HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2019.05.20City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, May 20, 2019
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room B
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.
Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government Code Section
54956.9): Evans, et al. v. Bird Rides, Inc., et al., (City of Burlingame, co-defendant) (N.D.
Cal. 3:19-cv-01207)
d.
Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6)
City Designated Representatives: Timothy L. Davis, HR Director Sonya M. Morrison, City
Manager Lisa K. Goldman, City Attorney Kathleen Kane, Finance Director Carol
Augustine
Employee Organizations: AFSCME Administrative and Maintenance Units
e.
Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8):
Property: City Lot E (Park Rd. and Lorton Ave.) APN 029-204-230
Agency Negotiators: City Manager Lisa K. Goldman, City Attorney Kathleen Kane, and
Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner
Negotiating Parties: Burlingame Park Square, LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and terms
f.
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
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/16/2019
May 20, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
RethinkWaste Trash to Art Contest Winners Presentationa.
National Public Works Week Presentationb.
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.
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2019a.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for May 8, 2019b.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with
Galeb Paving, Inc. for the Construction of Skyline Park, City Project No. 85460
c.
Staff Report
Resolution
Skyline Park Designs
Bid Summary
Agreement with Galeb Paving Inc.
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/16/2019
May 20, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to: Procure Landscape Structures
Playground Equipment and Installation; Procure Robertson Industries, Inc. TotTurf
Surfacing and Installation; and Execute an Agreement with Suarez and Mu ñoz
Construction, Inc. for the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area,
City Project Number 85670
d.
Staff Report
Resolution
Agreement with Suarez and Munoz Inc.
Playground Design
Bid Summary
Purchasing Agreement for Robertson Industries, Inc.
Purchasing Agreement for Landscape Structures
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Murray Field Synthetic Turf Project, City Project
No. 84130
e.
Staff Report
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Term Sheet with the San Mateo Union High School
District for the Burlingame Aquatic Center
f.
Staff Report
Term Sheet
March 18, 2019 Study Session Staff Report
Attachments:
Adoption of Resolutions Awarding a Construction Contract to G. Bortolotto & Company,
Inc. for the 2019 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No. 85120, and Authorizing the
City Manager to Execute a Cost Sharing Agreement with the City of Millbrae for Sequoia
Avenue & Murchison Drive
g.
Staff Report
Resolution for Construction Contract
Resolution for Cost Sharing Agreement
Construction Contract
Cost Sharing Agreement
Cost Sharing Estimate
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/16/2019
May 20, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Engineered Soil Repairs
Inc., for the Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project, City Project No. 85090, and
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Construction Contract
h.
Staff Report
Resolution
Construction Contract
Bid Summary
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to PMK Contractors LLC for
the Police Station Underground Storage Tank Removal, City Project No. 84640, and
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Construction Contract
i.
Staff Report
Resolution
Construction Contract
Bid Summary
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Extending the Agreement with Maze & Associates Accountancy
Corporation to Serve as the City of Burlingame ’s Independent External Financial Auditors
for Three Additional Years
j.
Staff Report
Resolution
Attachments:
Adoption of a Proclamation Recognizing June as Immigrant Heritage Monthk.
Staff Report
Proclamation
Attachments:
Adoption of an Ordinance Prohibiting Retaliation for Smoking Complaintsl.
Staff Report
Proposed Ordinance
Attachments:
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
Public Hearing to Renew the Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Downtown
Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project for Fiscal Year 2019-20
a.
Staff Report
Resolution
Engineer's Report FY 2019-20
Attachments:
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/16/2019
May 20, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame
Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs at Various Locations in the City
b.
Staff Report
Ordinance
BMC Update
Attachments:
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
c.
Staff Report
Ordinance
Zoning Code Sections 25.32.030 and 25.70.090 - Redline
Attachments
Attachments:
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
Consideration of a Façade Improvement Pilot Program for the Broadway Commercial
District
a.
