. No payment will be made
on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue or other economic loss arising out of
or resulting from such termination.
5. Provisions Cumulative.
The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in
limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City.
6. Notices.
All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified
mail, postage prepaid.
Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows:
Mr. Kevin Okada
Senior Engineer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows:
Mark Crisp
P.C. Inc.
P.O. Box 2116
Nipomo, CA 93111
7. Interpretation
As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes
the plural and vice versa.
AGREEMENT - 4
8. Waiver or Amendment.
No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is
effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more
waivers of any term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall
not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision.
9. Controlling Law.
This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws
of the State of California.
10. Successors and Assignees.
This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the
parties hereto but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written
consent of the other party.
11. Severability.
If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable
by any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement
shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect.
12. Indemnification.
Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the 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
actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its
employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of
the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood
that the duty of Contractor 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 by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements
required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor 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.
AGREEMENT - 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting
of five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be
deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties
hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF BURLINGAME,
a Municipal Corporation
By
Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager
Approved as to form:
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
"CONTRACTOR"
By
Print Name:
Company Name: P.C. Inc.
03/15/2019
City of Burlingame
Department of Public Works
Attention: Kevin Okada
RE: Police Station Emergency Generator Project
Good Morning Kevin,
The purpose of this letter is to express our concerns relative to the bid opening yesterday for the above referenced capit al improvement
project. Our bid proposal represents a lump sum total that is the lowest bid proposal meeting you published specifications. More
Specifically, we listed a qualified professional engineering contractor to perform the electrical testing requirements for the project while
all of the apparent lower bidders did not list any qualified professional testing Company therefore not meeting the contract bid
requirements and unfairly unbalances our bid proposal.
Supportive documents:
Section 16-010-56: Paragraph D: Electrical Field Tests
The Contractor shall engage and pay for the services of an approved qualified testing company for the purpose of performing
inspections and tests as herein specified. The testing company shall provide all material, equipment, labor and technical sup ervision to
perform such tests and inspections. The Electrical Contractor shall be present on site for all field tests.
Section 16605: Electrical Systems Analysis
Electrical System Studies shall be prepared, stamped and signed by a professional Electrical Engineer regis tered in the State of
California and in accordance with IEEE 242, IEEE 399 ANSI/IEEE C37.13 and IEEE 519.
We listed Industrial Testing, a registered professional engineering testing contractor certified to provide the equipment, la bor , and 3rd
party technical supervision for field electrical testing work, stamped, and sign system studies in an effort to meet the bid specificat ion
requirements.
Low Bidders
Bidder #1, #2, Bidders #3: None of the low bidder(s) listed subcontractors meeting the professional electrical engineering contractor
requirements for 3rd party technical supervision and testing as listed in Section 16605, and therefore are not compliant with the
contract bidding specifications referenced specifically above.
Additional Notes:
Public Contract Code 4106 states that if the contractor fails to specify a subcontractor for a required scope of work in a contr act, the
prime contractor agrees that they are fully qualified to perform that portion of work themselves and will in fact perform that portion of the
work themselves. The specifications are clear, the contractor must engage a qualified 3rd party testing Company to witness an d certify
field reports itemized in section 16010-68: Appendix A (Index/Schedule of forms TF1 thru TF14). None of the low bidders listed/named
a testing Company as a subcontractor to perform electrical 3rd party testing. They cannot perform this testing themselves.
Edward R. Bacon Company listing Industrial Testing as Sub Contractor: Our bid acknowledges and recognizes the specifications
requirements of bid section 16605 for 3rd party field electrical testing and therefore listed a qualified 3rd party testing C ompany to
perform that portion of work in compliance with Public Contract Code 4106 and meeting the qualifications set for th on the contract
documents for testing.
Listing a subcontractor with the qualifications of Industrial Testing meeting the specification requirements in the bid carries with it a cost
burden that unfairly unbalances our bid if the other bidders are not held to the same standard. The scope of electrical testing required
for the project ( section 16010-68: Appendix A : Index/Schedule of forms TF1 thru TF14) is heavy and far exceeds the 1/2 of 1% rule
for listing of subcontractors for all the field work required for electrical testing requirements specified and which prompted us to list
Industrial Testing was listed per PCC 4104.
EDWARD R. BACON COMPANY, INC.
8440-A Belvedere Avenue 1885 De La Cruz #204
Sacramento, CA 95826 Santa Clara, CA 95050
Ph. (916)-383-8250 Ph. (408)-288-9500
Fax (916)-381-1386 Fax (408)-846-1662
CSLB License A/B/C-10 Electrical #906345
Conclusion:
We believe that all the low bidder responses do not meet the qualification required to meet the bidding d ocuments. Our bid proposal,
evaluated on its merits ,meet specifications, and properly listing sub-contractor qualified to perform the electrical 3rd part testing
meeting the contract documents and in accordance with Public Contract Codes, and therefore should be considered for award of this
contract based on being the "lowest responsible bidder” responsive to specification requirements
I am available to meet with you and would like the opportunity to review the bids and discuss my concerns with you and your staff
personally. My direct number is listed below.
Truly,
Harry How III
Edward R. Bacon Company
510-385-6744
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8d
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 15, 2019
From: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk – (650) 558-7203
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Ordering and Calling a General Municipal
Election to be Held on November 5, 2019
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering and calling a
general municipal election to be held on November 5, 2019.
BACKGROUND
On September 1, 2015, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 415, the “California Voter
Participation Rights Act.” SB 415 requires local governments, like the City of Burlingame, to
move their elections to even-numbered years if there was a significant decrease in voter turnout
during odd-year elections.
On February 21, 2017, the Burlingame City Council adopted Ordinance 1940 changing future City
Council elections from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years. To make this transition,
the City held its regular election in November 2017, electing Councilmembers to serve five-year
terms. To complete the transition to even-numbered year elections, the City will hold its
November 2019 election and elect two Councilmembers to serve five-year terms. After
November 2019, the City’s next election for Council will be November 2022; the election after that
will be November 2024. These and all subsequent elections will be for four-year terms.
DISCUSSION
Two Council terms will expire this year. In accordance with Ordinance 1940, the City will hold
elections for the two seats on November 5, 2019, each for a five-year term. The filing period for
nomination papers and candidate statements is from July 15, 2019, to August 9, 2019.
On September 12, 2017, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors authorized the County’s
Elections Office to implement SB 450, “California Voter’s Choice Act,” which allows counties to
conduct elections as all-mailed ballot with voting centers. The goal of this legislation is to expand
accessibility and voting opportunities for all voters, particularly those with disabilities, visual
impairments, and language minorities. Accordingly, the November 5, 2019 election will be held
as an all-mailed ballot election.
Under the all-mailed ballot election model, all voters will receive their ballot by mail. Additionally
during the 29-day period before Election Day, voters will be able to vote in person at designated
locations. And beginning at least three days prior to Election Day, a voting center will be open in
the city for all voters.
Calling the November 5, 2019 Election April 15, 2019
2
FISCAL IMPACT
The November 7, 2017 election cost the City $108,463. Staff is budgeting $150,000 for the
November 5, 2019 election.
Exhibit:
• Resolution to Call the Election
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDERING
AND CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME ON NOVEMBER 5, 2019; REQUESTING THE SERVICES OF THE
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS, AND
SPECIFYING CERTAIN PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSOLIDATED ELECTION;
REQUIRING PAYMENT OF PRORATED COSTS OF CANDIDATES’ STATEMENTS;
AND PROVIDING FOR GIVING NOTICE OF ELECTION
WHEREAS, Burlingame Ordinance 1940 provides that the general municipal
election for the City of Burlingame shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first
Monday in November of 2019; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Part 3 of Division 10 of the California Elections Code, a
general municipal election may be consolidated with an election in another public district;
and
WHEREAS, elections in public districts will be held in San Mateo County on
November 5, 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. A general municipal election is hereby called to be held in and for the City of
Burlingame on Tuesday, November 5, 2019:
a) to elect two (2) Councilmembers, each for a full term of five (5) years,
2. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10002, the City Council hereby
requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo to make available the
services of the County Clerk as County Elections Official for the purpose of performing
the usual and customary services necessary in the conduct of the consolidated general
municipal election, including the provision of election supplies and voters’ pamphlets.
3. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10400 and following, the City
Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo to order
the consolidation of the general municipal election to be conducted within the boundaries
of the City of Burlingame on November 5, 2019, with respect to which the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Mateo has the power to order a consolidation. The
City Council further consents to and orders the consolidation of the general municipal
election hereby called with the elections in public districts to be held the same day.
Upon consolidation, the consolidated election shall be held and conducted, election
officers appointed, voting precincts designated, ballots printed, polls/voting centers
opened at 7:00 a.m. and closed at 8:00 p.m., ballots counted and returned, returns
canvassed, and all other proceedings in connection with the election shall be regulated
and done by the County Clerk of the County of San Mateo in accordance with the
provisions of law regulating the elections so consolidated.
4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of the
general municipal election within the time and in the manner specified in California
Elections Code Section 12101. The City Clerk is further authorized and directed to
perform any and all actions required by law to hold the general municipal election above
provided.
5. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 13307, the City Council hereby
determines to levy against each candidate availing himself or herself of the service of
including a candidate’s statement not to exceed two hundred (200) words in length in the
voters’ pamphlets, the actual prorated costs of printing, handling, and translating the
candidates statement incurred by the City of Burlingame. The City Clerk shall provide
written notice to such effect with each set of nomination papers issued and shall require
payment of the estimated pro rated share at the time the candidate statement is filed.
6. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10228 and Burlingame
Municipal Code Section 2.20.020, the filing fee for the City’s cost of processing of the
nomination papers is $25.00.
7. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify the adoption of this
Resolution and to transmit a certified copy to the Board of Supervisors of the County of
San Mateo and to the County Clerk of the County of San Mateo.
_____________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held
on the 15th day of April, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
_____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8e
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 15, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Shoreland Subdivision Water Main
Improvement Project by Stoloski and Gonzales Inc., City Project No. 83521
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Shoreland
Subdivision Water Main Improvement Project by Stoloski and Gonzales Inc., City Project No.
83521, in the amount of $1,382,011.78.
BACKGROUND
On July 24, 2018, the City Council awarded the Shoreland Subdivision Water Main Improvement
Project to Stoloski and Gonzales Inc., in the amount of $1,417,360.
The City Council has implemented a robust Capital Improvement Program to address the City’s
aging infrastructure. The Shoreland Subdivision, which consists of Winchester Drive, Corbitt Drive,
Francisco Drive, Marin Drive, and Oak Grove, was identified as a high priority system of cast iron
water mains for replacement. The deteriorated pipelines in this area were originally installed
between 1928 and 1947, and had reached the end of their useful life.
DISCUSSION
The project consisted of installing approximately 2,940 linear feet of six-inch diameter, and 1,010
linear feet of new ten-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) water mains within the subdivision.
The project also included minor sections of 4-inch diameter PVC, 6-inch diameter ductile, and 8-
inch diameter PVC in the amounts of 60 linear feet, 140 linear feet, and 5 linear feet, respectively.
In addition, the project replaced approximately 91 residential services with new copper tubing and
new fire hydrants. The new potable water system infrastructure will improve water quality, flow, and
pressure to serve the residents in the area. Furthermore, the new system will improve fire
protection capability for the area.
Additionally, an emergency repair change order was authorized under this contract to slip line
approximately 27 linear feet of an existing City-owned 12-inch diameter corrugated metal storm
drain pipe that had failed along the rear hillside of the property at 16 Valdivia Court. Immediate
repairs were necessary to prevent further deterioration and erosion of the hillside. Stoloksi and
Resolution Accepting the Shoreland Subdivision Water Main Improvement Project April 15, 2019
by Stoloski and Gonzales, Inc. City Project No. 83521
2
Gonzalez were readily available and performed the repairs. Work under this change order was
paid for by the Storm Drain Capital Improvement Program through a separate purchase order.
The project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The
final construction cost is $1,382,011.78, which is $35,348 lower than the original contract price.
The decrease in cost was due to field adjustments that allowed the removal of unnecessary fittings
such as bends, caps, and air release valves. In addition, the plans included an allowance for hand
digging on Marin to account for tree roots encountered during trenching which was partially used,
and contributed to overall reduction in the construction cost.
FISCAL IMPAC T
The following are the estimated final project expenditures:
Construction $1,382,012
Construction Inspection & Testing $173,000
Engineering Design & Administration $44,988
Total $1,600,000
There are adequate funds available in the fiscal year 2018-2019 Water and Storm Drain Capital
Improvement Program budget to cover the estimated final costs.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Final Progress Payment
• Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING
IMPROVEMENTS – SHORELAND SUBDIVISION WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT BY STOLOSKI AND GONZALEZ, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 83521
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council
does hereby find, order, and determine as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by Stoloski and
Gonzalez, Inc., under the terms of its contract with the City dated July 24, 2018, has been completed
in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 83521.
3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted.
__________________________
Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of
April, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8f
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 15, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Carolan-Rollins Easement Sanitary
Sewer Main Relocation Project by Cratus Inc., City Project No. 84850
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Carolan-Rollins
Easement Sanitary Sewer Main Relocation Project by Cratus Inc., City Project No. 84850, in the
amount of $405,335.
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 2018, the City Council awarded the Carolan-Rollins Easement Sanitary Sewer
Main Relocation Project to Cratus Inc., in the amount of $412,975.
The existing sanitary sewer main serving homes on the north side of Toyon Drive runs along a
public utility easement within the backyards of private properties. As part of the SummerHill Homes
Development Project, a new sanitary sewer easement between the fence of the existing homes
along Toyon Drive and the SummerHill Homes Development was granted to the City.
This project consisted of installing approximately 730 linear feet of new 12-inch diameter polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) sewer main in the new sanitary sewer easement. The existing sewer main was
decommissioned, and sewer laterals serving 13 properties on Toyon Drive were replaced and
connected to the new sewer main. The project also included installation of four new manholes and
eight new sewer lateral connections for the new SummerHill Homes Development townhomes. The
new sewer system will provide added capacity and reduce the potential of sewage overflows in the
affected areas. Furthermore, the project will also eliminate the inconvenience to property owners
along Toyon Drive and improve maintenance access to City crews.
DISCUSSION
The project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The
final construction cost is $405,335, which is $7,640 lower than the original contract price. The
decrease in cost was due to field conditions that reduced the depth of soil excavation during the
installation of the new sewer main.
Resolution Accepting the Carolan-Rollins Easement Sanitary Sewer April 15, 2019
Main Relocation Project by Cratus Inc., City Project No. 84850
2
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated final project expenditures:
Construction $405,335
Construction Inspection & Testing $30,000
Engineering Design & Administration $24,665
Total $460,000
There are adequate funds available in the fiscal year 2018-2019 Sanitary Sewer Capital
Improvement Program budget to cover the estimated final costs.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Final Progress Payment
• Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING
IMPROVEMENTS – CAROLAN -ROLLINS EASEMENT SANITARY SEWER MAIN
RELOCATION PROJECT BY CRATUS, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 84850
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council
does hereby find, order and determine as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by Cratus, Inc., under
the terms of its contract with the City dated January 22, 2019, has been completed in accordance with
the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 84850.
3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted.
__________________________
Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of
April, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8g
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 15, 2019
From: Andrea Pappajohn, Sustainability and Climate Management Fellow - (650)
558-7271
Jennifer Lee, Environmental Regulatory Compliance Coordinator - (650) 558-
7381
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Encouraging the Residential and Business
Communities to Take the Idle Free Pledge
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution encouraging the residential and business
communities to take the Idle Free Pledge.
BACKGROUND
This initiative was developed in celebration of earth month, April 2019. On-road transportation is
one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Burlingame, constituting 37%
percent of total GHG as identified and quantified in the Burlingame 2015 Community GHG
Inventory. Additionally, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has identified
ozone from on-road transportation as a significant contributor to poor air quality in the summertime,
with negative impacts on health including aggravated asthma, coughing or difficulty breathing,
decreased lung function, cardiovascular problems, and chronic bronchitis. Furthermore, the U.S.
Department of Energy estimates that idling in personal vehicles wastes about three billion gallons
of fuel and generates about 15 million tons of carbon dioxide annually; the Department states that
eliminating the unnecessary idling of personal vehicles would be the same as taking five million
vehicles off the roads.
DISCUSSION
Idling means leaving a vehicle’s engine running when it is parked or not in use. Idling happens
while drivers are waiting to pick someone up for ride-sharing, school, sports practice, or the library;
sitting at a drive-through or car wash; and checking email and voicemail after turning on the engine.
The following are myths about idling: “Cars need warming up.” “More gas is wasted by starting a
car than idling.” “Turning on and off a vehicle will produce more pollution than idling.” According to
the Hinkle Charitable Foundation, the best way to warm up a car is to drive it. Experts say there is
a maximum 10 second break-even rule, which means it is better to turn the engine off and restart
it if idling longer than 10 seconds. According to the US Department of Energy, Argonne National
Resolution of Support for Idle Free Pledge April 15, 2019
2
Laboratory, idling for more than 10 seconds uses more fuel and emits more CO2 than engine
restarting.
Thus, City staff are working to build awareness among the residential and business communities
of the importance of being idle free. The proposed resolution would help reduce vehicle exhaust
from idling by encouraging the community to take the Idle Free Pledge and turn off a car’s engine
if the driver will be waiting for more than 10 seconds (except in traffic). Turn your key, be idle free.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Exhibit:
• Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS COMMUNITIES TO
TAKE THE IDLE FREE PLEDGE
WHEREAS, on-road transportation is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in Burlingame; and
WHEREAS, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has identified
ozone from on-road transportation as a significant contributor to poor air quality in the
summertime, with negative impacts on health including aggravated asthma, coughing or difficulty
breathing, decreased lung function, cardiovascular problems, and chronic bronchitis; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that idling in personal vehicles
wastes about three billion gallons of fuel and generates about 15 million tons of carbon dioxide
annually; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Energy also states that eliminating the unnecessary idling
of personal vehicles would be the same as taking five million vehicles off the roads; and
WHEREAS, idling means leaving a vehicle’s engine running when it is parked or not in
use; and
WHEREAS, idling happens while drivers are waiting to pick someone up for ride-sharing,
school, sports practice, or the library; sitting at a drive-through or car wash; and checking email
and voicemail after turning on the engine; and
WHEREAS, according to the Hinkle Charitable Foundation, the best way to warm up a car
is to drive it; and
WHEREAS, experts say there is a maximum 10 second break-even rule; it is better to turn
the engine off and restart it if idling longer than 10 seconds; and
WHEREAS, according to the US Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory,
idling for more than 10 seconds uses more fuel and emits more CO2 than engine restarting; and
WHEREAS, City staff are working to build awareness among the residential and business
communities of the importance of being idle free.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame that the
community takes the Idle Free Pledge to turn off the car’s engine if the driver will be waiting for
more than 10 seconds (except in traffic).
____________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of
April, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8h
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 15, 2019
From: Councilmember Brownrigg
Subject: Approval of a Proclamation Recognizing April as Autism Awareness Month
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review the below memorandum from Councilmember
Brownrigg and approve of the proclamation recognizing April as Autism Awareness Month.
MEMORANDUM FROM COUNCILMEMBER BROWNRIGG
Nearly a quarter century ago, the Autism Society launched a nationwide effort to promote autism
awareness, inclusion, and self-determination for all, and assure that each person with autism
spectrum disorder (ASD) is provided the opportunity to achieve the highest possible quality of life.
April was designated as National Autism Awareness Month.
The Society’s goal this year is to go beyond simply promoting autism awareness to encouraging
friends and collaborators to become partners in movement toward acceptance and appreciation.
We have long promoted services and programming that support individuals living with autism.
But it is time to focus on the rest of us – ensuring acceptance and inclusion in schools and
communities that results in true appreciation of and respect for the unique aspects of all people.
The attached proclamation declares Burlingame’s desire to be part of these efforts. It reflects
current facts on the ground – as provided by San Mateo County – and aspirational goals.