Staff Report
Draft Facade Improvement Pilot Program Application
September 21, 2018 EDS Meeting Minutes
November 16, 2018 EDS Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2018 EDS Meeting Minutes
Attachments:
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
Mayor Colson'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.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/16/2019
May 20, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for
public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes are available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting
Monday, June 3, 2019
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 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/16/2019
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19
Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on May 6, 2019
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 Joe Mendoza.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54957.6)
CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES: TIMOTHY L. DAVIS, HR DIRECTOR SONYA
M. MORRISON, CITY MANAGER LISA K. GOLDMAN, CITY ATTORNEY KATHLEEN
KANE, FINANCE DIRECTOR CAROL AUGUSTINE
EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: AFSCME MAINTENANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
UNITS
City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Colson reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19
Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
2
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. PROCLAMATION HONORING BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL AND SAN MATEO HIGH
SCHOOL COMBINED CONCERT CHOIRS AND CHAMBER SINGERS
Mayor Colson presented the Burlingame High School and San Mateo High School combined concert choirs
and chamber singers with a proclamation. She explained that members of the combined concert choirs won
gold in 2017 at the World-Strides Heritage Festival, and members of the chamber singers won gold in 2018
at the Anaheim Heritage Festival.
Mayor Colson stated that as a result, the students performed at Carnegie Hall in New York City on March
31, 2019.
The students accepted the proclamation and performed one of their pieces for the community.
Congratulations to the students from Burlingame High School and San Mateo High School.
b. PROCLAMATION HONORING BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL IRON PANTHERS
ROBOTICS TEAM
Mayor Colson presented the Burlingame High School Iron Panthers Robotics Team with a proclamation for
winning first place at the World Championships in Houston, Texas.
The Robotics Team showed the Council their robot and demonstrated their robot’s capabilities.
Congratulations to the Burlingame High School Iron Panthers Robotics Team.
c. YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE (YAC) PRESENTATION
Recreation Coordinator Nicole Rath introduced the Youth Advisory Committee (“YAC”). YAC members
include Aiden Mendoza, Anastasios Pantazis, Carina Husain, Chase Johnson, Diana Milne, Dylan
Aguinaldo, Ethan Wan, Hope Trygstad, Jiana Ang, Lauren Shannon, Sophia Morales, Taylor Abbey, and
Tiana Carroll.
YAC representatives discussed their work at various events this past year including: the Pet Parade, YAC
Social, Fall Festival, Tree Lighting, Holiday Gift Wrapping, Frozen Sing-Along, Senior Valentine’s Dance,
and PARCA Event.
YAC representatives explained that each year, they choose an issue to work on as their major initiative. This
year, they chose anti-vaping and created a PSA on the subject for the community.
Additionally, YAC representatives discussed their recent “Conservations with Council for teens.” This event
allowed students in Burlingame to ask City Councilmembers questions and discuss their concerns.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19
Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
3
Vice Mayor Beach asked which of YAC’s undertakings was their favorite this past year. One YAC
representative replied that it was the PARCA event as it allowed them to give back to the community.
Mayor Colson and the Council thanked YAC for their hard work and dedication to the community.
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. No item was removed.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember
Brownrigg.
Councilmember Brownrigg commented on the motion. He noted that item 8b concerned the purchase of
hybrid cars for the police department. He thanked staff for being open to the purchase of hybrid vehicles for
City use.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 15, 2019
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2019.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF FIVE PUBLIC
SAFETY INTERCEPTOR VEHICLES
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 42-2019.
c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 15.15 TO THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) DURING BUILDING DEMOLITION
PROJECTS
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance 1963.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $64,000,000 OF
SOLID WASTE ENTERPRISE BONDS TO REFINANCE OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE
SOUTH BAYSIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND TO FINANCE CERTAIN
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19
Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
4
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES OF THE
SOUTH BAYSIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution 43-2019.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTIONS INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO RENEW THE LEVY
AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME
AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 44-2019, Resolution Number 45-2019, and
Resolution Number 46-2019.
f. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE LIBRARY BOARD
OF TRUSTEES
City Manage r Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill two vacancies on the Library
Board of Trustees.
g. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 2019
Finance Director Augustine submitted to Council the Quarterly Investment Report, period ending March 31,
2019.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20
Finance Director Augustine stated that the proposed fees for the FY 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule were
brought to Council for review at the April 1, 2019 meeting. She explained that Council’s requested changes
were incorporated into the proposed Master Fee Schedule. Additionally, the Master Fee Schedule was
updated to include downtown parking permits and CCFD’s new fees. She noted that if adopted, most of the
fees become effective July 1, 2019.
Mayor Colson stated that this is the first Master Fee Schedule that will include the City’s housing linkage
fees. She asked that the name of the fees be amended from Commercial Linkage Fees to Commercial
Affordable Housing Linkage Fees. She explained that it was important to include what the fees were being
used for to better address community concern.
Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 47-2019; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19
Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
5
b. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20
Finance Director Augustine stated that at the April 1, 2019 Council meeting, the Council asked for more
detail concerning Broadway BID’s proposed expenditures. She noted that Broadway BID issued her a report
on their expenditures, but she had forgotten to attach it to the staff report. Therefore, the report was sent to
the Council prior to the meeting, and the Council’s agenda was amended online to include the report.
Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Mayo r Colson thanked Broadway BID for the report on their proposed expenditures.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 48-2019; seconded by Councilmember
Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
c. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING RETALIATION FOR SMOKING
COMPLAINTS
City Attorney Kane stated that the City’s current smoking regulations include a prohibition on discrimination
or retaliation by employers for making complaints regarding illegal smoking. She explained that the
proposed amendment would prohibit retaliation and discrimination broadly, including in the housing context
as well as in other circumstances where a manager or other person or entity in authority may retaliate for
smoking complaints. She stated that the amendment’s particular focus was tenants who feel vulnerable to
retaliation for filing a smoking complaint.
City Attorney Kane noted that the proposed amendment would not protect individuals that file a complaint in
bad faith in order to harass another person.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked City Attorney Kane to explain the particulars of how the amendment
would work. He gave the example of a tenant receiving an eviction notice after filing a smoking complaint
and asked what the tenant does pursuant to the proposed amendment. City Attorney Kane explained that
there are two ways the ordinance would work. The first is that if a tenant is retaliated against for filing a
complaint, it would be a violation of the ordinance, which could trigger fines. However, she noted that the
more practical way that the ordinance will be used is that the tenant would utilize this ordinance in their
eviction hearing to argue that the eviction is unlawful.
City Attorney Kane explained that the amendment arose from the County’s Civil Grand Jury reviewing
tenant protections for smoking complaint cases.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the proposed amendment could be used to protect tenants that raise
concerns about smoke alarms or other safety issues. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative. She
explained that the proposed amendment only addresses smoking complaints. She noted that there are
protections under County and State law that address Councilmember Brownrigg’s hypothetical.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19
Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
6
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he has been informed that some of the City’s tenants aren’t able to
raise safety issues because of fear of retaliation. He suggested that the Council broaden the proposed
protections to include safety issues.
City Attorney Kane stated that Councilmember Brownrigg’s suggestion could be brought back for
discussion. She noted that the Council needs to weigh whether these protections are better served by State
and County agencies, or if they would benefit from City involvement.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the City requires annual fire inspections of apartments. CCFD Fire Chief
Kammeyer replied in the affirmative. He explained that CCFD inspects common spaces in multi-unit
buildings but doesn’t go into individual units.
Councilmember Keighran discussed the scenario where the landlord is following up on a complaint and the
tenant is unwilling to cooperate. She asked what protections the landlord has when the tenant retaliates
because a complaint is not resolved in an expedient way. City Attorney Kane discussed the difficulties of
enforcing the ban on smoking in multi-family units. She stated that Councilmember Keighran’s concerns
were not addressed in the amendment, but that it could be brought back for discussion.