Exhibit:
• Proclamation
NGAMEull
PROCLAMATION
Recognizing April as Autism Awareness Month
|4/fureas, ApnI u Autism Awareruss montfr, wfren organi:ations [evoted to tfu millions of Americans
[iaing u,itfr autism spectrum [borter (fl$D') seefrto 6ing awareness to autisw an[
'lilfi,creas, duttsm b defuu[ as a [evefopmcntaf [isor[er tfrat can impair sociat, communicttbn, an[
Seliautoraf s(,j[Is; it is a spectntm [bor[er tfiat ranges in seueritl froffi person to persory an[
'lilfiereas, more tfran 1.5 mifiian peopte fiave tfre contition in tfre Unite[ Suus; in (affirnia tfit
Department of Aeuetopmentafservires reports tfiit [iagnoses frave risenfrom 3,262 in 1969
to o(,er 80,000 totay, witfi tfie numfier of in[iai"duats sffiring from suistantu@ truafifrng
autism nsing b 2sfoU(2015 caDS [ata] anf
lilfrereoq eacfi lear in tfie Eay ffrea, fruntre[s of peopte witfi suistantiat$ [ba6ting ASD 'age out' of
tfie scftoof Estem, an[ nee[ to [ncate new [q or supporte[ emptolment programs; ant
l,lfrereas, tfie (ity of iBur{ingane wisfies to acfuwwb[ge tfie frard wor{tfrat famitbs, ftbnds, meftcaf
professiontts, an[ caregivers proui[e to flmericans witfi ASA, enafifing tfrem to fr'ue witfr
[tgnitl anlsafetl, antto pursue tfieir[reams; an[
'Wfrcreaq u,e u'isfr to encourage ever)one in our Ctry - in{u[ing cfiiffren, teacfrers, co-worfors an[ aff
adutts - to 5e respectfuf to tfrose witfi ASa anl to interuene ,f ,nfoo, mean-spirite[ or
unatfitca[ fiefia'uior towar[s tfrem is obserue[; anl
l,l)fureas, u,e satute tfie 'wor{y of San *lateo (ounty freattfi fficuk an[ organtzations, sucfi as
(ommunity $atepatfr, wfio wor{to giue young peopte and adutts w'rtfi n5,2 neaningfuf fife
e 1pericnces an[ opportunities for seff-actuafizatiary and
'lilfrereas, u,a rcaffirm our t.ommitmant to'u,orf{togetfrer to ensure tfiat c'1,ery memfier of our socuty is
affor[e,{ equa[ opponunities to rcacfi tfieifu[I potentuA anf,
Now tfinefole I..Donnu (o[son, lMayor of tfre Citl of &urfingame in tfre State of tafifornu, fiere61 recognt:e
4pn[ nte as Autum .Au,draness Sllontfi and urge aff'Burftngame restfents to barn more
a\ttut tfre xgn.r of auttsm to impror.,c edr$ dugnosis, un[erstan[ tfre cfia[[enges faced 6y
mdutduafs u'fili autsm, unffin[ruays to support tfiem, tfietrfdmtftes tnfcaregtuers..
ln cc,ttncss u,fiercof, I fiac'e ftercunto sct m) fiand dnf causcd
tfre seaf of tfre ('t1 of ,Burfingamc to 6a afftfcd tfiu, tfie 15tt'
[a1of Apn[ 2ote.
' Do n nd C o fs o n, 5Vl ay c, r
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9a
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 15, 2019
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager – (650) 558-7256
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Code
Sections 25.32.030 (Burlingame Avenue Commercial District) and 25.70.090
(Off-Street Parking) to Allow Commercial Recreation as a Conditional Use in
the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) District.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider proposed amendments to the Burlingame
Municipal Code regarding allowing commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the Burlingame
Avenue Commercial (BAC) District. In order to do so, the City Council should:
1. Request the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,
AMENDING TITLE 25 – CODE SECTIONS 25.32.030 (BURLINGAME AVENUE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) AND 25.70.090 (OFF-STREET PARKING) TO ALLOW
COMMERCIAL RECREATION AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BURLINGAME
AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) DISTRICT.
2. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance.
3. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
4. Following closure of the public hearing, discuss the proposed ordinance and provide any
direction to staff; if no changes are requested, then direct that the ordinance be placed on
the May 6, 2019 City Council Agenda for adoption.
5. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before
proposed adoption.
If so directed by Council, the ordinance along with a resolution verifying that the actions of the City
Council are in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
will be presented for adoption at the May 6, 2019 regular meeting of the City Council.
Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial District April 15, 2019
and Off-Street Parking Regulations
2
BACKGROUND
At its August and October meetings, the City Council’s Economic Development Subcommittee
discussed the retail environment in the City’s two commercial business districts, Downtown
Burlingame Avenue and Broadway. The meeting in August included discussion with a commercial
broker representing a large vacant storefront on Burlingame Avenue in which she shared her
perspective about which uses may be attracted to Burlingame Avenue in general. For the October
meeting, property owners were invited to attend and share their perspectives. The August 17, 2018
and October 11, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee meeting minutes are attached.
As part of the discussion, commercial recreation was discussed as a potential use to add to the
Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) district. Currently, commercial recreation is allowed as a
Conditional Use in the Bayswater Mixed Use (BMU), Howard Mixed Use (HMU), Donnelly Avenue
Commercial (DAC), Chapin Avenue Commercial (CAC), and Broadway Commercial Districts.
Commercial recreation is not permitted in the BAC district. Since the discussion, staff has been
contacted by several other property owners expressing interest in allowing Commercial Recreation
within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial district.
As part of “Envision Burlingame,” the Zoning Ordinance including the BAC District will be reviewed
and updated. The timeframe for the full update is anticipated to take approximately one year.
However, the consideration and potential addition of commercial recreation as a Conditional Use
is a focused effort that provides a more immediate benefit.
On November 19, 2018, the City Council gave direction to staff to proceed with preparation of
amendments to the land use restrictions allowing commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in
the BAC District.
DISCUSSION
Burlingame Avenue has traditionally been focused on retail, restaurant, and service uses. However,
given the evolving nature of all of those uses (particularly retail), many business and shopping
districts are finding a need to introduce additional new uses in order to remain vibrant and
competitive. Some communities are finding that active commercial recreation uses can be an
appropriate addition to their business and shopping districts. In particular, commercial recreation
can generate regular “foot traffic”, which can benefit neighboring retailers, restaurants, and
services.
As noted above, commercial recreation is allowed as a Conditional Use in the areas surrounding
Burlingame Avenue (specifically the BMU, HMU, DAC, and CAC Districts), but is not permitted in
the BAC District. As a Conditional Use, conditions can be imposed on a business to ensure it is
compatible with the surrounding area. Suggestions in the subcommittee meetings included
consideration of requiring a retail or food service component at the front of a commercial recreation
business, and requiring that storefront windows be maintained clear rather than obscured.
The proposed ordinance sets forth text amendments to the City’s existing BAC District regulations
to allow commercial recreation as a Conditional Use. The proposed ordinance also sets forth text
Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial District April 15, 2019
and Off-Street Parking Regulations
3
amendments to the Off-Street Parking regulations to exempt commercial recreation uses from
providing off-street parking, if located on the first floor and within the parking sector of the
Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (retail, personal service, and food establishment uses located
on the first floor and within the parking sector are currently exempt). Staff has provided a summary
of the proposed changes below:
Proposed Amendment to Code Section 25.32.030 (BAC District Regulations): Staff has
prepared an amendment to the BAC District regulations that allows commercial recreation uses the
opportunity to request approval of a Conditional Use Permit and establishes criteria for approval of
such requests, including:
Requiring active visible uses such as retail, waiting/reception, or lounge areas associated with
the business along the business frontage abutting the sidewalk. The active area must
measure at least fifteen (15) feet in depth; and
Maintaining a clear view into the business by not allowing storefront windows or doors to be
obscured.
Proposed Amendment to Code Section 25.70.090 (Off-Street Parking): Retail, personal, and
food establishment uses located on the first floor that are located within the parking sector are
currently exempt from off-street parking requirements (Code Section 25.70.090 (a)). The basis for
this exemption originated when the City acquired and built public parking lots in the downtown area,
by way of assessments (60% of cost) collected from property owners within the Burlingame Avenue
Off-street Parking District (created in 1962).
The Planning Division previously has determined that for uses located within the parking sector,
the net increase calculation for parking should be based on the most intensive use that would
otherwise be exempt (in this case food establishments at 1 space per 200 SF of floor area) rather
than strictly the existing use. Therefore, commercial recreation uses (parking ratio of 1 space per
200 SF of floor area) would not require any additional parking (or a Parking Variance) based on
this determination, since there would be no intensification of use based on the most intensive use
permitted.
Staff has prepared an amendment to the off-street parking regulations for vehicle parking in the
parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed amendment to Code
Section 25.70.090 (a) adds commercial recreation as an exempt use from providing off-street
parking, if located on the first floor and within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown
Specific Plan. This amendment is being proposed in order to facilitate the City Council’s directive
of allowing commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the BAC District by removing Parking
Variances and parking in-lieu payment requirements, which would deter commercial recreation
type businesses from considering the BAC District as a potential location.
The proposed ordinance is provided as an attachment to this report. Text to be added is in bold
and text to be deleted is in strikeout, both in red font.
Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial District April 15, 2019
and Off-Street Parking Regulations
4
Comparison to Similar Cities:
With respect to allowing commercial recreation uses in downtown core areas, Planning staff
reviewed regulations in cities with similar downtowns, including the City of San Mateo and City of
San Carlos.
San Mateo’s downtown core area is larger than Burlingame’s, and its primary downtown streets
include 3rd Avenue, 4th Avenue, and B Street, which are all under the same zoning district.
Commercial recreation uses in San Mateo’s downtown core area are allowed with approval of a
Special Use Permit (similar to a Conditional Use Permit).
The main street through the downtown core of San Carlos is Laurel Street (approximately three
blocks in length). Commercial recreation uses are not permitted in the downtown core along Laurel
Street, but are allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit in some surrounding zoning
districts, primarily in the area north of the downtown core, as well as south of the downtown core
along Laurel Street and El Camino Real.
Planning Commission Review and Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed amendments at its February 25, 2019 meeting (meeting minutes attached). In their
discussion, they noted the following:
Conditional Use Permit process provides the level of protection in case an application presents
possible negative impacts.
At City Council and subcommittee levels, the issue has been vetted and discussed in regards
to the changing face of retail, and the need to open ourselves up in terms of what types of uses
are going to continue to make our downtown vibrant. We have to think about how downtowns
are going to remain alive with e-commerce. Commercial recreation uses will continue to bring
people downtown; don't see a reason not to allow it.
The 15-foot buffer is a potential retail area, so it will add to the retail feel on Burlingame Avenue.
For these reasons the Planning Commission expressed support of the proposed amendments and
recommended approval to the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibits:
Proposed Ordinance
Zoning Code Sections 25.32.030 and 25.70.090 – Redlines with Proposed Amendments
November 19, 2018 City Council Minutes
August 17, 2018 and October 11, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee Minutes
February 25, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
Public Hearing Notice – published April 5, 2019
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING TITLE 25 –
CODE SECTIONS 25.30.030 (BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) AND 25.70.090
(OFF-STREET PARKING) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL
RECREATION AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL
(BAC) DISTRICT
The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows:
Division 1. Factual Background
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments would allow commercial recreation uses in the
Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) District through approval of a Conditional Use Permit and
established criteria; as reflected in the amendments to Title 25, Chapter 25.30, Code Section
25.32.030; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments would add commercial recreation as a use that
is exempt from providing off-street parking if such use is located on the first floor and within the parking
sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan; as reflected in the amendments to Title 25, Chapter
25.70, Code Section 25.70.090; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the zoning code are considered minor alterations to
land use limitations, which are Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame on November 19, 2018 directed staff to
proceed with preparation of amendments to the land use restrictions allowing commercial recreation as
a Conditional Use in the BAC District; and
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 25, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing and recommended to the City Council that it adopt
amendments to Title 25 (zoning code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend the BAC District and
Off-Street Parking regulations to allow commercial recreation through approval of a Conditional Use
Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Division 2. Burlingame Municipal Code Sections 25.32.030 and 25.70.090 are amended and shall
be enacted as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
2
Chapter 25.32 BAC (BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT REGULATIONS
25.32.030 Conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit.
The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit in the BAC District:
(a) Instructional classes incidental to retail or service use;
(b) Grocery stores and markets;
(c) Schools, above or below the first floor only, which operate outside of peak retail hours only;
(d) Above the first floor only:
(1) Real estate offices,
(2) Health services,
(3) Financial institutions;
(e) Public utility and public service buildings and facilities;
(f) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses;
(g) Food establishments on certain sites, subject to the criteria established in Section 25.32.070;
(h) Any building or structure which is more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, up to a maximum
building height of fifty-five (55) feet.
(i) Commercial recreation use which meets all of the following criteria:
(1) Active visible uses including retail, waiting/reception or lounge areas associated with the
business, measuring at least fifteen (15) feet in depth, shall be provided along the
business frontage abutting the sidewalk; and
(2) Storefront windows or doors shall not be obscured and shall provide a clear view into the
business.
Chapter 25.70 OFF-STREET PARKING
25.70.090 Vehicle parking in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking
requirements in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, as shown on the Parking
Sector Boundaries Map, Figure 3-3 of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan:
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
3
(a) Retail, personal service, food establishment, and commercial recreation uses located on the
first floor within the parking sector shall be exempt from providing off-street parking. Any other
uses on the first floor, and all uses above or below the first floor shall provide off-street parking
as required by this chapter.
(b) Any new development, except reconstruction because of catastrophe or natural disaster, shall
provide on-site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in the parking
sector shall be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail, personal
service or food establishment uses.
(c) Buildings reconstructed after catastrophe or natural disaster shall be required to provide
parking only for the square footage over and above the square footage existing at the time of
the disaster. This parking shall be provided on-site.
Division 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Division 4: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance
with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame,
and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.
_________________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
ordinance was introduced at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15th
day of April, 2019, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ______
day of ___________ 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
__________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
Proposed Amendments
25.32.030 Conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit.
The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit in the BAC District:
(a) Instructional classes incidental to retail or service use;
(b) Grocery stores and markets;
(c) Schools, above or below the first floor only, which operate outside of peak retail hours
only;
(d) Above the first floor only:
(1) Real estate offices,
(2) Health services,
(3) Financial institutions;
(e) Public utility and public service buildings and facilities;
(f) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses;
(g) Food establishments on certain sites, subject to the criteria established in Section
25.32.070;
(h) Any building or structure which is more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, up to a
maximum building height of fifty-five (55) feet.
(i) Commercial recreation use which meets all of the following criteria:
(1) Active visible uses including retail, waiting/reception or lounge areas associated
with the business, measuring at least fifteen (15) feet in depth, shall be provided
along the business frontage abutting the sidewalk; and
(2) Storefront windows or doors shall not be obscured and shall provide a clear view
into the business.
25.70.090 Vehicle parking in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking
requirements in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, as shown on the
Parking Sector Boundaries Map, Figure 3-3 of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan:
(a) Retail, personal service, and food establishment, and commercial recreation uses
located on the first floor within the parking sector shall be exempt from providing off-
street parking. Any other uses on the first floor, and all uses above or below the first floor
shall provide off-street parking as required by this chapter.
(b) Any new development, except reconstruction because of catastrophe or natural disaster,
shall provide on-site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in the
parking sector shall be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for
retail, personal service or food establishment uses.
(c) Buildings reconstructed after catastrophe or natural disaster shall be required to provide
parking only for the square footage over and above the square footage existing at the
time of the disaster. This parking shall be provided on-site.
Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
18
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
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
Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
19
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.
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.
1
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee
MINUTES
Conference Room A
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California
Friday, August 17, 2018 – 2:30 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Council Member (CC) Beach and Vice Mayor (VM) Colson
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager (CM) Lisa Goldman, Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese
Relihan, Finance Director (FD) Carol Augustine, and Community Development
Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner
Also in Attendance: Julie Taylor (Colliers International) and Giselle Marie Hale (Redwood City Planning
Commissioner)
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Fencing Policies for Vacant Lots:
EDS Relihan provided an example of vacant lot regulations from the City of San Mateo. He noted that the
regulations do not specify the type of fencing, but there are requirements that vacant lots be maintained,
and that fencing and landscaping look attractive. A maintenance plan is required to be submitted to the
City.
CDD Gardiner noted that he spoke to San Mateo staff, and confirmed that staff works with the property
owners on the specifications of the fencing as part of the overall maintenance plan that is required.
Sometimes this is in conjunction with an early demolition permit. Although desired types of desired fencing
are not specified, the regulations do not allow chain link and barbed wire fencing.
The Subcommittee suggested that when early demolition permits are issued, part of the approval could be
to require a fence of better quality than a chain link fence, and that the fencing segments be tied together
to be secured and keep intruders out. The intention would be to have the fencing be secure, but also be
aesthetically attractive. The request and coordination could be administered on the staff level, rather than
requiring review by the Planning Commission.
EDS Relihan asked if there was interest in drafting an ordinance and implementing regulations. CM
Goldman cautioned that staff is already currently working on a number of ordinances, so the
Subcommittee suggested that the various matters under discussion could be bundled together to be most
efficient, and that timing could be flexible given the matter is not of an urgent nature. The items could be
combined into a package to discuss with the City Attorney at a future date.
There was discussion on the distinction between vacant properties versus “dormant” or “unoccupied”
properties, and also a distinction between fencing during construction and fencing of vacant or unoccupied
properties where construction is not ongoing. Cyclone/chain link fencing could be appropriate with active
construction projects, and can be combined with screen graphics depicting the project under construction.
Subcommittee members suggested EDS Relihan speak to developers of recent projects to get a sense of
what may be practical for unoccupied/vacant properties compared to projects that are under construction.
2
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018
Alternatively, the matter could be discussed in the October Subcommittee meeting involving landlords. CM
Goldman suggested there may be a timing consideration and distinction between properties unoccupied
and vacant for an extended period, versus projects where construction is imminent. She noted the
paragraph in the San Mateo regulations describing maintenance requirements, and suggested those may
be more important than fencing. Fencing may be less important if a vacant lot is otherwise clear of weeds
and debris, but if the property owner chooses fencing to secure the property, the fencing should be good
quality.
CDD Gardiner noted that construction fencing could be specified as a condition of approval, and would not
need to wait for an ordinance. The Subcommittee agreed with this approach.
Decals for Available Commercial Spaces:
Julie Taylor, Executive Vice President of Colliers International, joined the meeting.
EDS Relihan introduced the item and noted that while the State provides guidance on the posting of real
estate signs, it does not address marketing graphics such as window decals or appliques. He checked
San Mateo and San Francisco regulations, and it does not appear either requires that the windows of
vacant commercial spaces be covered in graphics. Stores with such graphics would most likely be the
result of the brokers or property owners initiating the placement themselves.
Taylor cautioned against obscuring storefronts, since the view out of the space towards the sidewalk can
be important for marketing to prospective tenants. She emphasized the importance of being able to see
the foot traffic, natural light, and co-tenancies from inside the space. A medium-ground would be vinyl
banners across just the bottom of the storefront, but it is important to maintain views out of the space and
allow natural light into the space. She mentioned an approach at the Salesforce Transit Center which
engaged local artists to paint portions of the storefronts.
The Subcommittee mentioned they want to dissuade storefronts from being obscured with butcher paper
since they can become dilapidated, and noted the Charmelle 28 space on Burlingame Avenue is an
example where graphics have been applied nicely. The Subcommittee suggested there may be a range of
acceptable alternatives, including clean and maintained unobscured windows, decal graphics, or artwork.
If the windows are unobstructed, the interior of the space should be clear and presentable. CM Goldman
suggested this matter may be combined with the vacant property maintenance provisions discussed
earlier, and that different options could be provided.
Taylor suggested that obscured windows may be desired during active construction, but if the space is
vacant and not under construction, the maintenance provisions would otherwise apply. Typically when
construction is underway, trade dress-up will be applied.
CDD Gardiner suggested initially these options could be presented as guidelines for property owners, as
an interim measure rather than waiting to be codified in an ordinance. EDS Relihan agreed that it would
present a positive message, and offered to have suggested guidelines to share with landlords in the
October Subcommittee meeting. CM Goldman agreed with this approach, as it would be a collaborative
effort with the property owners. Taylor suggested there be a handout or slides to show examples, and
offered to share some examples.
Burlingame Avenue Use Opportunities:
Giselle Marie Hale of the Redwood City Planning Commission joined the meeting.
3
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018
Taylor mentioned that retail spaces are taking longer to lease. Retailers are typically taking smaller spaces
than they used to lease. Onsite retail has become particularly hard for heavy goods, as customers will
come to stores to browse but then order online so they can ship to home. Too many companies are
contracting, not expanding. However, a presence of some stores is necessary to support online
commerce, as seeing stores keep brands “top of mind” with customers.
Taylor continued that the area of growth is “fitness and food.” There is a great deal of interest among
tenants in being located near fitness and food, which is a change from past practices. Tenants get excited
if they see an assortment of hot restaurants and a tenant like Soul Cycle or Rumble boxing, because they
see energy and repeat visits. These uses generate more traffic on the street than retail alone. She
encouraged broadening options, but cautioned against uses such as banks that offer limited foot traffic.