City Attorney Kane stated that the proposed amendment doesn’t guarantee that the complaint is valid but
instead guarantees that the individual won’t be retaliated against for making the complaint. She noted that
the amendment also protects individuals that file complaints about smoking in commercial spaces.
Councilmember Keighran asked if staff was aware of tenants facing retaliation for smoking complaints in
Burlingame. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative. She noted that there have been issues of landlords
retaliating against tenants for other complaints they filed, such as lack of heat in their units.
Mayor Colson asked if e-cigs are covered in the amendment. City Attorney Kane stated that the amendment
protects good-faith-based complaints.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the need for tenants to be able to file complaints anonymously for their
protection. City Attorney Kane stated that names and personal information are kept confidential in code
enforcement complaints.
Mayor Colson asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer
read the title.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded
by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to bring back the proposed ordinance for adoption; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19
Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
7
10. STAFF REPORTS
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY
ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A SALARY INCREASE,
AND APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY
SCHEDULE)
HR Morrison explained that on April 15, 2019, the City Council conducted the City Attorney’s annual
performance evaluation. She stated that based on the Council’s suggestion, she has drafted a resolution to
approve a 3% increase to the City Attorney’s salary. She noted that the salary increase is equal to the
increase that the other department heads received this year. Additionally, the City Attorney receives the
same benefits as the other department heads.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 49-2019; seconded by
Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
The Council discussed the hard work of City Attorney Kane and thanked her for her continued service.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION GOVERNING APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR MASSAGE
ESTABLISHMENTS AND PRACTITIONERS
City Attorney Kane explained that under the existing massage ordinance, registration with the City can be
denied or refused renewal as a result of different infractions such as employment of practitioners who are not
certified. She explained that when the City denies or refuses renewal of an establishment or practitioner’s
registration, the individual can appeal the decision to the Council. She explained that the proposed
resolution provides guidance on how these appeal hearings should be held.
City Attorney Kane explained that the goal of the resolution is to provide for due process, adequate notice,
and the opportunity to be heard, while preserving the informal nature of proceedings before the Council. She
stated that pursuant to the resolution, the applicant and the police department/code enforcement office would
be able to provide information for the Council’s review. After that, the Council would be able to ask
questions and make a decision.
City Attorney Kane noted that because her office oversees code enforcement, she would not be advising the
Council as to the procedure during the hearings. She explained that she was conflicted out as she may have
been aware or involved in denial or refusal to renew the registration. She stated that as a result, the Council
would be provided with outside counsel to advise them on procedural questions.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the Council would receive guidance on the applicable standards for
massage registration. City Attorney Kane explained that it is the obligation of the staff that was involved in
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19
Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
8
the enforcement to explain to Council what the law is and why the applicant’s registration was denied. She
stated that Council will be asked to decide whether staff adequately established that a violation occurred.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked how many denials or refusals to renew occur in a year. City Attorney
Kane stated that it is infrequent.
Mayor Colson stated that the resolution states that “the decision of the Council shall be final.” She noted
that this was the same as Beautification and Planning Commission appeals. She asked if the applicant could
appeal the Council’s decision to the courts. City Attorney Kane stated that the Council will make the final
decision in the City. However, she noted that there is a writ mechanism that would allow the individual to
challenge the Council’s decision.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if the City needed to broaden the proposed appeal procedures in order to account
for other decisions the Council may be asked to review. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative and
explained that the City had procedures in place for Beautification and Planning Commission appeals.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 50-2019; seconded by Councilmember
Brownrigg. 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
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Colson asked to agendize a discussion on regulating the sale of flavored tobacco and e-cigs. The
Council agreed to agendize this item.