Taylor also suggested uses such as WeWork for their potential to generate foot traffic, provided there is
retail at the front such as a café. This could be useful for spaces on side streets, such as the former
Anthropologie space. Day spas could also be good for side streets, but do not have the same volume of
traffic as a recreational use. The Subcommittee suggested uses such as WeWork could be classified as a
service rather than an office if it were available to be used by the public.
Taylor noted that it can be expensive for owners to subdivide space, as they need to build demising walls,
install HVAC systems, etc. This would require capital or credit, which can be challenging for some owners.
Conversion to food uses can also be very expensive, and ideally food spaces would be square rather than
narrow and deep. “L-around” configurations can work for dividing a space, but they require a strong tenant
for the “L” portion because if that tenants leaves, it can be difficult to re-lease the space.
The Subcommittee inquired how uses are regulated on Burlingame Avenue and downtown, and CDD
Gardiner mentioned that uses are either “Permitted,” “Conditional” (requiring Planning Commission
approval), or “Prohibited.” Allowing fitness uses on Burlingame Avenue would require amending the
allowed uses, as currently Commercial Recreation is allowed on side streets with a Conditional Use
Permit, but not on Burlingame Avenue itself.
Taylor cautioned that if rules are changed, there should be thought on encouraging the type of uses that
will generate foot traffic and be complementary to retail uses. A private Pilates studio, for example, will not
create a lot of foot traffic. The Conditional Use Permit mechanism may be the best option for ensuring
compatibility. There can be a requirement that there be merchandised space in the first 12 or 15 feet of the
storefront.
EDS Relihan mentioned that there are hybrid approaches that combine electronic displays with online
ordering. Taylor mentioned that such pioneering concepts first go into San Francisco or somewhere like
Santana Row, where there is significant foot traffic and co-tenancy. Some are test concepts.
The Subcommittee inquired how a code amendment to allowed uses would be approached. As part of the
General Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Update, the zoning update should prioritize Burlingame
Avenue and Broadway. CDD Gardiner noted that the timeframe for the zoning update is approximately one
year beyond the General Plan adoption, but a more focused code amendment could be initiated by the
City Council, or could be initiated by an applicant in conjunction with a permit application.
The Subcommittee emphasized that Burlingame Avenue offers a “lifestyle.” Taylor suggested that people
should be able to feel like they can get everything that they need.
The Subcommittee mentioned that rising rents have created vacancies. Taylor said it c an be hard to
readjust people’s expectations when the market is changing. Rents have rolled back, because they are
4
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018
directly tied to tenants’ sales volumes. A healthy ratio is 10% occupancy cost for retail (including pass
through), 8% for restaurants. New tenants will want to factor their projections more conservatively,
whereas a renewal may be able to be more aggressive than 10 percent.
EDS Relihan noted that the Downtown Business Improvement District (DBID) has had challenges finding
space for events. There have been logistical challenges with obtaining permission from Public Works.
Taylor noted that farmers’ markets and food truck events can be effective at attracting people, but there
may not be enough surrounding density to sustain some events. The Subcommittee members remarked
on the conflict between people being opposed to increasing density and development downtown, but also
lamenting the loss of retail. Taylor suggested that density can help fill the gap from online sales, and that
the city-owned parking lots offer opportunities to add density. She suggested that in the development of
parking lots, ground leases would be preferable for the City to retain the asset.
Taylor emphasized that the process for applicants needs to be clear, and that prospective businesses are
sensitive to barriers to entry. The formula retail conditional use permit process in San Francisco has
resulted in vacancies, since retailers fear the risk and unpredictability. Retailers will pursue easier, more
predictable alternatives. EDS Relihan noted that he has created materials to clarify the conditional use
permit process for prospective applicants. He noted he has received inquiries to allow offices in basement
spaces and suggested it should be considered.
Subcommittee members inquired about the loss of sales taxes from retail changing to services. Taylor said
the taxes captured locally by online sales that would have otherwise been collected in other jurisdictions
needs to be factored.
Giselle Marie Hale noted that Redwood City is getting increased density, but doesn’t have a retail base.
Taylor suggested that new buildings need to be designed to accommodate a range of uses, including
ventilation shafts and cooking infrastructure, and ceiling heights of 11 feet clear or higher. Spaces in new
buildings are sometimes too deep or the ceilings are too low, and the developers do not finish the shells. It
is better to have less retail space, but space that is leasable, rather than a large amount of retail space
that is not configured correctly.
The Subcommittee concluded that these issues will be further discussed in a retail summit next spring.
Taylor suggested that the City invite district managers of the corporate stores, since they have a
relationship with the community. She added that even in a healthy retail economy, filling vacancies can
take some time because companies take time to make decisions; it can take a year or more for a retailer
to make all the decisions to enter a market.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no further public comments.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Potential city tools and incentives for businesses attraction
Succession planning for businesses looking to sell
ADJOURNMENT
5
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018
Meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin Gardiner
Community Development Director
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee
MINUTES
Conference Room A
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California
Thursday, October 11, 2018 – 2:30 p.m.
1
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Council Member (CC) Beach and Vice Mayor (VM) Colson
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager (CM) Lisa Goldman, Parks and Recreation Director (PRD)
Margaret Glomstad, Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan,
Finance Director (FD) Carol Augustine, and Community Development Director
(CDD) Kevin Gardiner
Members of the Public Present:
Chris Blom, John Britton, Nick Delis, Stephanie Delis, Clark Funkhouser, Ryan
Guibara, Ron Karp, Riyad Salma, Julie Taylor, Silvia Wong, and Vierra Wong
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Burlingame Avenue Downtown Zoning:
EDS Relihan introduced the item. He said the interest originates from inquiries he and Planning staff
have received for various businesses that would not be allowed under current zoning regulations. Given
the changing nature of retail and commercial uses in downtown districts, it seemed appropriate to
consider the range of uses desired for Burlingame Avenue and Broadway, and determine if
amendments to the zoning regulations would be appropriate to accommodate uses that might not be
allowed currently. Commercial property owners were invited to this meeting to provide input, including
identifying potential tenants that may have inquired about leasing space that may or may not be able to
be accommodated under current zoning.
Vice Mayor Colson provided further introduction, noting that the vacancy of the large J. Crew space on
Burlingame Avenue had been part of the impetus for the discussion. Retail consultant Julie Taylor had
been invited to the August 17, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee meeting to share her
thoughts on the issue. Ms. Colson noted that there will be further conversations in the community on
this topic in the coming year. She added that commercial recreation and co-working businesses have
been suggested as new uses not currently allowed on Burlingame Avenue.
Property owners in attendance had a number of observations and suggestions including:
Suggestion to review the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zoning chapter to look at which
uses are permitted and not permitted, and how those fit with the 21st century. The current zoning
lists a number of outmoded uses such as variety stores, drug stores, and travel agencies.
The nature of banks has changed from decades ago; they should be allowed.
There has been interest in commercial recreation, but it is not allowed in the BAC zone.
There is a provision in the zoning that states that anything that is not listed is therefore prohibited.
The property owners suggest changing this provision to allow more flexibility in the future.
Does not need to have three different types of food service uses.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
October 11, 2018
2
Should consider the goal of Burlingame Avenue downtown retail and Broadway retail. The
current regulations are very restrictive. Set a broad goal, a vision statement.
The “retail” use is really restrictive downtown, and what is allowed varies from block to block.
Different retail criteria for different locations, zoning is disparate.
The CUP process does not work for leasing, creates risk for landlords. Needs a faster process
for getting a decision. For example, staff-level review with a 48-hour turnaround, which could be
appealed if there was disagreement with the decision.
Soul Cycle or other commercial recreation would be a good tenant for Burlingame Avenue. It
brings a lot of energy, particularly with the right instructor. It is a better location than Howard
Avenue.
There is still high demand for retail.
Could consider allowing office on the ground floor provided the first 15 or 20 feet is retail. Could
have office space behind, accessed through a hallway.
Education uses bring foot traffic, and eating and shopping. Parents have to drop off kids and
pick them up, and will shop and eat in the meantime.
There appears to be increased foot traffic on Burlingame Avenue at the lunch hour. There needs
to be more eating establishments. Young people with disposable income are coming to
Burlingame, and they want to eat, but want to get in and out quickly. Needs more flexibility for a
wider spectrum in restaurants.
Subcommittee members showed concern with the process to obtain permits and wanted to ensure they
do not impose undue constraints on prospective businesses.
Julie Taylor, Colliers International, provided comments on retail environments in general. She said that
every category of retail property is trying to figure out how to replace the lost soft-good tenants.
Shopping centers are replacing retail space with food; for example a Macy’s converted into an Eataly
in Los Angeles. She suggested making the zoning as broad as possible to allow multiple types of uses.
She said there should still be retail on the ground floor, but the City could expand the zoning to include
fitness provided it has a retail component at the front. It is reasonable to tell a recreation use that it
cannot obscure its windows, and must instead have an entry vestibule, perhaps with apparel, that is
welcome and open during regular business hours. She also suggested co-working could be considered
if it has a café presence at the front, particularly since co-working brings more businesspeople, which
then brings better lunchtime traffic and cocktail hour traffic. On larger frontages, an option could be to
have a significant portion of the frontage be occupied by retail, but have co-working occupy just 20 feet
in front with a “throat entrance” leading to a larger space behind. However, she also suggested being
cognizant that a single use such as co-working not dominate an entire block. She noted that the laws
of supply and demand need to be recognized; some cities try to regulate the mix of uses through zoning,
but it results in vacancies. The important consideration is how uses (whether they be commercial
recreation or co-working) activate the window line, and how much window line do they have.
Property owners provided further remarks:
It is a challenge to find a tenant for an old-style “bowling alley” storefront that is 35 feet in the
front but extends 100 or 150 feet back.
Ability to pay higher rents varies by type of tenant, as well as position of a tenant in their category.
For example, Salt & Straw can afford a $16,000 per month lease because it is a leader in the
category, and can cover the lease cost with volume.
There is less demand for table service restaurants.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
October 11, 2018
3
Ms. Taylor added that restaurants can have a hard time expanding in the Bay Area because they cannot
hire enough employees. The employees cannot afford the cost of living, and the wages are higher.
Counter service lowers labor costs.
Subcommittee members inquired about providing housing downtown as a contributor to the commercial
environment. There are plans for both market-rate and below-market units in Downtown Burlingame.
However it can be hard to have conversations about housing in the community, given concerns over
amount of building, parking, etc. The hope is that transit-oriented development can help the commercial
environment.
Property owner comments:
Development is helpful to the commercial environment. Restaurants need people during the
day, as well as at night for dinner and happy hours.
There is a parking issue because there is so much demand from people to be Downtown. In that
sense it is a “high class problem,” or otherwise an indicator of success. Parking should not be
required for retail uses.
There needs to be speedier review of applications. It costs a lot of money to carry a project over
time.
Subcommittee members asked those in attendance about their perspectives on the future of brick-and-
mortar retail. It is important to Downtown, and in particular with the post office project having a sizab le
retail component. CDD Gardiner mentioned that the post office project proposes about 18,000 square
feet of retail.
Property owner comments:
18,000 square feet of new retail is a lot of space to support. There is a risk of too much retail;
they believe it will be a detriment to the project.
Ms. Taylor remarked that retail will survive, but only on the best blocks with the best architecture and
streetscapes, and on the closest feeder streets. She cautioned against creating tertiary retail, where
retail is required at the ground floor regardless of demand. The situation is compounded when
floorplates are too large, ceilings are too low, spaces are too deep, and there are no provisions for
venting. Attractive brownstones and stoops would be preferable to vacant storefronts.
Property owner comments:
Office on the ground floor would also be preferable to vacant retail.
Bay Meadows has had a hard time leasing the retail space, despite all the new housing.
There is 300,000 square feet of office space in downtown Burlingame, which is a relatively small
amount to support retail.
Ms. Taylor mentioned that there are different types of offices. Some offices are very private and have a
fortress quality, but others have more of a presence such as graphics firms, architects, medical, or co-
working which allow engagement. If it has to be a private office, it can be situated behind a throat
entrance with retail in the front.
Property owner comments:
Office on the ground floor has been taboo in Burlingame since the “dotcom,” but office on the
ground floor with the kinds of qualities being described would be desirable.
Could consider overnight hotels for animals, or doggie daycare.
There have been a lot of inquiries for commercial childcare.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
October 11, 2018
4
Should not try to cherry-pick where the market is going. Will always be playing catchup. The City
needs to think of the overarching goal, together with flexibility and predictability.
Needs reliable decision-making, focus on the administration of the goal.
The split between service and retail is not productive.
The smaller retail uses benefit from the big retailers bringing in foot traffic. However the small
retailers are struggling; they are surviving by putting in their own labor. They cannot provide the
same level of service as the big retailers, such as ease of exchanges.
Subcommittee members asked for examples of communities that have done a good job of revising
regulations.
Property owner comments:
San Mateo tried to regulate ground floor office during the “dotcom.” This has been revisited; a
property owner believes the requirement is now retail in the first 60 feet, and a percentage of
the windowline frontage.
Office on the ground floor still involves people walking.
Ancillary streets such as California Drive are not going to be able to attract retailers.
Ms. Taylor mentioned that childcare is a good use since it brings a parent twice a day. It creates repeat
traffic that merchants can build upon. She also mentioned that Walnut Creek has created a real
downtown with verticality, and residential is in very high demand. People downsize from their large
homes and move to Downtown Walnut Creek to be near services. She suggests that Burlingame
redevelop some of its parking lots with residential or office, noting that density sustains retail. She also
remarked that parking garages are likely to be converted to something else as demand for parking
decreases.
Property owner comments:
The City needs to reduce parking requirements for residential development.
The hotel parking reduction is an example of allowing something other than unused parking.
Parking will be repurposed over time.
Retailers will always ask for more parking, but that should not drive decisions.
Parking is expensive to build. Does not make sense when it is right next to the train station.
Would not suggest limiting the number of commercial recreation uses. The prior experience with
limiting the number of restaurants to 36 allowed a few property owners to control what the
restaurant rates were.
There needs to be predictability in the planning approval process.
Water and sewer add to costs, particularly if the tenant is paying for them.
CM Goldman asked CDD Gardiner to describe how the zoning ordinance update follows the update of
the General Plan. Gardiner commented that the General Plan sets the policy direction and goals, and
that the zoning provides the regulations that establish what is allowed and what is not. It will be a
complete rewrite of the zoning code, not just tinkering. The new code can have more flexibility as is
being discussed. There may also be options for a permit that is less involved than a Conditional Use
Permit. It is also an opportunity to revise procedures as well as regulations. CDD Gardiner also said
there are nearer-term options to make more limited changes to the existing code, such as adding
commercial recreation as an allowed use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial district. CM Goldman
suggested the nearer-term items could be presented to the full City Council to provide direction as a
work item.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
October 11, 2018
5
Property owner comments:
Changing the definition of retail may be a faster fix than some of the other concepts being
discussed. If things like co-working can be made to fit within current definitions, the City may not
be so far behind the curve with these changing types of businesses.
CM Goldman suggested to the group that if they have thoughts on what types of changes to make to
the definitions, they can be submitted to staff. Staff will then convey the suggestions to the City Council.
Subcommittee members mentioned that next spring, there will be a “retail summit” to discuss these
issues with the larger community. The subcommittee wanted to talk with property owners in this meeting
beforehand to hear their perspectives. The thinking is to follow the “Burlingame Talks Together” format
that was utilized for the housing discussions earlier this year. The public, retailers, and property owners
will all be invited.
Draft Checklist on “How to Maintain Vacant Commercial Spaces”
EDS Relihan discussed examples he has collected showing different ways to present and market vacant
commercial spaces. The emphasis is on presenting the spaces in a manner that appeals to potential
tenants, and is attractive to the surrounding commercial district.
EDS Relihan has compiled a list of suggestions to property owners that are intended to help improve
the appearance of vacant spaces. They are general strategies to improve the positive “curb appeal” of
a property for prospective tenants.
CM Goldman said some of the vacant properties on Burlingame Avenue and Broadway are presented
well, but others are presented very poorly. Properties are difficult to market when presented poorly, and
in turn reflect badly on adjacent properties. The City wants to provide some “helpful hints” for
maintaining a property while they are looking for their next tenant.
Property owner comments:
Delays in permitting hinder investment in better construction materials. The longer the permitting
takes, the fewer resources are available for making improvements. This is particularly difficult
for smaller “mom and pop” businesses wanting to come in.
There needs to be collective garbage facilities in the parking lots. It is difficult for the individual
older buildings to have room for the bins on their own properties. San Carlos has done a great
job with creating shared trash areas that the tenants and landlords pay for.
Appreciates that staff and the City Council are listening to property owners nowadays and
engaging in constructive conversations.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no further public comments.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda topics suggested.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:03 p.m.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
October 11, 2018
6
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin Gardiner
Community Development Director
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 25, 2019
a.Consideration of an Amendment to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning
Code, to allow commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial (BAC) zone within Downtown Burlingame. Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Was there any discussion at the economic development subcommittee level in regards to hours of
operation or would that be considered on a case -by-case basis as part of a conditional use permit
application? (Hurin: That level of detail was not part of the discussion, however conditions of approval may
be added as part of the conditional use permit application.)
>Hours of operation for particular businesses could be of concern, such as fitness businesses
operating in the early morning hours. (Hurin: Commercial recreation includes a variety of uses .
Subcommittee focused on fitness uses, which could create concerns regarding noise; however these
concerns could be addressed with conditions of approval limiting the hours of operation.)
>What types of uses does commercial recreation include? (Hurin: In general, it includes athletic and
fitness centers, gyms, art and dance studios, martial arts studios, bowling alleys, billiard halls,
performance theaters, and activity /play centers for children and adults. Staff would evaluate a proposal
and determine if it qualifies as a commercial recreation use.)
>In the subcommittee meeting minutes, property owners made observations and suggestions including
a minimum depth requirement for active retail at the front of the space. How was the 15-foot dimension
determined? (Hurin: Staff discussed the different businesses that are interested in opening in Burlingame,
felt that 15 feet was an appropriate dimension to provide an active use so that it is visible from the street
and to provide enough room for retail display or lounge /reception area. If the dimension is too short, then it
will become left over space and not be used well. If the active space is too deep, the tenant may be
concerned that it takes away from their primary business activity.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Conditional use permit process provides the level of protection in case an application presents
possible negative impacts. Have no objections to the proposed ordinance.
>At City Council and subcommittee levels, the issue has been vetted and discussed in regards to the
changing face of retail, and the need to open ourselves up in terms of what types of uses are going to
continue to make our downtown vibrant. We have to think about how downtowns are going to remain alive
with e-commerce. Commercial recreation uses will continue to bring people downtown; don't see a reason
not to allow it.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/1/2019
February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>15-foot buffer is potential retail area, so will add to the retail feel on Burlingame Avenue. In support of
proposed change.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to recommend to the
City Council that the ordinance and resolution be approved as proposed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/1/2019
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL will hold a public hearing to consider
amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning Ordinance, to allow
commercial recreation as a conditional use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC)
zone within Downtown Burlingame.
The City Council will review the proposed amendments to Sections 25.32.030 and
25.70.090 of the Municipal Code.
The hearing will be held on Monday, April 15, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council
Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
The staff report for this item and copies of the proposed amendments may be reviewed
prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department, Planning Division,
Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; and on the City's website at
www.burlingame.org. For additional information please call the Planning Division at (650)
558-7250.
To be published by Friday, April 5, 2019
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9b
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 15, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director – (650) 558-7230
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 of the
Burlingame Municipal Code to Establish Management of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls During Building Demolition Projects
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a Public Hearing to introduce the attached
ordinance amending Chapter 15.15 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) to establish a
program to manage Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) during building demolition projects by:
1. Requesting the City Clerk read the title of the attached ordinance.
2. By motion, waiving further reading and introducing the proposed ordinance.
3. Conducting a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
4. Discussing the proposed ordinance and determining whether to bring it back for second reading
and adoption.
5. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its
proposed adoption.
BACKGROUND
PCBs are highly toxic industrial compounds that pose serious health risks to humans, even in small
amounts. Although PCBs were banned from manufacture in the United States in 1979, they are
slow to break down and can persist in the environment at dangerous levels. PCBs have been
observed in elevated levels in certain fish in the San Francisco Bay, which contributes to health
risks to people who frequently eat contaminated fish. To make the fish safer to eat, sources of
PCBs entering the Bay need to be identified and controlled. Urban stormwater runoff, airborne
releases, and soil erosion are all pathways for PCBs to enter the Bay. Accordingly, the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), which regulates water quality
in the San Francisco Bay, is requiring that Bay Area municipalities develop and implement a
protocol for managing materials with PCBs in applicable structures at the time such structures
undergo demolition so that PCBs do not enter the storm drain system. Applicable structures include
commercial, public, institutional, and industrial structures constructed or remodeled from January
1, 1950 to December 31, 1980 with building materials that contain PCB concentrations of 50 parts
per million (ppm) or greater. Single-family residential buildings and wood frame structures are
Introduction of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 to the Burlingame Municipal Code April 15, 2019
for the Management of PCBs During Building Demolition Projects
2
exempt. Local agencies are required to develop the protocols for PCBs by June 30, 2019 and
include each of the following components, at a minimum:
1. Authority to ensure that PCBs do not enter the municipal storm drain systems from PCB-
containing materials in applicable structures at the time such structures undergo demolition;
2. Method for identifying applicable structures prior to their demolition; and
3. Method(s) for ensuring PCBs are not discharged to the storm drain from demolition of applicable
structures.
DISCUSSION
The City of Burlingame is a member of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
Association (BASMAA). As such, staff has been collaborating with BASMAA agencies over the last
year to develop a unified and consistent approach to comply with the Water Board regulations with
regards to the PCBs Building Demolition Program. The BASMAA includes all the cities in Alameda,
Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties. The PCBs Building Demolition Program will
focus on requiring sampling, prior to demolition, for these four building materials: caulks and
sealants, thermal/fiberglass insulation and other insulating materials, adhesive/mastic, and rubber
window seals/gaskets. These materials were identified from scientific research on known PCB-
containing building materials and their concentrations.
Sampling will be a requirement for applicable structures, including commercial, public, institutional,
and industrial structures constructed or remodeled between January 1, 1950 and December 31,
1980. Single-family homes and wood-frame structures will be exempt. If PCBs are found to be
greater than or equal to 50 ppm in any of the building materials, applicants will be required to follow
all applicable federal and state requirements for notification and abatement prior to demolition,
similar to abatement requirements for asbestos. This may include reporting to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and/or the Water Board.
Process for Implementing the Ordinance:
• Building permit applicant submits an application for a project that involves demolition.
• City of Burlingame staff will notify building permit applicant about the requirements of this
ordinance including submittal of the PCBs Screening Assessment Form.
• Applicant will complete the PCBs Screening Assessment Form, and determine whether or not
the building is an applicable structure. If there are no applicable structures, applicant will only
need to complete the initial screening questions and certify their response. (Note: It is
anticipated that the majority of demolition projects have non-applicable structures.)
• If the building is an applicable structure, the applicant must conduct further assessment to
determine whether or not PCBs are present at concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm.
This determination is made through existing data on specific product formulations (if available),
or more likely, by conducting representative sampling of building materials and having the
samples analyzed for PCBs at a certified analytical laboratory.
• If the sampling result identifies one or more building materials with elevated PCBs, the applicant
must comply with all applicable federal and state laws, including notification of regulatory
agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Water Board,
Introduction of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 to the Burlingame Municipal Code April 15, 2019
for the Management of PCBs During Building Demolition Projects
3
and/or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Additional sampling and
abatement of PCBs may be required. Depending on the approach for sampling and removing
building materials containing PCBs, the applicant may need to notify or seek advance approval
from USEPA before building demolition. Even in circumstances where advance notification to
or approval from USEPA is not required before the demolition activity, the disposal of PCB
waste is regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act and is subject to the California Code
of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66262.
The focus of this regulation is to protect water quality by preventing PCBs from entering stormwater
runoff. The regulation does not:
• Ask for municipal oversight or enforcement of human health protection standards;
• Ask for municipal oversight of PCB abatement or remediation of materials or lands
contaminated by PCBs; or
• Establish remediation standards.
In order to educate the public and the construction community about the upcoming requirements
for PCB abatement, staff held a public workshop on April 6, 2019 at the Main Library. Staff
conducted extensive targeted notification to prospective builders, contractors, and applicants
through the City’s eNews and direct mailing regarding the workshop. Additionally, staff plans to
make the outreach and education materials available through the City website.
FISCAL IMPACT
Because single-family residential buildings and wood frame structures are exempt, it is anticipated
that the majority of demolition projects will not involve applicable structures. Staff will review
applications of applicable structures and certify the results. It is estimated that an average of two
hours of staff time will be required to review and approve these applications, which can be absorbed
in the current budget.
Exhibits:
• Proposed Ordinance
• PCBs Demolition Program Applicant Package
1
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND
CHAPTER 15.15 REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF PCBs DURING BUILDING
DEMOLITION PROJECTS UNDER THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows:
Section 1. Factual Background and Findings.
WHEREAS, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are highly toxic industrial compounds and
pose serious health risks to humans; and
WHEREAS, PCBs were domestically manufactured from 1929 until manufacturing was
banned in the United States in 1979 but are slow to break down and can persist in the environment
at dangerous levels; and
WHEREAS, PCBs have been detected in elevated levels in fish and sediment in the San
Francisco Bay (Bay) making fish unsafe to eat; and,
WHEREAS, PCBs in caulk and other building materials that were used in building
construction and remodeling projects between 1950 and 1980 have been found to have
particularly high PCB concentrations; and,
WHEREAS, during demolition these building materials may be released to the
environment and transported to receiving waters by stormwater runoff; and
WHEREAS, stormwater runoff into storm drain systems is considered a significant
pathway for PCBs into the Bay; and,
WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, which
regulates water quality in the Bay, adopted on November 19, 2015 the reissued Municipal
Regional Permit (MRP), a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit that regulates
discharges of stormwater runoff from municipal storm drain systems; and
WHEREAS, the MRP requires permittees, including the City of Burlingame, to develop
and implement a protocol for managing materials with PCBs in applicable structures; and
WHEREAS, applicable structures to be screened for the presence of PCBs in priority
building materials include commercial, public, institutional, and industrial structures constructed
or remodeled from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1980; and
WHEREAS, single-family residential buildings and wood framed structures are exempt
2
from the screening for the presence of PCBs in priority building materials; and
WHEREAS, the MRP requires that this protocol be developed by June 30, 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 2. Chapter 15.15. – ‘Management of PCBs During Building Demolition Projects’ of
the Burlingame Municipal Code shall be added to read as follows:
15.15.010 Purpose.
(a) The provisions of this chapter shall be construed to accomplish the following
purposes:
(1) Require permit applicants (Applicants) for projects that include the
complete demolition of an Applicable Structure to conduct a PCBs in
Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment and submit information
documenting the results of the screening. Such documentation to include
(1) the results of a determination whether the building proposed for
demolition is high priority for PCBs-containing building materials based on
the structure age, use, and construction, and (2) the concentration of
PCBs in each Priority Building Material present and, (3) for each Priority
Building Material present with a PCBs concentration equal to or greater
than 50 ppm, the approximate amount (linear feet or square feet) of that
material in the building.
(2) Inform Applicants with PCBs present in one or more of the Priority Building
Materials (based on the above screening assessment) that they must
comply with all related applicable federal and state laws. This may include
reporting to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water
Board), and/or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC). Additional sampling for and abatement of PCBs may be required.
(3) Meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act, the California
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the Municipal Regional
Stormwater Permit Order No. R2-2015-0049.
(b) The requirements of this ordinance do not replace or supplant the
requirements of California or Federal law, including but not limited to the Toxic
Substances Control Act, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 761,
and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22.
15.15.020 Definitions.
The following terms shall have the meanings when used in this chapter:
(a) “Applicable Structure” means buildings constructed or remodeled from
January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1980. Wood framed buildings and single-
3
family residential buildings are not applicable structures regardless of the age
of the building.
(b) “Applicant” means a person applying for a building permit as required by
Chapter 25.20 Permits and Licenses, or a demolition permit as required by
Chapter 18.07.065.
(c) “Building” means a structure with a roof and walls standing more or less
permanently in one place. Buildings are intended for human habitation or
occupancy.
(d) “Demolition” means the wrecking, razing, or tearing down of any structure.
This definition is intended to be consistent with the demolition activities
undertaken by contractors with a C-21 Building Moving/Demolition
Contractor’s License.
(e) “DTSC” means the State of California Department of Toxic Substances
Control.
(f) “EPA” means The United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(g) “PCBs” means polychlorinated biphenyls.
(h) “PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment” means the two-
step process used to 1) determine whether the building proposed for
demolition is high priority for PCBs- containing building materials based on
the structure age, use, and construction; and if so 2) determine the
concentrations (if any) of PCBs in Priority Building Materials revealed through
existing information or representative sampling and chemical analysis of the
Priority Building Materials in the building. Directions for this process are
provided in the PCBs in the Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment
Applicant Package.
(i) “PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment Applicant
Package” (“Applicant Package”) means a document package that includes
an overview of the screening process, Applicant instructions, a process flow
chart, a screening assessment form, and the Protocol for Evaluating Priority
PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition (BASMAA 2018,
prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association,
August 2018).
(j) “Priority Building Materials” means the following:
(1) Caulking: e.g., around windows and doors, at structure/walkway
interfaces, and in expansion joints;
(2) Thermal/Fiberglass Insulation: e.g., around HVAC systems, heaters,
boilers, heated transfer piping, and inside walls or crawl spaces;
(3) Adhesive/Mastic: e.g., below carpet and floor tiles, under roofing
materials, and under flashing; and
(4) Rubber Window Gaskets: e.g., used in lieu of caulking to seal around
windows in steel-framed buildings.
(k) “Public Works Director” means the Public Works Director or authorized
4
designee.
(l) “Regional Water Board” means the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, San Francisco Bay Region.
(m) “Remodel” means to make significant finish and/or structural changes that
increase utility and appeal through complete replacement and/or expansion.
A removed area reflects fundamental changes that include multiple
alterations. These alterations may include some or all of the following:
replacement of a major component (cabinet(s), bathtub, or bathroom tile),
relocation of plumbing/gas fixtures/appliances, significant structural
alterations (relocating walls, and/or the addition of square footage).
15.15.030 Applicability.
This chapter applies to Applicants for buildings constructed or remodeled from
January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1980.
15.15.040 Exemptions.
Single-family residential and wood frame structures are exempt.
15.15.050 PCBs in priority building materials screening assessment.
Every Applicant shall conduct a PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening
Assessment, a two-step process used to:
(a) determine whether the building proposed for demolition is high priority for
PCBs containing building materials based on the structure age, use, and
construction (i.e., whether the building is an Applicable Structure); and if
so
(b) demonstrate the presence or absence and concentration of PCBs in
Priority Building Materials through existing information or representative
sampling and chemical analysis of the Priority Building Materials in the
building.
Applicants shall follow the directions provided in the PCBs in Priority Building
Materials Screening Assessment Applicant Package (Applicant Package), which
includes an overview of the process, Applicant instructions, a process flow chart,
a screening assessment form, and the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-
Containing Materials before Building Demolition. Per the Applicant Package, for
certain types of buildings built within a specified date range, the Applicant must
conduct further assessment to determine whether or not PCBs are present at
concentrations ≥ 50 ppm. This determination is made via existing data on specific
product formulations (if available), or more likely, via conducting representative
sampling of the priority building materials and analyzing the samples for PCBs at
a certified analytical laboratory. Any representative sampling and analysis must be
conducted in accordance with the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing
Materials before Building Demolition. The Applicant Package provides additional
details.
5
15.15.060 Agency notification, abatement, and disposal for identified
PCBs.
When the PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment identifies one
or more Priority Building Materials with PCBs, the Applicant must comply with all
related applicable federal and state laws, including potential notification of the
appropriate regulatory agencies, including EPA, the Regional Water Board, and/or
the DTSC. Agency contacts are provided in the Applicant Package. Additional
sampling for and abatement of PCBs may be required.
Depending on the approach for sampling and removing building materials
containing PCBs, the Applicant may need to notify or seek advance approval from
EPA before building demolition. Even in circumstances where advance notification
to or approval from EPA is not required before the demolition activity, the disposal
of PCBs waste is regulated under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Additionally, the disposal of PCBs waste is subject to California Code of
Regulations (CCR) Title 22 Section 66262. Additional information is provided in
the Applicant Package.
15.15.070 Compliance with California and federal PCBs laws and
regulations.
Applicants must comply with all federal and California laws and regulations,
including but not limited to health, safety, and environmental laws and regulations,
that relate to management and cleanup of any and all PCBs, including but not
limited to PCBs in Priority Building Materials, other PCBs-contaminated materials,
PCBs-contaminated liquids, and PCBs waste.
15.15.080 Information submission and applicant certification.
(a) The Applicant shall conduct a PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening
Assessment and submit the associated information and results as part of the
building permit application, including the following (see Applicant Package for
more details):
(1) Owner and project information, including location, year building was
built, description of building construction type, and anticipated
demolition date.
(2) Determination of whether the building proposed for demolition is high
priority for PCBs-containing building materials based on the structure
age, use, and construction.
(3) If high priority for PCBs-containing building materials based on the
structure age, use, and construction, the concentration of PCBs in
each Priority Building Material present. If PCBs concentrations are
determined via representative sampling and analysis, include a
contractor’s report documenting the assessment which includes the
6
completed QA/QC checklist from the Protocol for Evaluating Priority
PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition and the
analytical laboratory reports.
(4) For each Priority Building Material present with a PCBs concentration
equal to or greater than 50 ppm, the approximate amount (linear feet
or square feet) of that material in the building (see Applicant Package
for more details).
(5) Applicant’s certification of the accuracy of the information submitted.
(b) The Public Works Director may specify a format for the submission of the
information.
15.15.090 Recordkeeping.
Those Applicants conducting a building demolition project must maintain
documentation of the results of the PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening
Assessment for a minimum of five years after submittal.
15.15.100 Obligation to notify City of Burlingame of changes.
The Applicant shall submit written notifications documenting any changes in the
information submitted in compliance with this chapter.
The Applicant shall submit the revised information to the City of Burlingame when
changes in project conditions affect the information submitted with the permit
application.
15.15.110 Liability.
The Applicant is responsible for safely and legally complying with the requirements
of this chapter. Neither the issuance of a permit under the requirements of Chapter
25.20 Permits and Licenses or Chapter 18.07.065, nor the compliance with the
requirements of this chapter or with any condition imposed by the issuing authority,
shall relieve any person from responsibility for damage to persons or property
resulting there from, or as otherwise imposed by law, nor impose any liability upon
the City of Burlingame for damages to persons or property.
15.15.120 Enforcement.
Failure to submit the information required in this chapter or submittal of false
information will result in denial of the building permit.
15.15.130 Fees.
In addition to the fees required under the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule,
all Applicants subject to this chapter shall deposit funds with the City of
Burlingame, pay a fee sufficient to reimburse City of Burlingame costs for staff time
or consultant staff as applicable required to implement this chapter.
7
Section 3. The Public Works Department is directed to take necessary actions to implement
this ordinance.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in
accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and
circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30)
days after its final passage.
________________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of April,
2019, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of May,
2019, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
Managing PCBs−Containing Building Materials
during Demolition:
Guidance, Tools, Outreach and Training
PCBs in Priority Building Materials :
Model Screening Assessment
Applicant Package
August 2018
i
This document is a deliverable of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
(BASMAA) project Managing PCBs−Containing Building Materials during Demolition: Guidance,
Tools, Outreach and Training. BASMAA developed guidance, tools, and outreach and training
materials to assist with San Francisco Bay Area municipal agencies’ efforts to address the
requirements of Provision C.12.f. of the Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit
(referred to as the MRP). Provision C.12.f of the MRP requires Permittees to manage PCBs–
containing building materials during demolition.
We gratefully acknowledge the BASMAA Steering Committee for this project, which provided
overall project oversight, including during the development of this and other project deliverables:
• Reid Bogert, Stormwater Program Specialist, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution
Prevention Program (BASMAA Project Manager)
• Amanda Booth, Environmental Program Analyst, City of San Pablo
• Kevin Cullen, Program Manager, Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program
• Matt Fabry, Program Manager, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention
Program
• Gary Faria, Supervisor, Inspection Services, Building Inspection Division, Contra Costa
County
• Napp Fukuda, Deputy Director - Watershed Protection Division, City of San José
• Ryan Pursley, Chief Building Official, Building Division, City of Concord
• Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Manager, Environmental Control Programs – Stormwater, City of
Palo Alto
• Jim Scanlin, Program Manager, Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program
• Melody Tovar, Regulatory Programs Division Manager, City of Sunnyvale
We also gratefully acknowledge the project Technical Advisory Group, which provided feedback
from a variety of project stakeholders during development of selected project deliverables:
Stakeholder Group Representative(s)
Regulatory – stormwater/PCBs Luisa Valiela and Carmen Santos, U.S. EPA Region 9
Regulatory – stormwater/TMDL Jan O’Hara, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Regulatory – experience with related
program (asbestos management)
Ron Carey and Richard Lew, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
Industry – demolition contractors Avery Brown, Ferma Corporation
Industry – remediation consultants John Martinelli, Forensic Analytical Consulting
John Trenev, Bayview Environmental Services, Inc.
MRP Permittee – large municipality Patrick Hayes, City of Oakland
MRP Permittee – medium municipality Kim Springer, San Mateo County Office of Sustainability
MRP Permittee – small municipality Amanda Booth, City of San Pablo
ii
Prepared for:
BASMAA
P.O. Box 2385
Menlo Park, CA 94026
Prepared by:
EOA, Inc.
Larry Walker Associates
Geosyntec Consultants
Stephanie Hughes
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: BASMAA Board of Directors
FROM: BASMAA Project Team: EOA, Inc., Larry Walker Associates, Geosyntec Consultants,
Stephanie Hughes, and David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
DATE: August 13, 2018
SUBJECT: Supplemental Demolition Permit Application Materials - Managing PCBs−Containing
Building Materials during Demolition: Guidance, Tools, Outreach and Training
This memorandum transmits a deliverable for Task 5 (Supplemental Demolition Permit Application
Materials) of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) project Managing
PCBs−Containing Building Materials during DemoliƟon: Guidance, Tools, Outreach and Training.
BASMAA developed guidance, tools, and outreach and training materials to assist with San Francisco Bay
Area municipal agencies’ efforts to address the requirements of Provision C.12.f. of the Bay Area
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (SFBRWQCB 2015, referred to as the MRP). The MRP is issued by
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board1 (Regional Water Board). Provision C.12.f
requires Permittees to manage PCBs–containing building materials during demolition.
OBJECTIVES OF THIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
MRP Provision C.12.f.ii (2) requires that by July 1, 2019 Permittees “implement or cause to be
implemented the PCBs management protocol for ensuring PCBs are not discharged to MS4s from
demolition of applicable structures via vehicle track-out, airborne releases, soil erosion, or stormwater
runoff.” This memorandum was developed to assist Permittees to comply with Provision C.12.f.ii (2) by
transmitting a PCBs in Priority Building Materials: Model Screening Assessment Applicant Package.
PCBS IN PRIORITY BUILDING MATERIALS SCREENING ASSESSMENT APPLICANT PACKAGE
The attached PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment Applicant Package (Applicant
Package) contains model supplemental demolition permit application materials that incorporate the
PCBs in building materials control program requirements in the MRP. It includes supplemental
demolition permit application model materials, including an overview of the process, forms, applicant
instructions, and process flow charts. The starting point was the model process flowcharts and forms
developed for the PCBs in Caulk Project in 2011.2
The Applicant Package incorporates the steps outlined in the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs–
Containing Materials before Building Demolition (BASMAA 2018), which was developed via Task 3 of this
BASMAA regional project, and converts those steps into appropriate application questions and
submittals. In addition, the Applicant Package incorporates gathering tracking and assessment
1 The MRP was reissued November 19, 2015, with an effective date of January 1, 2016. There are 77 Phase I municipal
stormwater Permittees in five Bay Area counties, which are among the over 90 local agencies represented by BASMAA.
2 http://www.sfestuary.org/taking-action-for-clean-water-pcbs-in-caulk-project
2
information related to the MRP Provision C.12.f.ii (3) requirement to develop an assessment
methodology and data collection program to quantify reductions in PCBs loads to MS4s through the new
program for controlling PCBs during demolition. Task 7 of this BASMAA regional project developed a
conceptual approach to developing the assessment methodology and data collection program that is
coordinated with the Applicant Package.
The Applicant Package summarizes the typical process that a local agency will need to follow to
implement a new program to manage PCBs-containing materials during building demolition. It is
anticipated that each jurisdiction’s approach to implementing the new program will vary depending
upon that agency’s current procedures and needs. Potential approaches include using the model
materials as a stand-alone program, or incorporating questions in the model materials into existing
demolition permit or building permit applications, Construction and Demolition (C&D) applications and
plan development guidance, and/or information management systems such as GreenHalo™. However,
the Applicant Package was developed as a stand-alone package in order to provide a complete overview
of a model process.
REFERENCES
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (SFBRWQCB) 2015. Municipal
Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order R2–2015–0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. November
19, 2015.
BASMAA 2018. Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs–Containing Materials before Building Demolition.