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.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19
Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
9
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Colson adjourned meeting at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Budget Study Session on May 8, 2019
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 6:30 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by HR Director Sonya Morrison.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
5. STAFF REPORTS
a. STUDY SESSION: FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 BUDGET
Finance Director Augustine began by reviewing the FY 2019-2020 budget highlights. She noted that the
proposed budget aligns with the Council and community priorities of sustainability, transportation, housing,
and infrastructure. Additionally, the proposed budget confirms the City’s long-term focus on identifying and
funding accrued liabilities.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the General Fund challenges:
1. Provide day-to-day operations and capital needs required to sustain high quality services
2. Advance longer-term priority initiatives, policies, and strategies
3. Fund long-term, legally-obligated liabilities
4. Provide for infrastructure needs
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
2
Finance Director Augustine reviewed key takeaways of the FY 2019-20 proposed budget including:
1. Assumes continued, but slower economic growth
2. Sets aside nearly $2.6 million for Section 115 Pension Trust Fund
3. Consistent with prior years, anticipates $3 million funding of the Capital Investment Reserve
4. General Fund revenues up slightly (though up 4.9% from FY 2018-19 adopted budget)
5. Total General Fund balance to increase $3.7 million, of which $2.2 million is restricted for
contribution to the Section 115 Pension Trust Fund
Finance Director Augustine discussed a chart that depicted General Fund revenues. She noted that revenues
are predicted to remain consistent with the current fiscal year. She explained that FY 2018-19 revenues were
bumped up 4% at mid-year. The predicted revenues for the coming fiscal year are $78.6 million, which is
$3.6 million higher than last year’s adopted budget but slightly less than the $79.1 million that was
anticipated in the five year forecast at mid-year.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the big three revenue sources for the City that account for 85% of the
General Fund revenues: transient occupancy taxes (“TOT”), property taxes, and sales tax.
Finance Director Augustine stated that TOT revenues continue to be healthy, with average daily room rates
holding steady. She noted that the average room rate in the United States is $130, while it is $205 in
Burlingame. She stated that this is up $10 from last year. She added that occupancy rates are holding steady
at 87%. She explained that the current year’s TOT projected revenues are up 3.1% since the prior year and
that the assumed growth for FY 2019-20 is .7%.
Finance Director Augustine stated that property taxes are expected to grow at a rate similar to the current
year (6.25%). She noted that this is a slight decrease from the five-year forecast for FY 2019-20. However,
she noted that the Assessor’s role continues to evolve and since the writing of the report it looks like property
taxes may have slightly increased. She stated that there is a slight decrease in the ERAF due to a one-time
bump up in the current fiscal year. She stated that for FY 2018-2019, the City’s ERAF withholdings were
$2.8 million, and the City’s excess ERAF amounted to $2.25 million. This included the one-time increase
bump up of $265,000. She noted that the current economy is supporting higher property tax revenues, and as
a result, staff predicts that the City’s excess ERAF distribution will be maintained.
Finance Director Augustine stated that there were three factors that led to an increase in the current fiscal
year’s sales tax revenues. The first factor was that autos and transportation sales increased 13% in the final
quarter of 2018. She stated that this was due to the resolution of manufacturing issues that allowed for the
delivery of backorders. She noted that this was a one-time bump up. The second factor was that CDTFA
launched new software that confused people and caused late reportings. As a result of the late reportings, the
agency had to anticipate payments and has since had to make adjustments based on actual payments. The
third factor was that with the help of a consultant, the City was able to obtain a one-time use tax in the
building-related sector associated with the Burlingame Point project.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
3
Finance Director Augustine stated that the largest source of sales tax revenue for the City is auto and
transportation, followed by the State and County pool.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the staff report included a thorough discussion of the Wayfair case
and its impact. She explained that there are now concrete regulations from the State as to what retailers will
be required to remit in regards to sales tax from online sales. She stated that staff will wait to see how this
plays out and that it isn’t included in the FY 2019-20 forecast as predictions widely vary.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed expenditure highlights for the FY 2019-20 proposed budget including:
1. General Fund expenditures are up 2.7% compared to current year adjusted budget
2. Increases in overall personnel expenditures (3.2%) due to salary and benefit cost increases (minimum
staffing changes)
3. Minimal non-personnel increases
Finance Director Augustine stated that proposed expenditures are $60.25 million, which is 1.5% less than
what was predicted in the five-year forecast.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed a chart of the proposed appropriations by program for the coming
fiscal year. She noted that the largest increase is in General Government, which includes the addition of an
Assistant City Attorney. Other reasons for the increase include:
1. $150,000 to fund the November 2019 election
2. $60,000 to fund a temporary position to assist with the implementation of the Finance Department’s
ERP
3. $40,000 to fund the Regional Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency
Finance Director Augustine stated that there were some notable decreases including Police overtime and the
personnel savings in the Planning division.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the biggest increase in General Fund expenditures was benefits.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the General Fund summary. She stated that proposed expenditures are
$60.2 million, with projected revenues at $78.6 million. The proposed debt service is $3.1 million, which
includes debt service on the anticipated bond for the new Community Center.