Prepared for Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). August 2018.
iii
PCBs in Priority Building Materials:
Model Screening Assessment Applicant Package
Contents
DISCLAIMER ....................................................................................................................... iv
Process Overview ...........................................................................................................................1
Applicant Instructions for Completing the PCBs Screening Assessment Form ......................2
Part 1. Owner and project information ................................................................................... 2
Part 2. Is building subject to the screening requirement based on type, use, and age of the
building? ................................................................................................................................. 2
Part 3. Report concentrations of PCBs in priority building materials .................................... 3
Part 4. Certification ................................................................................................................. 4
Notices to Applicants Regarding Federal and State PCBs Regulations ...................................5
Agency Contacts ..................................................................................................................... 6
Attachment A Process Flow Chart .......................................................................................... A-1
Attachment B PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment Form ..............B-1
Attachment C Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials
before Building Demolition ...................................................................................................... C-1
iv
DISCLAIMER
Information contained in BASMAA products is to be considered general guidance and is not to
be construed as specific recommendations for specific cases. BASMAA is not responsible for
the use of any such information for a specific case or for any damages, costs, liabilities or
claims resulting from such use. Users of BASMAA products assume all liability directly or
indirectly arising from use of the products.
The material presented in this document is intended solely for the implementation of a municipal
regulatory program required by the San Francisco Bay Area Regional W ater Quality Control
Board Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit for the protection of water quality under the Clean
Water Act.
BASMAA prepared the tools and guidance herein to assist MRP Permittees’ efforts to address
the requirements of Provision C.12.f. of the MRP. The project team received input from a variety
of stakeholders during development of the tools and guidance, including regulators (San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. EPA, and Bay Area Air Quality
Management District staff), Bay Area municipal agency staff, and industry representatives.
This document does not address other environmental programs or regulations (e.g., PCBs
regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); federal, state, or local regulations
for hazardous material handling and hazardous waste disposal; health and safety practices to
mitigate human exposure to PCBs or other hazardous materials; recycling mandates; and
abatement at sites with PCBs (or other contaminants). The applicant is responsible for knowing
and complying with all relevant laws and regulations.
The mention of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with information in
BASMAA products is not to be construed as an actual or implied approval, endorsement,
recommendation, or warranty of such product or its use in connection with the information
provided by BASMAA.
This disclaimer is applicable to all BASMAA products, whether information from the BASMAA
products is obtained in hard copy form, electronically, or downloaded from the Internet.
1
Process Overview
This document provides a model PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment
process to be conducted by demolition project proponents (applicants). A flow chart illustrating
the above processes is provided in Attachment A.
Applicants proposing to demolish buildings must
conduct the PCBs screening assessment. Through
the PCBs screening assessment applicants will:
1) Determine whether the building proposed for
demolition is likely to have PCBs-containing
building materials (see discussion of
applicable structure); and
2) Determine whether PCBs are present at a
concentration equal to or greater than 50
parts per million (ppm) in building materials.
Use the PCBs Screening Assessment Form
(Attachment B) to summarize and certify the
information required by the municipality to issue the
demolition permit. The form is divided into four parts:
• Part 1 provide applicant information and
project location.
• Part 2 complete the questions to identify
whether the project involves an applicable
structure. If the demolition does not involve
an applicable structure, the form may be
certified and submitted without completing
Part 3.
• Part 3 complete the questions to provide the concentrations of PCBs in any priority
building materials.
• Part 4 certify the information being submitted.
Note that fluorescent light ballasts, polyurethane foam furniture, and Askarel fluid used in
transformers, all of which may contain PCBs, are typically managed during pre-demolition
activities under current regulations and programs that require removal of universal waste and
outdated transformers. For this process it is assumed that those materials will be evaluated and
managed under those existing programs.
This screening process is part of a program for water quality protection and was designed in accordance
with requirements in the MRP. 1 It does not address other environmental programs or regulations (e.g.,
PCBs regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); federal, state, or local regulations for
hazardous material handling and hazardous waste disposal; health and safety practices to mitigate
human exposure to PCBs or other hazardous materials; recycling mandates; or abatement at sites with
PCBs (or other contaminants). The applicant is responsible for complying with all relevant laws and
regulations. See the Notices to Applicants section for additional information.
1 A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, issued to
municipalities in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, and the Cities of Fairfield,
Suisun City, and Vallejo.
Water quality within the San Francisco Bay
Region is regulated by the San Francisco
Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control
Board (Regional Water Board).
In 2015, the Regional Water Board
reissued the Municipal Regional Permit
(MRP)1 that regulates discharges of
stormwater runoff. The MRP includes
provisions for reducing discharges of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in
stormwater runoff and requires
municipalities to develop a program to
manage priority PCBs–containing building
materials during demolition and implement
the program by July 1, 2019.
Existing federal and state regulations
create the framework for managing PCBs
in building materials once those PCBs are
identified through this program and for
disposing of wastes containing PCBs.
2
Applicant Instructions for Completing the PCBs
Screening Assessment Form
Applicants for demolition permits or other permits
that involve the complete demolition of a building
must conduct an assessment to screen for PCBs in
priority building materials. Use the PCBs Screening
Assessment Form, to summarize and certify the
information needed by the municipality to issue a
demolition permit. The form is provided in
Attachment B. If the project includes the demolition
of multiple buildings complete one form for each
building to be demolished.
Part 1. Owner and project information
Complete the owner and consultant information and
the project location information.
For the Type of Construction select one of the
following options:
➢ Wood Frame (Buildings constructed with
lumber or timbers, which make up the studs,
plates, joists, and rafters.)
➢ Masonry Construction (Buildings
constructed with concrete blocks or bricks as
the load bearing walls typically with the floors
and ceilings constructed with wooden joists.)
➢ Steel Frame Construction (Buildings
constructed with steel studs or steel columns
and steel joists or trusses to support floors
and roofs. Includes light gauge steel
construction and high-rise steel
construction.)
➢ Concrete Frame (Buildings constructed with reinforced concrete columns, concrete
beams, and concrete slabs.)
➢ Pre-Engineered (Buildings constructed with pre-engineered parts bolted together.)
Part 2. Is building subject to the screening requirement based on type, use, and
age of the building?
Part 2 documents the determination of whether the proposed demolition will affect an applicable
structure. If the demolition does not affect an applicable structure, then the assessment is
complete, and the form can be certified.
This determination screens out buildings that are a lower priority with regard PCBs-containing
materials and provides an off-ramp from the rest of the screening process.
Key Definitions
Demolition means the wrecking, razing, or
tearing down of any building. The definition
is intended to be consistent with the
demolition activities undertaken by
contractors with a C-21 Building
Moving/Demolition Contractor’s License.
Priority Building Materials are:
1. Caulk;
2. Thermal insulation;
3. Fiberglass insulation;
4. Adhesive mastics; and
5. Rubber window gaskets.
Buildings are structures with a roof and
walls standing more or less permanently in
one place. Buildings are intended for
human habitation or occupancy.
Applicable Structures are defined as
buildings constructed or remodeled
between January 1, 1950 and December
31, 1980. W ood framed buildings and
single-family residential buildings are not
applicable structure regardless of the age
of the building.
3
Question 2.a: Is the building to be demolished wood framed and/or single family
residential?
➢ If YES the PCBs Screening Assessment is complete, skip to the certification in Part 4.
➢ If NO, continue to Question 2.b.
Question 2.b: Was the building to be demolished
constructed or remodeled between January 1, 1950 and
December 31, 1980?
➢ If YES continue to Question 2.c.
➢ If NO, the PCBs Screening Assessment is complete,
skip to the certification in Part 4.
Question 2.c: Is the proposed demolition a complete
demolition of the building (as defined in key definitions
of this document)?
➢ If YES continue to Part 3.
➢ If NO, the PCBs Screening Assessment is complete,
skip to the certification in Part 4.
Part 3. Report concentrations of PCBs in priority building materials
Part 3 documents the results of the assessment of PCBs concentrations in priority building
materials. Part 3 is only required for proposed demolition of an applicable structure, as
determined in Part 2. Check the option used.
➢ Option 1 Conduct representative sampling and analysis of the priority building materials
per the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building
Demolition (August 2018) provided in Attachment C.
➢ Option 2 Use existing sampling results of the priority building materials. Applicants who
have conducted sampling prior to the publication of the protocol may use that data
provided it is consistent with the protocol (e.g., analytical methods, sample collection
frequency, QA/QC). It is anticipated that prior sampling results will rarely be available
and that most Applicants will need to use Option1.
3.a Option 1 – Conduct representative sampling
Check this box if you conducted representative sampling and analysis of the priority building
materials per the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building
Demolition (August 2018) (Attachment C).
➢ Complete the applicable tables for each priority building material.
➢ Attach the contractor’s report2 documenting the evaluation results.
➢ Attach (or include in the contractor’s report) the QA/QC checklist (see Attachment C,
Section 3.2.4).
➢ Attach copies of the analytical data reports.
2 The contractor’s report of the findings of the PCBs building material evaluation. See section 3 of Protocol for
Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition (Attachment C).
Studies have found the highest
concentrations of PCBs in
building materials in buildings
that were built or remodeled
from 1950 to 1980.
For this process, the date that
the building permit was issued
will be used to determine
applicability.
4
3.a Option 2 – Use existing sampling records
In some cases, a property owner may have conducted sampling of the priority building materials
for PCBS. If such data exist, you may use these data to demonstrate the concentration of PCBs
in the priority building materials for the PCBs screening. However, if the sampling must be
consistent with the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building
Demolition.
➢ Complete the applicable tables for each priority building material.
➢ Attach the contractor’s report/statement that the results are consistent with the Protocol
for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition.
➢ Attach copies of the analytical data reports.
Part 3 Tables Summarize concentrations of PCBs in priority building materials
Use these tables to summarize the concentrations of PCBs in the priority building materials.
• Each page of the table is for a different material. Duplicate the pages as needed to
report all concentration data.
• A blank page is provided. Applicants have the option of submitting PCBs concentration
data on other materials in addition to the priority building materials.
Column 1: required for all priority building material PCBs concentrations
➢ Use column 1 to report all PCBs concentrations in the priority building materials. Provide
short description of the sample location, concentration.
Column 2: only required for PCBs concentrations ≥50 ppm
➢ Use column 2 to estimate the amount of material associated with each sample.
Part 4. Certification
➢ Complete the certification. The certification must be signed by the property owner or the
owner’s agent or legal representatives and the consultant who complete the application
form.
5
Notices to Applicants Regarding Federal and State
PCBs Regulations
Applicants that determine PCBs exist in priority building materials must follow applicable federal
and state laws. This may include reporting to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). These agencies may require additional sampling and
abatement of PCBs.
Depending on the approach for sampling and removing building materials containing PCBs, you
may need to notify or seek advance approval from USEPA before building demolition. Even in
circumstances where advance notification to or approval from USEPA is not required before the
demolition activity, the disposal of PCBs waste is regulated under Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA).
Additionally, the disposal of PCBs waste is subject to California Code of Regulations (CCR)
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Section Division 4.5, Chapter 12, Standards
Applicable to Hazardous W aste Generators.
Building owners and employers need to consider worker and public safety during work involving
hazardous materials and wastes including PCBs.
Federal and State Regulations
Building materials containing PCBs at or above 50 ppm that were manufactured with PCBs (e.g., caulk,
joint sealants, paint) fall under the category of PCBs bulk product wastes. See 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 761.3 for a definition of PCBs bulk product wastes.
Building materials such as concrete, brick, metal contaminated with PCBs are PCBs remediation wastes
(e.g., concrete contaminated with PCBs from caulk that contains PCBs). 40 CFR 761.3 defines PCBs
remediation wastes.
Disposal of PCBs wastes are subject to TSCA requirements such as manifesting of the waste for
transportation and disposal. See 40 CFR 761 and 40 CFR 761, Subpart K.
TSCA-regulated does not equate solely to materials containing PCBs at or above 50 ppm. There are
circumstances in which materials containing PCBs below 50 ppm are subject to regulation under TSCA.
See 40 CFR 761.61(a)(5)(i)(B)(2)(ii).
Disposal of PCBs wastes are subject to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Section Division
4.5, Chapter 12, Standards Applicable to Hazardous Waste Generators .
California hazardous waste regulatory levels for PCBs are 5 ppm based on the Soluble Threshold Limit
Concentration test and 50 ppm based on the Total Threshold Limit Concentration test, see CCR, Title 22,
Section 66261.24, Table III.
6
Agency Contacts
Applicants should contact the appropriate agencies and review the relevant guidance and
information about PCBs in building materials. Municipal staff are not able to advise you on the
requirements of the applicable federal and state laws.
Agency Contact Useful Links
US Environmental
Protection Agency
Steve Armann (415) 972-3352
armann.steve@epa.gov
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs (EPA PCB website)
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/questions-and-answers-about-
polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs-building-materials (PCBs in
Building Materials Fact Sheet and Q/A Document)
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/pcb-facility-approval-streamlining-
toolbox-fast-streamlining-cleanup-approval-process
(USEPA PCB Facility Approval Streamlining Toolbox (PCB
FAST))
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs-
building-materials#Test-Methods (See Information for
Contractors Working in Older Buildings that May Contain
PCBs)
San Francisco Bay
Regional Water
Quality Control Board
Jan O’Hara (510) 622-5681
Janet.O’Hara@waterboards.ca.gov
Cheryl Prowell (510) 622-2408
Cheryl.Prowell@waterboards.ca.gov
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_iss
ues/programs/TMDLs/sfbaypcbstmdl.shtml
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_iss
ues/programs/sitecleanupprogram.html
Department of Toxic
Substances Control
Regulatory Assistance Office
1-800-72TOXIC
RAO@dtsc.ca.gov
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Brownfields/upload/PU
B_SMP_Guide-to-Selecting-a-Consultant.pdf
California Division of
Occupational Safety
and Health (known as
Cal/OSHA)
CalOSHA Consultations Services
1-800-963-9424
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/consultation.html
A-1
Attachment A
Process Flow Chart
Yes
Yes
Yes
PCBs in Priority Building Materials
Screening Assessment Process
Do representative
sample results or records
show PCBs
concentrations ≥50 ppm
in one or more priority
materials?
Positive screening
Applicant submits screening form to
municipality. Municipality issues
demolition permit in accordance with
municipal procedures.
Applicant follows applicable federal
and state requirements for
notification and abatement. (See
Note 1 on reverse side.)
PCBs Screening Assessment is complete or did not identify PCBs concentrations ≥50 ppm in any priority
materials. (See Note 1 on reverse side.) Applicant submits screening form to Municipality and Municipality
issues demolition permit in accordance with municipal procedures.
No
Is the building to be
demolished wood framed
or a single family
residential building?
Was the building to be
demolished constructed or
remodeled between January
1, 1950 and December 31,
1980?
No
No
Applicant conducts representative sampling of priority
building materials consistent with the methods outlined in
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing
Materials before Building Demolition (2018).
Applicant may also use available records specific to the
priority building materials found in the building to
determine PCBs concentrations.
Is the proposed
demolition a complete
demolition of the
building ?
No
Yes
Note 1
❖Building materials containing PCBs at or above 50 ppm that were
manufactured with PCBs (e.g., caulk, joint sealants, paint) fall under the
category of PCBs bulk product wastes. See 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 761.3 for a definition of PCBs bulk product wastes.
❖Building materials such as concrete, brick or metal contaminated with PCBs
are PCBs remediation wastes (e.g., concrete contaminated with PCBs from
caulk that contains PCBs). 40 CFR 761.3 defines PCBs remediation wastes.
❖Disposal of PCBs wastes are subject to TSCA requirements such as
manifesting of the waste for transportation and disposal. See 40 CFR 761 and
40 CFR 761, Subpart K.
❖TSCA-regulated does not equate solely to “materials containing PCBs at or
above “50 mg/kg.” There are circumstances in which materials containing
PCBs below 50 mg/kg are subject to regulation under TSCA. See 40 CFR
761.61(a)(5)(i)(B)(2)(ii).
❖Disposal of PCBs wastes are subject to California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Title 22, Section Division 4.5, Chapter 12, Standards Applicable to Hazardous
Waste Generators.
❖California hazardous waste regulatory levels for PCBs are 5 ppm based on the
Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration test and 50 ppm based on the Total
Threshold Limit Concentration test, see CCR, Title 22, Section 66261.24,
Table III.
B-1
Attachment B
PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening
Assessment Form
PCBs Screening Assessment Form
1
For Municipality Use Only
Date Received
File #
This screening process is part of a program for water quality protection and was designed in accordance with
requirements in the Bay Area regional municipal stormwater NPDES permit (referred to as the Municipal Regional
Permit). This process does not address other environmental programs or regulations (e.g., PCBs regulations under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); federal, state, or local regulations for hazardous material handling and hazardous
waste disposal; health and safety practices to mitigate human exposure to PCBs or other hazardous materials; recycling
mandates; or abatement at sites with PCBs or other contaminants). The applicant is responsible for knowing and
complying with all relevant laws and regulations. See Notices to Applicants section in the Applicant Instructions
and at the end of this form.
Complete all applicable parts of the PCBs Screening Assessment Form and submit with your
demolition permit application.
All Applicants must complete Part 1 and Part 2.
Part 1. Owner/Consultant and project information
Owner Information
Name
Address
City State Zip
Contact (Agent)
Phone Email
Consultant Information
Firm Name
Address
City State Zip
Contact Person
Phone Email
Project Location
Address
City State CA Zip
APN (s)
Year Building was Built Type of Construction
Estimated Demolition Date
2
Part 2. Is building subject to the PCBs screening requirement based on type, use, and age of
the building?
2.a Is the building to be demolished wood framed and/or single family residential? Yes No
If the answer to question 2.a is Yes, the PCBs Screening Assessment is complete, skip to Part 4. If the answer is No,
continue to Question 2.b.
2.b Was the building to be demolished constructed or remodeled between January 1,
1950 and December 31, 1980? Yes No
➢ If the answer to Question 2.b is No the PCBs Screening Assessment is complete, skip to Part 4. If the answer is
Yes, continue to Question 2.c.
2.c Is the proposed demolition a complete demolition of the building? Yes No
➢ If the answer to Question 2.c is No the PCBs Screening Assessment is complete, skip to Part 4. If the answer is
Yes, complete Part 3.
All applications affecting applicable structures and demolitions must complete Part 3 and the Part 3 Tables.
Part 3. Report concentrations of PCBs in priority building materials
Option 1. Applicants conducted representative sampling and analysis of the priority building materials per the Protocol
for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition (2018) (Attachment C).
Option 2. Applicants possess existing sample results that are that are consistent with the Protocol for Evaluating Priority
PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition (2018) (Attachment C).
3.a Select option and report PCBs concentrations in the priority building materials and the source of data for each of
the priority building materials. Provide the required supporting information
Option 1 Conduct Representative Sampling
• Summarize results on Part 3 Tables; and
• Provide the following supporting information:
□ Contractor’s report documenting the assessment
results;
□ QA/QC checklist (see Attachment C, section 3.2.4);
and
□ Copies of the analytical data reports.
Option 2 Use Existing Sampling Records
• Summarize results on Part 3 Tables; and
• Provide the following supporting
information:
□ Contractor’s report/statement that the
results are consistent with the Protocol
for Evaluating Priority PCBs-
Containing Materials before Building
Demolition.
□ Copies of the analytical data reports.
All Applicants must complete Part 4.
Part 4. Certification
I certify that the information provided in this form is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete . I
further certify that I understand my responsibility for knowing and complying with all relevant laws and regulations related
to reporting, abating, and handing and disposing of PCBs materials and wastes. I understand there are significant
penalties for submitting false information. I will retain a copy of this form and the supporting documentation for at least 5
years.
Signature: Date:
(Property Owner//Agent/Legal Representative)
Print/Type:
(Property Owner/Agent/Legal Representative Name)
Signature: Date:
(Consultant Completing Application Form)
Print/Type:
(Consultant Completing Application Form)
Notices to Applicants Regarding Federal and State PCBs Regulations
3
Applicants that determine PCBs exist in building materials must follow applicable federal and state laws. This may
include reporting to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). These agencies may
require additional sampling and abatement of PCBs. Depending on the approach for sampling and removing
building materials containing PCBs, you may need to notify or seek advance a pproval from USEPA before building
demolition. Even in circumstances where advance notification to or approval from USEPA is not required before the
demolition activity, the disposal of PCBs waste is regulated under TSCA and the California Code of Regulations.
(See Note 1)
Agency Contact Useful Links
US Environmental
Protection Agency
Steve Armann (415) 972-3352
armann.steve@epa.gov
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs (EPA PCBs website)
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/questions-and-answers-about-polychlorinated-
biphenyls-pcbs-building-materials (PCBs in Building Materials Fact Sheet and
Q/A Document)
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/pcb-facility-approval-streamlining-toolbox-fast-
streamlining-cleanup-approval-process (USEPA PCB Facility Approval
Streamlining Toolbox (PCB FAST))
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs-building-
materials#Test-Methods (See Information for Contractors Working in Older
Buildings that May Contain PCBs)
San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Jan O’Hara (510) 622-5681
Janet.O’Hara@waterboards.ca.gov
Cheryl Prowell (510) 622-2408
Cheryl.Prowell@waterboards.ca.go
v
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TM
DLs/sfbaypcbstmdl.shtml
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/site
cleanupprogram.html
Department of Toxic
Substances Control
Regulatory Assistance Office
1-800-72TOXIC
RAO@dtsc.ca.gov
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Brownfields/upload/PUB_SMP_Guide-to-
Selecting-a-Consultant.pdf
California Division of
Occupational Safety and
Health (Cal/OSHA)
CalOSHA Consultations Services
1-800-963-9424
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/consultation.html
Note 1 - Federal and State Regulations
Building materials containing PCBs at or above 50 ppm that were manufactured with PCBs (e.g., caulk, joint
sealants, paint) fall under the category of PCBs bulk product wastes. See 40 C ode of Federal Regulations (CFR)
761.3 for a definition of PCBs bulk product wastes.
Building materials such as concrete, brick, metal contaminated with PCBs are PCBs remediation wastes (e.g.,
concrete contaminated with PCBs from caulk that contains PCBs). 40 CFR 761.3 defines PCBs remediation wastes.
Disposal of PCBs wastes are subject to TSCA requirements such as manifesting of the waste for transportation and
disposal. See 40 CFR 761 and 40 CFR 761, Subpart K.
TSCA-regulated does not equate solely to materials containing PCBs at or above 50 ppm. There are circumstances
in which materials containing PCBs below 50 ppm are subject to regulation under TSCA. See 40 CFR
761.61(a)(5)(i)(B)(2)(ii).
Disposal of PCBs wastes are subject to California Code of Regulations (CCR) T itle 22, Section Division 4.5, Chapter
12, Standards Applicable to Hazardous Waste Generators.
California hazardous waste regulatory levels for PCBs are 5 ppm based on the Soluble Threshold Limit
Concentration test and 50 ppm based on the Total Threshold Limit Concentration test, see CCR, Title 22, Section
66261.24, Table III.
4
Part 3 Caulk Applications Table
Column 1. Report all PCBs concentrations for each homogenous area of caulking area (see Attachment C,
Section 3.2.2). Use sample designators/descriptions from laboratory report.
Column 2. Complete for each
concentration ≥ 50 ppm
Caulk Application Sample Description Concentration (mg/kg) Estimate Amount of
Material
Units
Example:
Caulk Sample 1 320 48 Linear Feet
1. Linear Feet
2. Linear Feet
3. Linear Feet
4. Linear Feet
5. Linear Feet
6. Linear Feet
7. Linear Feet
8. Linear Feet
9. Linear Feet
10. Linear Feet
Duplicate page if additional space is needed.
5
Part 3 Fiberglass Insulation Applications Table
Column 1. Report all PCBs concentrations for each homogenous area of fiberglass insulation (see Attachment
C, Section 3.2.2). Use sample designators/descriptions from laboratory report.
Column 2. Complete for each
concentration ≥ 50 mg/kg
Fiberglass Insulation Application Sample Description Concentration (mg/kg) Estimate Amount of
Material
Units
Example:
Fiberglass Insulation Sample 1 78 86 Square Feet
1. Square Feet
2. Square Feet
3. Square Feet
4. Square Feet
5. Square Feet
6. Square Feet
7. Square Feet
8. Square Feet
9. Square Feet
10. Square Feet
The area of insulation wrapped around a pipe may be estimated using the following formula:
Area (square feet) = 2Πrh; where r is the pipe radius (feet) and h is the pipe length (feet). Duplicate page if additional space is needed.
6
Part 3 Thermal Insulation Applications Table
Column 1. Report all PCBs concentrations for each homogenous area of thermal insulation (see Attachment C,
Section 3.2.2). Use sample designators/descriptions from laboratory report.
Column 2. Complete for each
concentration ≥ 50 mg/kg
Thermal Insulation Application Sample Description Concentration (mg/kg) Estimate Amount of
Material
Units
Example:
Thermal Insulation Sample 1 20 Square Feet
1. Square Feet
2. Square Feet
3. Square Feet
4. Square Feet
5. Square Feet
6. Square Feet
7. Linear Feet
8. Square Feet
9. Square Feet
10. Square Feet
The area of of insulation wrapped around a pipe may be estimated using the following formula:
Area (square feet) = 2Πrh, where r is the pipe radius (feet) and h is the pipe length (feet). Duplicate page if additional space is needed.
7
Part 3 Adhesive Mastic Applications Table
Column 1. Report PCBs concentrations for each homogenous area of mastic (see Attachment C, Section 3.2.2.
Use sample designators/descriptions from laboratory report.)
Column 2. Complete for each
concentration ≥ 50 mg/kg
Adhesive Mastic Application Sample Description Concentration (mg/kg) Estimate Amount of
Material
Units
Example:
Adhesive Mastic Sample 1 87.4 800 Square Feet
1. Square Feet
2. Square Feet
3. Square Feet
4. Square Feet
5. Square Feet
6. Square Feet
7. Linear Feet
8. Square Feet
9. Square Feet
10. Square Feet
Duplicate page if additional space is needed.
8
Part 3 Rubber Window Gasket Applications Table
Column 1. Report PCBs concentrations for each gasket (see Attachment C, Section 3.2.2). Use sample
designators/descriptions from laboratory report.
Column 2. Complete for each
concentration ≥ 50 mg/kg
Rubber Window Gasket Application Sample Description Concentration (mg/kg) Estimate Amount of
Material
Units
Example:
Window Gasket Sample 1 70 75 Linear Feet
1. Linear Feet
2. Linear Feet
3. Linear Feet
4. Linear Feet
5. Linear Feet
6. Linear Feet
7. Linear Feet
8. Linear Feet
9. Linear Feet
10. Linear Feet
Duplicate page if additional space is needed.
9
Part 3 Other Materials Table
Column 1. Optional: Use this form to report PCBs concentration data from materials other than priority
building materials. Report PCBs concentrations for each material and homogeneous area. Use sample
designators/descriptions from laboratory report.
Column 2. Complete for each
concentration ≥ 50 mg/kg
Material Sample Description Concentration (mg/kg) Estimate Amount of
Material
Units
Example:
Wall paint Sample 1 228 1500 Square Feet
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Duplicate page if additional space is needed.
C-1
Attachment C
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing
Materials before Building Demolition
Managing PCBs−Containing Building Materials
during Demolition:
Guidance, Tools, Outreach and Training
Protocol for Evaluating Priority
PCBs-Containing Materials before
Building Demolition
August 2018
This document is a deliverable of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
(BASMAA) project Managing PCBs−Containing Building Materials during Demolition: Guidance, Tools,
Outreach and Training. BASMAA developed guidance, tools, and outreach and training materials to assist
with San Francisco Bay Area municipal agencies’ efforts to address the requirements of Provision C.12.f.
of the Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (referred to as the MRP). Provision C.12.f of the
MRP requires Permittees to manage PCBs–containing building materials during demolition.
We gratefully acknowledge the BASMAA Steering Committee for this project, which provided overall
project oversight, including during the development of this and other project deliverables:
• Reid Bogert, Stormwater Program Specialist, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention
Program (BASMAA Project Manager)
• Amanda Booth, Environmental Program Analyst, City of San Pablo
• Kevin Cullen, Program Manager, Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program
• Matt Fabry, Program Manager, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program
• Gary Faria, Supervisor, Inspection Services, Building Inspection Division, Contra Costa County
• Napp Fukuda, Deputy Director - Watershed Protection Division, City of San José
• Ryan Pursley, Chief Building Official, Building Division, City of Concord
• Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Manager, Environmental Control Programs – Stormwater, City of Palo Alto
• Jim Scanlin, Program Manager, Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program
• Melody Tovar, Regulatory Programs Division Manager, City of Sunnyvale
We also gratefully acknowledge the project Technical Advisory Group, which provided feedback from a
variety of project stakeholders during development of selected project deliverables:
Stakeholder Group Representative(s)
Regulatory – stormwater/PCBs Luisa Valiela and Carmen Santos, U.S. EPA Region 9
Regulatory – stormwater/TMDL Jan O’Hara, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Regulatory – experience with related
program (asbestos management)
Ron Carey and Richard Lew, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
Industry – demolition contractors Avery Brown, Ferma Corporation
Industry – remediation consultants John Martinelli, Forensic Analytical Consulting
John Trenev, Bayview Environmental Services, Inc.
MRP Permittee – large municipality Patrick Hayes, City of Oakland
MRP Permittee – medium municipality Kim Springer, San Mateo County Office of Sustainability
MRP Permittee – small municipality Amanda Booth, City of San Pablo
Prepared for:
BASMAA
P.O. Box 2385
Menlo Park, CA 94026
Prepared by:
EOA, Inc.
Larry Walker Associates
Geosyntec Consultants
Stephanie Hughes
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ........................................................................................... iv
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
2. CURRENTLY ESTABLISHED BUILDING MATERIAL EVALUATION
PROTOCOLS ....................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Asbestos Containing Material Evaluation Procedures................................. 3
2.1.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools Rule ............................. 3
2.2 Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Evaluation Procedures ......................................... 7
2.2.1 LBP Sampling Procedures: Test Kits .............................................. 7
2.2.2 LBP Sampling Procedures: XRF Devices ....................................... 8
2.2.3 LBP Sampling Procedures: Laboratory Testing of Paint Chips .... 10
3. PCBS BUILDING MATERIAL EVALUATION PROTOCOL ........................ 13
3.1 Priority Building Materials to be Tested.................................................... 13
3.2 PCBs Sampling Procedures ....................................................................... 15
3.2.1 Sampling Equipment...................................................................... 16
3.2.2 Sample Collection Frequency ........................................................ 16
3.2.3 Sample Analysis and Preservation ................................................. 18
3.2.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ......................................... 19
3.3 Reporting and Notifications ....................................................................... 19
4. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 21
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: PCBs Building Material Prioritization Worksheet
Appendix B: Priority Building Materials Photographic Log
iv
DISCLAIMER
Information contained in BASMAA products is to be considered general guidance and is not to be
construed as specific recommendations for specific cases. BASMAA is not responsible for the
use of any such information for a specific case or for any damages, costs, liabilities or claims
resulting from such use. Users of BASMAA products assume all liability directly or indirectly
arising from use of the products.
The material presented in this document is intended solely for the implementation of a municipal
regulatory program required by the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control
Board Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit for the protection of water quality under the Clean
Water Act.
BASMAA prepared the tools and guidance herein to assist MRP Permittees’ efforts to address
the requirements of Provision C.12.f. of the MRP. The project team received input from a variety
of stakeholders during development of the tools and guidance, including regulators (San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. EPA, and Bay Area Air Quality
Management District staff), Bay Area municipal agency staff, and industry representatives.
This document does not address other environmental programs or regulations (e.g., PCBs
regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); federal, state, or local regulations
for hazardous material handling and hazardous waste disposal; health and safety practices to
mitigate human exposure to PCBs or other hazardous materials; recycling mandates; and
abatement at sites with PCBs (or other contaminants). The applicant is responsible for knowing
and complying with all relevant laws and regulations.
The mention of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with information in
BASMAA products is not to be construed as an actual or implied approval, endorsement,
recommendation, or warranty of such product or its use in connection with the information
provided by BASMAA.
This disclaimer is applicable to all BASMAA products, whether information from the BASMAA
products is obtained in hard copy form, electronically, or downloaded from the Internet
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
1
1.INTRODUCTION
The San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES permit, referred to as the
Municipal Regional Permit (MRP)1, includes provisions that implement stormwater-related
aspects of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the
Bay. Provision C.12.f. requires that Permittees develop and implement or cause to be developed
and implemented an effective protocol for managing materials with PCBs concentrations of 50
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (equivalent to parts-per-million, or ppm), the target management
level, or greater in applicable structures at the time such structures undergo demolition 2, so that
PCBs do not enter municipal storm drain systems. Applicable structures include, at a minimum,
non-residential structures constructed or remodeled between the years 1950 and 1980 with
building materials such as caulking and thermal insulation with PCBs concentrations of 50 ppm
or greater. Single-family residential and wood frame structures are exempt. Also, a Permittee is
exempt from this requirement if it provided evidence acceptable to the Executive Officer in its
2016/17 Annual Report that the only structures that existed pre-1980 within its jurisdiction were
single-family residential and/or wood-frame structures.3
Permittees are required to develop a protocol by June 30, 2019 that includes each of the following
components, at a minimum:
1.The necessary authority to ensure that PCBs do not enter municipal storm drains from
PCBs-containing materials in applicable structures at the time such structures undergo
demolition;
2.A method for identifying applicable structures prior to their demolition; and
3.Method(s) for ensuring PCBs are not discharged to the municipal storm drain from
demolition of applicable structures.
By July 1, 2019 and thereafter, Permittees are required to:
•Implement or cause to be implemented the PCBs management protocol for ensuring PCBs
are not discharged to municipal storm drains from demolition of applicable structures via
vehicle track-out, airborne releases, soil erosion, or stormwater runoff.
•Develop an evaluation methodology and data collection program to quantify in a
technically sound manner PCBs loads reduced through implementation of the protocol for
controlling PCBs during demolition of applicable structures.
1 The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, was adopted November 19, 2015.
2 Demolition means the wrecking or taking out of any load-supporting structural member of a facility together with
any related handling operations (40 CFR., Part 61, Subpart M).
3 The City of Clayton provided evidence to support an exemption from the requirement.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
2
On behalf of MRP Permittees, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
(BASMAA) is conducting a regional project to assist MRP Permittees to achieve compliance with
Provision C.12.f. The regional project is developing guidance materials, tools, protocols and
training materials and conducting outreach. The goal is to assist Permittees to develop local
programs to prevent PCBs from being discharged to municipal storm drains due to demolition of
applicable buildings. Local agencies will need to tailor the BASMAA products for local use and
train local staff to implement the new program.
This document is the deliverable for Task 3 of the regional project, which is to develop a protocol
for the assessment of prioritized PCBs-containing building materials prior to demolition. The full
scope of work for the regional project is presented in the Project team’s Proposal for Tools,
Protocol, Outreach & Training Work Plan: PCBs Materials Management during Building
Demolition Project (dated January 31, 2017; revised March 2017). If materials are found or known
to contain PCBs, those materials must be managed appropriately and according to all applicable
local, state, and federal requirements. Management of PCBs-containing materials is beyond the
scope of this document.
To establishing the PCBs protocol, current established protocols were evaluated that are widely
accepted in the building demolition industry for other Federal- and State-regulated constituents of
concern. This document provides applicable examples of sampling and evaluation procedures for
building materials potentially contaminated with asbestos-containing material (ACM)4 and lead-
based paint (LBP)5, which are summarized and referenced to provide the foundation for the PCBs
protocol. These components include guidance on sampling frequencies, laboratory sample
analysis, quality assurance and quality control procedures, and reporting.
4 Asbestos-containing material (ACM) means any material or product which contains more than one percent asbestos.
5 Lead-based paint (LBP) is any paint, varnish, shellac, or other coating that contains lead equal to or greater than 1.0 mg/cm2 as
measured by XRF device or laboratory analysis, or 0.5 percent by weight (5,000 ppm or 5,000 mg/kg) as measured by laboratory
analysis.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
3
2. CURRENTLY ESTABLISHED BUILDING MATERIAL EVALUATION
PROTOCOLS
This section presents evaluation protocols for ACM and LBP, which provide a foundation for the
PCBs protocol summarized in Section 3. This section includes guidance on sampling frequencies,
laboratory sample analysis, quality assurance and quality control procedures derived from
regulatory procedures for ACM and LBP.
2.1 Asbestos Containing Material Evaluation Procedures
Asbestos bulk sampling procedures are specified in several Federal regulations, implemented
primarily by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) specify additional
regulations and procedures, but these are generally less applicable to evaluation procedures.
The foundational regulations pertaining to asbestos sampling in buildings are the Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act (AHERA; Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA] Title II) (15 U.S.C. §
2641-2656) as well as the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act (ASHARA).
EPA promulgated regulations under AHERA to require inspection of schools for asbestos-
containing building materials, and to perform resultant corrective actions. Furthermore, AHERA
tasked the EPA with developing a plan for accreditation of asbestos inspectors. ASHARA
extended funding for asbestos programs at schools and expanded accreditation requirements to
cover asbestos abatement at commercial buildings other than schools.
Pursuant to AHERA, the Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools rule (40 CFR Part 763, Subpart
E) details specific requirements for building material inspections at schools, preparation of
asbestos management plans, and implementation of response actions. EPA regulation on asbestos
related to structure demolition is specified in subpart M of the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M).
The following sections summarize the evaluation procedures specified in the Asbestos-Containing
Materials in Schools rule as well as the Asbestos NESHAP regulations. Both OSHA and EPA
worker protection requirements are also discussed.
2.1.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools Rule
The following sections summarize the inspection, re-inspection, sampling, analysis, and evaluation
procedures specified in the Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools rule (40 CFR Part 763,
Subpart E).
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
4
Evaluation
For each inspection and re-inspection of asbestos-containing building material (ACBM)6, the local
education agency shall have an accredited inspector provide a written evaluation of all friable
known or assumed ACBM. The evaluation shall consider the following:
•Location and amount of material, both in total quantity and as a percentage of the functional
space;
•Condition of the material, specifying:
o Type of damage or significant damage (e.g., flaking, blistering, water damage, or other
signs of physical damage);
o Severity of damage (e.g., major flaking, severely torn protective jackets, as opposed to
occasional flaking, minor tears to jackets);
o Extent or spread of damage over large areas or large percentages of the homogeneous7
area;
•Whether the material is accessible;
•The material’s potential for disturbance;
•Known or suspected causes of damage or significant damage (e.g., air erosion, vandalism,
vibration, water); and
•Preventive measures that could potentially eliminate the reasonable likelihood of
undamaged ACBM from becoming significantly damaged.
The inspector shall classify and give reasons in the written evaluation for classifying the ACBM
and suspected ACBM assumed to be ACM into one of the following categories:
1.Damaged or significantly damaged thermal system insulation ACM;
2.Damaged friable surfacing ACM;
3.Significantly damaged friable surfacing ACM;
4.Damaged or significantly damaged friable miscellaneous ACM;
5.ACBM with potential for damage;
6.ACBM with potential for significant damage; and
7.Any remaining friable ACBM or friable suspected ACBM.
6 Asbestos-containing building material (ACBM) means surfacing ACM, thermal system insulation ACM, or miscellaneous ACM that is
found in or on interior structural members or other parts of a building.
7 Homogenous refers to a substance or area that is uniform in texture, color, and general physical appearance and properties.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
5
Inspection and Re-inspection
Inspect any building that is to be used as a school, prior to such use, by an accredited inspector. In
emergency situations, inspect the building within 30 days of commencement of such use.
For each area of the building, complete the following inspection procedure:
• Visually inspect the area to identify suspected ACBM;
• Touch suspected ACBM to determine friability (Friable material is material that may be
crumbled or pulverized by hand pressure alone. Note that thermal system insulation that
has retained its structural integrity and that has an undamaged protective jacket or wrap
that prevents fiber release shall be treated as non-friable.);
• Categorize all areas into homogenous areas of friable suspected ACBM and non-friable
suspected ACBM;
• Assume that some or all the homogeneous areas are ACBM, and for each homogeneous
area that is not assumed to be ACBM, collect and submit samples for bulk analysis. Do not
sample areas that an accredited inspector assumes to contain ACBM. For uncertain areas,
collect and bulk samples and submit for analysis (see Sampling below);
• Assess friable material in areas where samples are collected, in areas wh ere samples are
not collected but ACBM is assumed to be present, and in areas identified in previous
inspections;
• Record the following information and submit a copy for inclusion in an asbestos
management plan, within 30 days of the inspection:
o An inspection report including the signature, state of accreditation, and
accreditation number of each inspector, as well as the date of the inspection;
o A comprehensive inspection inventory, including the date and locations of samples,
locations of areas assumed to contain friable ACBM, and locations of areas
assumed to contain non-friable ACBM;
o A description of the manner used to determine sampling locations;
o A list of all categorized and identified homogenous areas into surfacing material,
thermal system insulation, or miscellaneous material; and
o Evaluations made of friable material.
Repeat this process as a re-inspection at least once every 3 years after a management plan is in
effect. Reassess the condition of friable known or assumed ACBM previously identified. Identify
any homogenous areas with material that has become friable since the last inspection or re-
inspection and collect and submit samples of the material.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
6
Sampling
Collect samples in a statistically random manner that is representative of each homogeneous area.