Councilmember Keighran stated that if SB 50 passes, it could have a huge financial impact on the Planning
division. She discussed the fact that the City would need to hire additional staff and asked that this be kept
in mind when reviewing the budget. City Manager Goldman stated in talking with CDD Gardiner, the plan
is to contract work out as there is no room for additional bodies in Planning. She noted that there are some
big projects on the horizon, and therefore even if SB 50 doesn’t pass, the City will need to bring on
additional help.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
4
Mayor Colson stated that even more problematic is SB 330, which requires that projects be reviewed in a
year.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the budget accounts for the potential need of contracting services. CDD
Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the projection is based on the current number of projects. CDD Gardiner
replied in the affirmative, stating that the current workload is exceptionally high.
Finance Director Augustine stated that there is a $3.6 million projected increase in the General Fund balance
for FY 2019-20. She noted that the Economic Stability Reserve will need to be increased by $20,000 due to
the anticipated small increase in revenues. She explained that the Economic Stability Reserve funding is
based on a percentage of revenues.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the projected unassigned fund balance for FY 2019-20 is $13.1
million. She noted that the City’s policy has been to keep the unassigned fund balance at $9 million, and
therefore she would be asking Council for their recommendations on the remaining $4.1 million.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the Capital Improvement Program. She stated that the proposed
General Fund CIP budget is $7.9 million.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the City’s legally-obligated debt service. She stated that in FY 2017-
18, the net General Fund debt service was approximately $3.3 million. For FY 2019-20, the City’s net
General Fund debt service decreased to $1.1 million. She explained that FY 2017-18 marked the end of the
largest piece of the Pension Obligation Bond debt service. This decrease has helped fuel the funding of the
Section 115 Fund.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed a chart that outlined the break down of funding for the Section 115
Fund for the coming year. She noted that contributions to the Section 115 Fund are from every fund that
includes personnel costs.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the total proposed budget for FY 2019-20 is $121,112,311.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the growth of the City’s budget. He noted that the only real source of
revenue that grows in a meaningful way for the City is in the General Fund. He explained that revenues
from Sewer Enterprise, Building Enterprise, and the other funds don’t grow at the same pace. He stated that
this creates a depressing effect on the overall expenditures of the City. Therefore, it is important that the
City puts funds into reserves.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the City’s annual funding for community groups. She stated that the
proposed budget for FY 2019-20 is $50,000.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
5
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he wanted to increase the budget for community groups to $55,000.
He added that he would like to see the City move towards setting aside 1/10th of 1% of the General Fund for
community groups. For the current fiscal year, this would equate to approximately $78,000.
Councilmember Ortiz agreed that the budget for community groups should be increased. He discussed how
the City’s funding helps to assist those affected by the housing crisis.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the City’s unfunded needs. She explained that in FY 2013-14, the
City formally identified and prioritized necessary infrastructure projects. As a result, in FY 2017-18 a
Capital Investment Reserve policy was finalized to ensure that funds were set aside for these projects. She
noted that at the 2019 Goal Setting Session, the Council identified more than 17 unfunded infrastructure
projects totaling $700 million.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the Capital Investment Reserve. She noted that the beginning balance
of the reserve in FY 2014-15 was $3 million, and by the end of FY 2019-20 is projected to be $31.8 million.