•For surfacing material, the number of samples to be collected is as follows:
o Collect at least three samples from each homogenous area less than 1,000 square
feet;
o Collect at least five samples from each homogenous area between 1,000 and 5,000
square feet; and
o Collect at least seven samples from each homogenous area greater than 5,000
square feet.
•For thermal system insulation:
o Collect at least one bulk sample from each homogeneous area that is not assumed
to be ACM;
o Collect at least one bulk sample from each homogeneous area of patched insulation
that is not assumed to be ACM, if the patched section is less than six linear or square
feet;
o Where cement or plaster is used on fittings such as tees, elbows or valves, collect
samples to determine if material is ACM or not;
o If the accredited inspector determines that the thermal system insulation is
fiberglass, foam glass, rubber, or other non-ACBM, samples are not required to be
collected;
•For miscellaneous material, collect bulk samples from each homogeneous area of friable
material that is not assumed to be ACM.
Analysis
Samples should be analyzed by laboratories accredited by the National Bureau of Standards
(NBS). The laboratories must have received interim accreditation for polarized light microscopy
(PLM) analysis under the EPA Interim Asbestos Bulk Sample Analysis Quality Assurance
Program until the NBS PLM laboratory accreditation program for PLM is operational.
Samples should be analyzed for asbestos content by PLM using the “Interim Method for the Bulk
Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation Samples”, found at Appendix E to Subpart E of 40
CFR Part 763. Samples should not be composited.
A homogenous area is considered not to contain ACM only if the results of all samples fro m that
area show asbestos in concentrations of 1 percent or less. An area is considered to contain ACM
if at least one sample from the area shows asbestos in concentrations greater than 1 percent.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
7
Submit the name and address of each laboratory performing the analysis, the date of the analysis,
and the person performing the analysis for inclusion into the management plan within 30 days of
the analysis.
2.2 Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Evaluation Procedures
Lead-Based Paint (LBP) evaluation procedures are codified in various federal and state
regulations.
Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as well as other authorities in the Residential
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 directs the EPA to regulate lead-based paint
hazards. The primary Federal regulations and guidelines related to LBP evaluation procedures
include:
•The Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program (RRP) Rule (40 CFR 745, Subpart E);
•The National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (TSCA Section 405(b)); and
•The Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control
of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing (2012 Edition) (pursuant to Section 1017 of the
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, A.K.A. “Title X”)
Furthermore, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Title 17, California Code of
Regulations, Division 1, Chapter 8 “Accreditation, Certification, and Work Practices for Lead -
Based Paint and Lead Hazards,” specifies some LBP evaluation procedures as part of the
accreditation program.
The HUD Guidelines provide the most comprehensive procedures for LBP evaluations and are
referenced by many other regulations.
There are three primary methods of performing LBP evaluation: test kits, X-ray Fluorescence
(XRF) devices, and laboratory testing of paint chips. Sampling procedures for each method are
detailed in the following sections.
Under CDPH Title 17, certified Lead Inspector/Assessors are required to use XRF devices or
laboratory analysis, and not test kits.
2.2.1 LBP Sampling Procedures: Test Kits
In 2008, the EPA published the RRP rule, which, among other things, established criteria for lead
test kits for use in LBP evaluation. Lead test kits recognized by EPA before September 1, 2010,
must meet only the negative response criterion outlined in 40 CFR 745.88(c)(1):
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
8
For paint containing lead at or above the regulated level, 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight,
a demonstrated probability (with 95% confidence) of a negative response less than or equal
to 5% of the time must be met.
Lead test kits recognized after September 1, 2010, must meet both the negative response and
positive response criteria outlined in 40 CFR 745.88(c)(1) and (2). The positive-response criterion
states:
For paint containing lead below the regulated level, 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight, a
demonstrated probability (with 95% confidence) of a positive response less than or equal
to 10% of the time must be met.
To date, no lead test kit has met both criteria8. However, three lead test kits recognized before
September 1, 2010, exist and are recognized by EPA:
• 3M™ LeadCheck™, manufactured by the 3M Company, for use on wood, ferrous metal,
drywall, and plaster surfaces;
• D-Lead®, manufactured by ESCA Tech, Inc., for use on wood, ferrous metal, drywall, and
plaster surfaces; and
• The Commonwealth of Massachusetts lead test kit, for use only on drywall and plaster
surfaces.
Test kits cannot determine the concentration of lead, only presence or absence at best. For this
reason, test kits are best used by homeowners or other non-professionals as a preliminary
evaluation before using an XRF device or laboratory analysis of paint chips.
There are currently no detailed sampling procedures for test kits that would be applicable to PCBs
evaluation. However, test kit technology may be a useful paradigm for PCBs evaluation if a kit
can be developed to test PCBs at an acceptable concentration that uses a repeatable methodology
to meet the data quality objectives.
2.2.2 LBP Sampling Procedures: XRF Devices
The following sections summarize LBP evaluation procedures for XRF devices, including
description of sampling equipment, collection techniques and frequency, sample analysis, and
quality assurance.
8 US EPA, Lead Test Kits, https://www.epa.gov/lead/lead-test-kits, accessed September 19, 2017.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
9
LBP Analyzers
According to the HUD Guidelines, portable XRF devices are the most common primary analytical
method for inspections in housing because of their versatility in analyzing a wide variety of surface
types, non-destructive measurement, high speed, and low cost per sample. Each XRF device must
have a HUD-issued XRF Performance Characteristic Sheet (PCS), which contains information
about XRF readings taken on specific surface types, calibration check tolerances, and
interpretation of XRF readings.
Collection Techniques and Frequency
HUD Guidelines provide separate sampling techniques for single- and multi-family housing.
However, the general approach to sampling is the following seven-step procedure:
•List all testing combinations of building components and substrates (e.g., wood doors,
metal doors, plaster walls, concrete walls);
•Select testing combinations. A numbering system, floor plan, sketch or other system may
be used to document which testing combinations were tested;
•Perform XRF testing, including calibration;
•Collect and analyze paint-chip samples as needed;
•Classify XRF and paint-chip results;
•Evaluate the work and results to ensure the quality of the inspection; and
•Document the findings in a summary and in a complete technical report.
Because of the large surfaces and quantities of paint involved, and the potential for spatial
variation, HUD Guidelines recommend taking at least four readings per room, with special
attention paid to surfaces that clearly have different painting history. The selection of test locations
should be representative of locations most likely to be coated with old paint or other lead -based
coatings, such as areas with thick paint; areas with worn or scraped off paint should be avoided.
For large buildings with many similar units, HUD Guidelines recommend testing a designated
sample of units to provide 95% confidence that most units are below the lead standard. The sample
size should be carefully chosen using statistical techniques (see HUD Guidelines, Table 7.3).
Sample Analysis
Portable XRF devices expose a surface to X-ray or gamma radiation and measure the emission of
characteristic X-rays from each element in the analyzed surface. The XRF reading is compared
with a range specified in the PCS for the specific XRF device being used and the specific substrate
beneath the painted surface.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
10
When discrepancies exist between the PCS, HUD Guidelines, and the XRF device’s
manufacturer’s instructions, the most stringent guideline should be followed.
Quality Assurance
HUD Guidelines provide several techniques for evaluation of inspection quality.
A knowledgeable observer independent of the inspection firm should be present for as much XRF
testing as possible, especially if they have knowledge of LBP evaluation and/or the paint history
of the facility.
The client should ask the inspector to provide copies of the results as soon as possible, or daily,
allowing for immediate review.
Data from HUD’s private housing lead-based paint hazard control program show that it is possible
to successfully retest painted surfaces without knowing the exact spot which was tested. Therefore,
the client may consider selecting 10 testing combinations for retesting at random from the already
compiled list of all testing combinations, using the XRF device used for the original measurements,
if possible. The average of the 10 repeat XRF results should not differ from the 10 original XRF
results by more than the retest tolerance limit. The procedure for calculating the retest tolerance
limit is specified in the PCS. If the limit is exceeded, the procedure should be repeated using 10
different testing combinations. If the retest tolerance limit is exceeded again, the original
inspection is considered deficient.
Currently XRF technology and methods are not applicable to PCBs building material evaluation,
as the precision is not adequate to provide a concentration that could be relied upon for this
program.
2.2.3 LBP Sampling Procedures: Laboratory Testing of Paint Chips
The following sections summarize LBP evaluation procedures for XRF devices, including the
description of sampling equipment, collection techniques and frequency, sample analysis, and
quality assurance.
Laboratory analysis of paint chip samples is only recommended by HUD for inaccessible areas or
building components with irregular (non-flat) surfaces that cannot be tested using XRF devices,
for confirmation of inconclusive XRF results, or for additional confirmation of conclusive XRF
results.
Unlike XRF analysis, paint chip collection techniques may be more directly applicable to potential
PCBs collection techniques.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
11
Sampling Equipment
Common hand tools can be used to scrape paint chips from a surface; specialized equipment is not
necessary. However, HUD Guidelines recommend that samples should be collected in sealable
rigid containers rather than plastic bags, which generate static electricity and make laboratory
transfer difficult.
Collection Techniques
HUD Guidelines, which are consistent with ASTM E1729, Standard Practice for Field Collection
of Dried Paint Samples for Subsequent Lead Determination, recommend that only one paint chip
needs to be taken for each testing combination, although additional samples are recommended for
quality control.
The paint chip sample should be taken from a representative area that is at least 4 square inches in
size. The dimensions of the surface area must be accurately measured to the nearest 1/16 th of an
inch so that laboratory results can be reported in units of mg/cm2. Paint chip collection should
include collection of all the paint layers from the substrate, but collection of actual substrate should
be minimized. Any amount of substrate included in the sample may cause imprecise results.
Sample Analysis
A laboratory used for LBP analysis must be recognized under EPA’s National Lead Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NLLAP) for the analysis of lead paint; however, States or Tribes may
operate an EPA-authorized lead-based paint inspection certification program with different
requirements.
There are several standard laboratory techniques to quantify lead in paint chip samples, including
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy
(ICP-AES), Anodic Stripping Voltammetry, and Potentiometric Stripping Analysis.
For analytical methods that require sample digestion, samples should be pulverized so there is
adequate surface area to dissolve the sample before laboratory instrument measurement. In some
cases, the amount of paint collected from a 4-square-inch area may exceed the amount of paint
that can be analyzed successfully. It is important that the actual sample mass analyzed not exceed
the maximum mass the laboratory has successfully tested using the specified method. If
subsampling is required to meet analytical method specifications, the laboratory must homogenize
the paint chip sample (unless the entire sample will eventually be analyzed, and the results of the
subsamples combined). Without homogenization, subsampling would likely result in biased,
inaccurate lead results. If the sample is properly homogenized and substrate inclusion is negligible,
the result can be reported as a loading, in milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm2), the preferred
unit, or as percent by weight, or both.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
12
Quality Assurance
Laboratory reference materials processed with the paint chip samples for quality assurance
purposes should have close to the same mass as those used for paint-chip samples (refer to ASTM
methods E1645, E1613, E2051, and E1775).
Reporting
The laboratory report for analysis of paint chip samples should include at a minimum, the
information outlined in the EPA National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program Laboratory
Quality System Requirements, Revision 3.0, section 5.10.2, Test Reports9. In addition to those
minimum requirements, test reports containing the results of sampling must include specified
sampling information, if available.
9 National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program: Laboratory Quality System Requirements
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/lqsr3.pdf, accessed September 20, 2017.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
13
3.PCBS BUILDING MATERIAL EVALUATION PROTOCOL
This section presents the evaluation protocol for identifying building materials in structures
constructed or remodeled between the years 1950 and 198010 that may contain a significant mass
of PCBs. Once identified as containing PCBs at concentrations exceeding 50 ppm, these materials
should be properly managed prior to building demolition, to ensure PCBs are not discharged to the
municipal storm drain system.
This protocol is not intended to address all PCBs-containing materials that may disturbed during
building demolition. Additional sampling is likely to be required to comply with EPA and
Cal/OSHA regulations pertaining to the management, removal and disposal of PCBs-containing
materials.
For this program, it is assumed that organizations and staff qualified to sample, test, remediate,
and dispose of PCBs at the building site will coordinate processes for other hazardous building
materials at the building site, to ensure proper sampling, testing, remediation, and disposal or all
statutorily-required hazardous materials handling.
3.1 Priority Building Materials to be Tested
A prioritized list of PCBs-containing materials is provided in Appendix A. Building materials were
evaluated based upon the following criteria:
•Source Material – Does the building material contain PCBs through the original
product manufacturing process or was the building material contaminated (impregnated)
with PCBs from an adjacent building material that already contained PCBs? For the
evaluation, building materials originally manufactured with PCBs at or above 50 mg/kg
were prioritized.
•Concentration – Building materials were evaluated based on readily available existing
data regarding ranges of PCBs concentrations identified in the materials.
•Prevalence – A prevalence factor was assigned based upon best professional judgement
of the prevalence of occurrence of the PCBs-containing materials in buildings, which
ranged from highly prevalent to low prevalence.
•Ease of Removal – Building materials were evaluated based on their attachment to the
building, which ranged from “very easily removed” to “difficult to remove,” under the
assumption that higher ease of removal results in higher feasibility and lower costs for
removing a material before demolition.
10 Single-family residential and wood frame structures are exempt.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
14
•Flaking/Crumbling – Building materials were evaluated based on their tendency to
flake or crumble during disturbance or demolition, which could lead to a higher
likelihood of entering stormwater as a result of building demolition.
•PCBs Removed by Other Waste Program – This factor addresses materials that are
removed from buildings because of other waste management programs (e.g., Universal
Waste Rule). Fluorescent light ballasts11, polyurethane foam furniture, and Askarel fluid
used in transformers, all of which may contain PCBs, are typically managed during pre-
demolition activities under current regulations and programs that require removal of
universal waste and outdated transformers. For this program it is assumed that those
materials will be evaluated and managed under those existing programs.
Material prioritization was conducted by assigning a score on a scale of 1 to 5 (low to high) for
each criterion. The final score for each material type was calculated as the average of the scores
assigned to the six criteria. The materials given the highest scores through the prioritization
analysis are shown below, along with their typical locations in a building. For this evaluation,
thermal insulation and fiberglass insulation were grouped together as they tend to be co-located
and are typically managed together. The materials listed below (along with typical locations where
they are found) are the materials that should be sampled using the protocols described in Section
3.2.
1.Caulks and Sealants:
a.Around windows or window frames;
b.Around door frames; and
c.Expansion joints between concrete sections (e.g., floor segments).
2.Thermal/Fiberglass Insulation and Other Insulating Materials:
a.Around HVAC systems,
b.Around heaters,
c.Around boilers,
d.Around heated transfer piping, and
e.Inside walls or crawls spaces.
3.Adhesive/Mastic:
a.Below carpet and floor tiles;
11 Fluorescent light ballasts that contain PCBs are not required to be managed under the Universal Waste Rule Program
but are recommended by the EPA to be identified in a pre -demolition survey of a structure and to be managed with
the removal of other required wastes in the abatement process.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
15
b. On, under, or between roofing materials and flashing.
4. Rubber Window Seals/Gaskets:
a. Around windows or window frames.
Examples of the prioritized PCBs-containing building materials and what they may look like in a
building planned for demolition are provided in Appendix B.
3.2 PCBs Sampling Procedures
Many building materials may contain PCBs. The building owner is responsible for identifying and
handling all hazardous materials in accordance with all applicable laws, including all materials
with 50 ppm or more PCBs. For purposes of obtaining a demolition permit, the City requires a
building owner to sample the limited number of materials shown below:
1. Caulks and Sealants:
a. Around windows or window frames;
b. Around door frames; and
c. Expansion joints between concrete sections (e.g., floor segments).
2. Thermal/Fiberglass Insulation and Other Insulating Materials:
a. Around HVAC systems,
b. Around heaters,
c. Around boilers,
d. Around heated transfer piping, and
e. Inside walls or crawls spaces.
3. Adhesive/Mastic:
a. Below carpet and floor tiles;
b. On, under, or between roofing materials and flashing.
4. Rubber Window Seals/Gaskets:
a. Around windows or window frames.
It should be noted that some materials that are being evaluated for PCBs in this protocol may also
be associated with asbestos, lead, or other hazardous substances. Since this protocol follows pre-
established asbestos management program guidelines and procedures, the sampling frequency,
types of building materials, and surveying techniques overlap with the PCBs survey protocol. If a
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
16
material has been determined to contain asbestos, lead or other hazardous substances and will be
abated under an associated waste program, that material need not be sampled for PCBs under this
program.
3.2.1 Sampling Equipment
Building materials that are planned to be collected for laboratory analysis should be placed in
laboratory-supplied glass jars with Teflon-sealed lids. Samples should be collected with either
factory-sealed or decontaminated equipment that will be used to remove a representative building
material sample (i.e., scissors, tweezers, pliers, spoons, or putty knife).
For sampling equipment (i.e., scissors, tweezers, pliers, spoons, putty knife, etc.) that will be
decontaminated, the following three bucket wash procedure should be performed, which is in
general accordance with standard decontamination procedures defined in SESDPROC-205-R3
(EPA, 2015):
• In the first bucket, mix a residue free cleaning detergent (e.g., Alconox®), with distilled
water to generate the recommended detergent concentration specified in the product
directions;
• Fill the second bucket with distilled water;
• Fill the third bucket with distilled water;
• Clean the equipment in the first bucket with the cleaning detergent, then rinse in the second
and then the third bucket. If the second bucket becomes slightly discolored during the rinse,
change the contents of the second bucket with distilled water. Change the third bucket, if
any dirt or material is observed in the water, since the third bucket needs to stay clean as it
is the final rinse; and
• At the end of cleaning, let the equipment air dry in a clean area before use in sample
collection. The rinse water should then be drummed and sampled for disposal. The planned
disposal facility should be contacted to determine the required sample analysis for the rinse
water characterization and profiling and that the disposal procedures comply with state and
federal regulations.
If disposable sampling tools are used, the above decontamination procedures do not apply.
3.2.2 Sample Collection Frequency
For the four prioritized building materials, the following collection techniques and frequency
should be followed.
Caulking
Three different types of caulking should be evaluated:
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
17
1.Window caulking;
2.Door frame caulking; and
3.Floor and expansion joint caulking.
For each type of caulking material identified, the following number of samples should be collected:
•Collect at least one sample from each homogenous area that contains less than 50 linear
feet of caulking;
•Collect at least three samples from each homogenous area that contains between 50 and
250 linear feet of caulking;
•Collect at least five samples from each homogenous area that contains between 250 and
1,000 linear feet of caulking;
•Collect at least seven samples from each homogenous area that contains between 1,000
and 2,500 linear feet of caulking; and
•Collect at least nine samples from each homogenous area that contains greater than 2,500
linear feet of caulking.
If homogenous caulking material is found throughout the building, samples should be spatially
distributed so as to not collect the required number of samples from one area. In addition, the
width or cross-sectional area of the caulking bead is not relevant for determining the linear footage
to be sampled. It is also recommended that the sampler performing the evaluation inspect the
entire building prior to sample collection to insure proper distribution is performed.
Thermal/Fiberglass Insulation
For thermal/fiberglass insulation:
•Collect at least one bulk sample from each homogeneous area.
Adhesive/Mastic
For each type of adhesive/mastic material identified, the following number of samples should be
collected:
•Collect at least three samples from each homogenous area less than 1,000 square feet;
•Collect at least five samples from each homogenous area between 1,000 and 5,000 square
feet; and
•Collect at least seven samples from each homogenous area greater than 5,000 square feet.
If homogenous adhesive/mastic material is found throughout the building, samples should be
spatially distributed so as to not collect the required number of samples from one area. It is
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
18
recommended that the sampler performing the evaluation inspect the entire building prior to
sample collection to insure proper distribution is performed.
Rubber Window Seals/Gaskets
For rubber window seals/gaskets identified, the following number of samples should be collected:
•Collect at least one sample from each homogenous area that contains less than 50 linear
feet of caulking (of any width or cross-sectional are of bead);
•Collect at least three samples from each homogenous area that contains between 50 and
250 linear feet of caulking;
•Collect at least five samples from each homogenous area that contains between 250 and
1,000 linear feet of caulking;
•Collect at least seven samples from each homogenous area that contains between 1,000
and 2,500 linear feet of caulking; and
•Collect at least nine samples from each homogenous area that contains greater than 2,500
linear feet of caulking.
If homogenous rubber window seals/gaskets are found throughout the building, samples should be
spatially distributed so as to not collect the required number of samples from one area. It is also
recommended that the sampler performing the evaluation inspect the entire building prior to
sample collection to insure proper distribution is performed.
3.2.3 Sample Analysis and Preservation
Samples collected to evaluate building materials for PCBs should be analyzed for Aroclors by
EPA Method 8082/8082A12 by an accredited analytical laboratory. The minimum reporting limit
should be 50 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) and the laboratory should be contacted before
sampling to confirm minimum material volume required to meet the reporting limit objectives. A
sample reporting limit of 50 µg/kg is well below the target management level of 50 mg/kg.
Samples should immediately be chilled in an ice cooler and then kept at 4 degrees Celsius (39.2
degrees Fahrenheit) or colder during storage and transportation to the laboratory. Proper chain-of-
custody13 procedures should be followed from the time the samples are collected until they are
delivered to the laboratory for analysis. Holding times for EPA Method 8082/8082A are sample
extraction within 14 days of sample collection and analysis of the extract within 40 days of
12 Provision C.12.f. requires that Permittees develop and implement or cause to be developed and implemented an
effective protocol for managing materials with PCBs concentrations of 50 ppm. EPA Method 8082/8082A is an
acceptable method to quantify PCBs. Analysis of PCBs congeners is not required to meet the permit requirement.
13 Chain-of-custody is the procedure to document, label, store, and transfer samples to personnel and laboratories. For
a detailed list of procedures, refer to the Sample and Evidence Management, Operating Procedure (SESDPROC-005-
R2), January 29, 2013
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
19
extraction. However, PCBs are very stable in a variety of matrices and holding times may be
extended to as long as one year. Once extracted, analysis of the extract should take place within
40 days.
3.2.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
For this program, general quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures will be
utilized. The following checklist should be used by the contractor performing the evaluation:
•QA/QC Checklist:
o Proper specified sampling equipment was used (pre-cleaned or other, stainless
steel);
o Proper decontamination procedures were followed;
o Sampling collection spatial frequency was met;
o A National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) laboratory
was utilized;
o Samples were received by the laboratory within proper temperature range;
o Samples were extracted and analyzed within the method holding time for EPA
Method 8082/8082A; and
o Sample reporting limit met data quality objectives.
3.3 Reporting and Notifications
The following considerations are applicable to reporting and notification:
•Assessment results must be submitted to the applicable Permitting Authority by the project
applicant;
•Applicants that determine PCBs exist in priority building materials must follow applicable
federal and state laws. This may include reporting to USEPA, the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC). These agencies may require additional sampling and abatement of PCBs.
•Depending on the approach for sampling and removing building materials containing
PCBs, applicants may need to notify or seek advance approval from USEPA before
building demolition. Even in circumstances where advance notification to or approval from
USEPA is not required before the demolition activity, the disposal of PCBs waste is
regulated under TSCA.
•The disposal of PCBs waste is subject to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22,
Section Division 4.5, Chapter 12, Standards Applicable to Hazardous Waste Generators.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
20
•Building owners and employers need to consider worker and public safety during work
involving hazardous materials and wastes including PCBs.
For further information, applicants should refer to the PCBs in Priority Building Materials
Screening Assessment Applicant Package, BASMAA, July 2018.
Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition
21
4.REFERENCES
Guidelines for Asbestos Sampling:
o https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/asbestos-laws-and-regulations
Guidelines for Lead-Based Paint Evaluations:
o Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Created the Renovation, Repair, and Painting
(RRP) Rule which requires training and certification for anyone working for
compensation in pre-1978 residential structures, day care centers, and schools where
known or assumed lead-based paint is impacted. The EPA website with complete
information on this regulation is https://www.epa.gov/lead/renovation-repair-and-
painting-program.
o California Department of Public Health (CDPH) - Created "Title 17" which includes lead
testing and abatement provisions in residential and public structures in California.
Several important definitions are contained in Title 17 including Abatement, Clearance
Inspection, Containment, Lead-Based Paint.
o Lead Contaminated Dust and Soil, Lead Hazard, and Lead Hazard Evaluation. Title 17
establishes that lead testing be performed using XRF equipment or by paint chip sample
analysis in California. Lead test kits are not accepted. It also establishes testing in
California be performed by a State certified lead inspector/assessor if the testing is related
to a project involving compensation.
o Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - Created the HUD Guidelines
which contain protocols for lead testing and abatement.
EPA Method 8082A – Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography
o https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/8082a.pdf
SESDPROC-205-R3, Field Equipment Cleaning and Decontamination, replaces SESDPROC-
205-R2. December 18, 2015
o https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
01/documents/field_equipment_cleaning_and_decontamination205_af.r3.pdf
SESDPROC-005-R2, Sample and Evidence Management, Operating Procedure, January 29, 2013
o https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/Sample-and-Evidence-
Management.pdf
APPENDIX A
PCBs Building Material Prioritization
Worksheet
Appendix A - PCBs Building Materials PrioritizationCaulking (sealant, plaster)Caulk/sealant/tape/glue0.001 752,0005553554.67Thermal insulationInsulation73,0005554454.67Fiberglass insulationInsulation39,1585454454.50Adhesives/masticCaulk/sealant/tape/glue3,1005353554.33Rubber gasketsGaskets/Rubber84,0005533454.17Wool felt gaskets Gaskets/Rubber688,4985533454.17Cloth/paper insulating material Insulation12,0005434454.17Foam rubber insulation Insulation13,1005434454.17Ceiling tiles coated w/flame resistant sealant Internal nonstructural surface53 110,0005553254.17Backer rodCaulk/sealant/tape/glue99,0001553554.00Roofing/siding materialExternal nonstructural surface030,0005453254.00Paint (complete removal) Paint/pigment/coatings0.00197,0005551354.00Insulating materials in electric cable Electrical0 280,0005534153.83Adhesive tapeCaulk/sealant/tape/glue1,4005313553.67Surface coatingPaint/pigment/coatings2555351353.67Coal-tar enamel coatings Paint/pigment/coatings1,2645351353.67GroutCaulk/sealant/tape/glue9,1005412553.67Cove baseInternal nonstructural surface1705334253.67Plastics/plasticizersElectrical13,0005433153.50GE siliconesCaulk/sealant/tape/glue<1.901.85132553.50GlazingCaulk/sealant/tape/glueUp to 100% liquid PCBs515233353.50Flooring and floor wax/sealantInternal nonstructural surface Maximum likely >50 515233253.33Light ballastLight ballastsMinimum likely <50 49 1,200,0005535113.33Anti-fouling compounds Paint/pigment/coatings59,0005411353.17Polyurethane foam (furniture) Caulk/sealant/tape/glue505215513.17Askarel fluid/cutting oils/hydraulic fluidOils/dielectric fluids450,0005515213.17Fire retardant coatings Paint/pigment/coatings59,0005411353.17Waterproofing compounds Paint/pigment/coatings59,0005411353.17Electrical wiringElectrical145134153.17ConcreteConcrete/stone2.50.00117,0001431453.00Foam rubberGaskets/Rubber1,0921313452.83Soil/sediment/sandSoil/dust0.150.0015811312552.83Brick/mortar/cinder block Concrete/stone1,1001331452.83WoodWood3801333252.83Door frameInternal nonstructural surface1021234252.83Metals surfaces in contact with caulk/sealant Metal surfaces448514481312452.67MaterialMaterial ClassMedian/Average/Single Reported Concentration(ppm)Minimum(ppm)Maximum(ppm)PCBs Removed by Other Waste Program?(Rating values: not removed by other = 5, or removed = 1)Prioritization ScorePCBs Source Material?(Rating values: source = 5, or not source = 1)Concentration (Rating values: 1 to 5, higher value means higher concentration)Prevalence of PCBs Containing Material in Buildings(Rating values: high = 5, medium = 3, or low = 1)Ease of Removal (Rating values: 1 to 5, higher value means easier to remove)Flaking/ Crumbling(Rating values: 1 to 5, higher value means more likely to flake/crumble)August 2018
Appendix A - PCBs Building Materials PrioritizationMaterialMaterial ClassMedian/Average/Single Reported Concentration(ppm)Minimum(ppm)Maximum(ppm)PCBs Removed by Other Waste Program?(Rating values: not removed by other = 5, or removed = 1)Prioritization ScorePCBs Source Material?(Rating values: source = 5, or not source = 1)Concentration (Rating values: 1 to 5, higher value means higher concentration)Prevalence of PCBs Containing Material in Buildings(Rating values: high = 5, medium = 3, or low = 1)Ease of Removal (Rating values: 1 to 5, higher value means easier to remove)Flaking/ Crumbling(Rating values: 1 to 5, higher value means more likely to flake/crumble)AsphaltConcrete/stone1401212452.50CarpetInternal nonstructural surface0.469.71115252.50Stone (granite, limestone, marble, etc.)Concrete/stone1301211452.33Air handling systemAir system0.469.71113152.00August 2018
APPENDIX B
Priority Building Materials
Photographic Log
B-1 August 2018
Appendix B
Priority Building Materials to be Tested for PCBs
Photograph 1
Window Caulking:
Damaged caulking
around a window.
Photograph 2
Window Caulking:
Worn and
potentially friable
caulking around a
window.
B-2 August 2018
Appendix B
Priority Building Materials to be Tested for PCBs
Photograph 3
Door Frame Caulking:
Damaged, friable
caulking on an interior
door frame.
Photograph 4
Floor and Expansion
Joint Caulking:
Joint compound between
flooring segments.
B-3 August 2018
Appendix B
Priority Building Materials to be Tested for PCBs
Photograph 5
Thermal Insulation:
Foam insulation
material in an attic.
Photograph 6
Thermal Insulation:
Damaged floor foam
insulation.
B-4 August 2018
Appendix B
Priority Building Materials to be Tested for PCBs
Photograph 7
Thermal Insulation:
Damaged pipe foam
insulation.
Photograph 8
Thermal Insulation:
Exposed/damaged
pipe insulation.
B-5 August 2018
Appendix B
Priority Building Materials to be Tested for PCBs
Photograph 9
Thermal Insulation:
Damaged pipe
insulation.
Photograph 10
Thermal Insulation:
Exposed pipe
insulation.
B-6 August 2018
Appendix B
Priority Building Materials to be Tested for PCBs
Photograph 11
Adhesive / Mastic:
Friable adhesive on a
cement surface.
Photograph 12
Adhesive / Mastic:
Adhesive beneath a
carpet.
B-7 August 2018
Appendix B
Priority Building Materials to be Tested for PCBs
Photograph 13
Adhesive / Mastic:
Adhesive remnants on
flooring.
Photograph 14
Adhesive / Mastic:
Exposed adhesive on
roofing.
B-8 August 2018
Appendix B
Priority Building Materials to be Tested for PCBs
Photograph 15
Rubber Window
Seal/Gasket:
Grey rubber window
seal/gasket in a wood
type frame.
Photograph 16
Rubber Window
Seal/Gasket:
Off white rubber
window seal/gasket in
an aluminum type
frame.
1
Memorandum
AGENDA NO: 11a
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2019
To: City Council
Date: April 15, 2019
From: Mayor Donna Colson
Subject: Committee Report
March 28, 2019
Peninsula Clean Energy
CEO Update
1. Working on Reach Codes and will provide $10,000 grant to each interested city
2. City is not bound to adopt, but this provides incentive to review
3. CAL CCA - Lobby Day next Wednesday, April 3
4. PUC - April 15 and April 26 in SF meeting and updates
5. Marketing Strategy - eight proposals received and interviewed the top three people and
selected Cyclops to be the firm
Citizens Advisory Committee Report
1. Members of CAC reaching out to local cities to promote the Reach Codes
2. Second group to work on load shaping
3. Outreach training - Earth-day events and spread word PCE
Amendments to the JPA
1. New appointments to amend the JPA to allow us a way to continue working with key
former board members. Up to two people who were directors Emeritus
2. Allow CFO to be Treasurer of the JPA
Pilot Programs = New vehicles sold EV - Total cars sold 78,747 in 2018 and of that 19,000 EV
1. Working to set up around time -
2. Apartments are harder to install EV chargers - Cost Level 1 or 2 $6,000 to $20,000 per port
and Fast Charge is $50,000 - $80,000 per port and very expensive to do a service upgrade
to a faster charge - $30,000
3. Older buildings - very expensive to service upgrade (can be several hundred thousands of
dollars) and so one of the issue is to deploy 110 outlets and then figure out how to build.
The pilot project is to work with Energy Solutions up to $400,000 for 3 years and ID better
tech for multi-family buildings, and pilot and evaluate technology
4. Project Objective - ID and pilot admin more affordable Level 1 charging tech
Colson Committee Report April 15, 2019
2
5. Process - Assess, fund out solutions and tech, find pilot site, assessment and final report
with recommendations.
Briefing on SMC Energy and Water Strategy 2025 - Working with PCE and C/CAG on this
project and will have several joint meetings.
PCE - Rate changes - Adjustments made by PGE on March 1 created a larger discount for our
clients. Rather than wait three months, we are going to update May 1 to align with summer billing
season and other non-gen PGE rates changes.
1. Default Time of Use (TOU) Rates Overview - will start October 2020 and then continue
for 13 months and we are toward the end of the cycle.
2. Pilot program MCE and SCE and PGE collaboration - early indication is that 79% opted to
participate and early indicator is that it was working to help craft model
3. Bill Protection from CPUC for the non-CCA providers. PGE must provide that customer
can try this rate program at no risk and if they charge more - then PGE credits them the
difference
4. If you did better than that was just fine.
5. PGE did do an analysis of what they project Bill Protection offer would cost.
6. We will send Sept 2020 roll out and the info would go out earlier that year.
April 2, 2019
Capital Hearing for SB 50
• Attending initial capital hearings
April 4, 2019
Non-Profit Housing (NPH) Meeting (Pedro Galvao)
https://Non-Profit Housing.org
• Participated on phone call to learn more about the housing bills being considered in
Sacramento
• Website new Action Center -
• Over 200 housing bills and they are taking positions on 20-30 of the highest priority bills
• CASA - Board instructed MTC/ABAG to publish CASA white paper and there has been
questions about evolution and how it moves forward. MTC is saying that they are going to
convene a local government working group to focus on housing legislation and will work
on all 200 bills
• Working to designate the bills around core values - Protections, Preservation, and
Production
• Question of is this an offer to placate the smaller cities by creating a legislative - is this just
window dressing...Answer, no we think this is the best path forward. (Donna’s comment -
the question was really getting to the point that do we really want the small cities
involved).
• Three tenant protection bills are making the way through the legislature and are all focused
on state-wide impacts
• Working to gather more data on impact fees (and trying to preserve existing units and
make sure those do not get demo -
• Data collection - want to collect more information before we pass laws - 1483 Grayson.
Colson Committee Report April 15, 2019
3
• SB 330 (Skinner) Lot of different = reduce fees, parking restrictions, and get streamlined
permits and production
• ADU - popular production bills for ADU - many are going to be amended and maybe
merged from three to a single unit. Suggested interest in SFD and owner occupancy and
want to create separate standards for multi-family ADU. (Donna comment - this is
conversation on the call was very SF centric)
• Surplus Land bill up next week - lot of pushback and opposition at the local level.
• SB 50 and SB 4 - both passed and a lot of negotiation taking place - this is a statewide
proposal and a lot of negotiation over the next few weeks. Maybe create some variance for
small cities and local governments.
• AB 1485 Wicks - To streamline low-income housing bills (limited to Bay Area) due to
expensive Bay Area land cost
• AB 1484 - Reduction of linkage fees
• AB 1487 (Chiu) - Regional Housing Enterprise - A lot of negotiating going on with this
and revenue options broad and details in fine print are not defined. This is a Bay Area only
bill.
• Called out Hillsborough ADU specifically that these should not be counted as RHNA as
“domestic help” unless the units are deed restricted
NPH Sponsored Bills
• AB 1486 - Surplus Land Act - Requires all local agencies to ID land they own and report
to HDC to create a statewide database and makes the state disposition process of public
land same as surplus land - there are exemptions - over 15, if using land for any form of
governmental operations that has to do with your function - then that is exempt. If tied to
your mission then exempt. Triggers if has nothing to do with your function.
• SB 50 - Still negotiating around equity provisions, conversations around what the
definition of a “jobs rich area” - there are a few maps that have been provided, but nothing
permanent.
Thursday, April 4, 2019
Sustainable San Mateo County - CEC Awards
• Burlingame CEC Award
• Great fundraising efforts
Friday, April 5, 2019
ABAG/MTC Housing Legislative Working Group Meeting Calendar
Chair - Julie Pierce - Clayton
Comment that CASA is in the past and want all the comments we can gather on the various pieces
of legislation. ABAG and MTC have been known to assume contrary positions to the local
agencies. Want the feedback so that the bills can achieve what we all need for our community.
Meetings four times this month because by mid-May bills need to ratified out of committee.
Expect feedback from colleague within the county and hope for regular interaction.
Several counties are sending county-wide letters. General introductions - with exception of SF,
had comments focused that we all understand the jobs/housing imbalance and are working hard to
Colson Committee Report April 15, 2019
4
create affordable housing. All stressed the need for local control as the best means to solve the
problem. Most cities were already working vigorously to solve the problem and ALL felt the local
control loss was a major problem.
Comments from the 24 regional meetings in the past three months -
1. We zone, not build and high costs of labor and land are prohibitive
2. Transit is a problem
3. NO FUNDING FOR schools - this is a problem
4. Do not take funding from cities
5. Lots of support for the large employer head-tax
6. East West Imbalance - SF and Silicon Valley, but east bay had build more housing and
how do we move these jobs to the east bay
7. You cannot use all the surplus land for housing - need some to attract jobs
8. Grade out the height to recognize the existing neighborhoods
9. Lots of resistance to the regional housing agency - DO NOT need another agency and level
of bureaucracy
10. MTC and ABAG need to hear the stories - they were not aware of what is going on with
these cities
South Bay and Peninsula
1. Concerns of up-zoning around Cal-Train and mandatory 5 stories will not work on every
segment of that radius, reflect the neighborhood and make exceptions
2. Concerns about funding (AB 1487) Mandatory Revenue sharing IS unconstitutional and
many concerns about the new institution, especially run by the large cities and the
developers - this is off the table
3. Compact does NOT speak to transportation and mobility which is the entire mission of
MTC - and so thoughts that they missed the entire point
4. Issue of schools - in particular with links to Tax Increment Financing and how the impacts
schools by taking funding away
North Bay
1. Agriculture land and concerns on the impact of the working class neighborhoods
2. Transportation concerns and DID NOT want the regional housing agency
3. Agree with all other comments
Therese McMillion - New ABAG Executive Director
1. Task - Bring together an organized response to these bills
2. Focus on these and statewide regional areas
3. Focus on Protections, Preservation and Production - put the bills in these three buckets
4. Are these pivoting off the outreach we gathered when meeting and focus on the thematic
items we heard
Colson Committee Report April 15, 2019
5
The KEY Organizing Principals are outlined in attached memo from ABAG.
Provided a review of the bills -
1. SB 50 = NO map as of yet for the “high jobs opportunity area” coming out of the Turner
Center. Concerns about displacement of renters, but nothing for SFD
2. There were so many comments - that they moved to the Proposed Organizing Principals
Organizing Principals -
1. There will be links and graphics that will be sent back to us
2. Staff will prioritize how to manage this
Dates set for new meetings and public is welcome.
April 6, 2019
Progress Seminar
• Excellent Sessions and fun session with Congresswoman Speier
April 8, 2019
PCE Executive Committee
1. Report Out CEO
2. Attended Progress Event - Excellent
3. Update on partnerships with the Central Valley entities
4. DA - If a business leaves PCE - we do not get PCIA coverage and their is continued
discussion on these proceedings
5. Central buyer discussion and take away our purchasing power and start a centralized
control system and it is still in flux - does create a new regulator body like the ISO and
replaces the PUC (regulatory body of resource adequacy)
6. CalCCA Capital Day - Meet with consultants on the energy committee and some of our
local senators and the governor’s strike team
7. April 12th - big announcement about wildfires and CCAs
8. Moody’s new analyst - working to get the rating
9. Marketing - working with Cyclops firm and meeting with them Friday from 1-2 PM
10. Reach Codes - Burlingame has had the most and best participation
11. Webinar - draft of reach codes available Thursday
12. PCE position is we want to have staff consider adoption of Reach Codes and cities may
adopt at any point in time.
13. We have hired a consultant to take a look at the cost analysis
Insurance - Full review of insurance coverage including deductible and gaps in coverage
1. Andy requested broker to review the program and determine if there are other options and
insurance industry is having trouble understanding our business model and what we do
2. Recommendation to take the revised policy to the full board - includes coverage that we
have not had in the past and encompasses our business more comprehensively
Colson Committee Report April 15, 2019
6
Program Overview
1. Rolling out the three year EV program for new cars
April 9, 2019
• Meeting with Library Development Team to learn about work done and how it might apply
to the Community Center