Finance Director Augustine explained that at the 2019 Goal Setting Session, the City Council identified the
following list as the City’s top infrastructure needs:
1. Broadway Grade Separation
2. City Hall Modernization and Safety Improvements
3. Development of Specific Plan for Rollins Road
4. Sea Level Rise Shoreline Protection Improvements
5. Undergrounding of Power Lines on El Camino Real
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the City’s legally obligated pension liabilities. She noted that in
FY2014-15, GASB Statement 68 was implemented, and it regulates the accounting and financial reporting
for pensions. As a result, the City’s net position reported in financial statements took a hit. She explained
that staff now must put $65.9 million in net pension liability on the City’s balance sheet.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the balance in the Section 115 Fund is $8.5 million.
Mayor Colson asked if the City has a dollar amount target for the Section 115 Fund in order to cut the peak
off of the contribution rate projects. Finance Director Augustine replied that it was a percentage of salaries.
Mayor Colson asked if she was correct that the City’s $65.9 million net pension liability does not include
CCFD. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Colson asked staff to provide Council with information on CCFD’s pension liabilities and future
payments scale. City Manager Goldman explained that the CCFD Board is discussing setting up a Section
115 Fund.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
6
Mayor Colson asked if the City could set up a Section 115 Fund for its portion of CCFD’s pension liabilities
if the Fire Board decided not to set up a fund. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ortiz stated his agreement with Mayor Colson that CCFD’s pension liabilities should be
reviewed, and a Section 115 fund should be established for CCFD.
Mayor Colson noted that the City’s outstanding pension obligation bonds are not included in the City’s net
pension liability.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if the City would need to set up a separate Section 115 Fund for CCFD. Finance
Director Augustine stated that it could be included in the current Section 115 Fund. She noted that the
money in the Section 115 Fund can’t be shown on the balance sheet to offset the City’s pension liability
because the City still has the funds.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the City puts funds for CCFD’s pension liabilities in its Section 115 Fund,
could the money later be transferred out if CCFD set up their own fund. Finance Director Augustine replied
in the affirmative.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the City’s legally obligated OPEB liabilities. She explained that as a
result of GASB Statement 75, the City is required to report OPEB liability on its balance sheet. She noted
that the City’s OPEB liability is $38.9 million.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the CalPERS decision to reduce the discount rate and the amortization
period. She stated that a result of these actions, the City’s contribution rates for both miscellaneous and
safety employees will increase over the coming years. Below is a chart that depicts the increases.
Group Current
Contribution
Rates
FY 2019-20
Contribution
Rates
In Five Years the
Contribution
Rates
In 10 Years the
Contribution
Rates
Miscellaneous 26% 29.1% 37.3% 38.5%
Safety 50.4% 56.8% 75.2% 82.7%
Mayor Colson stated that the total proposed budget for Police is $17.5 million. She asked if this number
included pension costs. Finance Director Augustine stated that this number includes the employer’s required
contribution.
Finance Director Augustine stated that when the miscellaneous contribution rate gets to 37.7% and safety
gets to 76.9%, the City will start drawing from the Section 115 Fund.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
7
Finance Director Augustine stated that the preliminary budget leaves the City with $13.1 million in
unassigned fund balance. She noted that last year, the Council talked about keeping the unassigned fund
balance at $9 million. She explained that this would leave $4 million for the Council to appropriate.
Councilmember Brownrigg recommended adding $5,000 to the community groups funding.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the new Community Center and the need to set aside funds for that
project. He noted that funds should also be set aside for pension liabilities.
Councilmember Ortiz suggested putting $1 million towards CCFD pension liabilities and $2 million into the
Capital Investment Reserve. He noted his approval for increasing the community group funding to $55,000.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that she leaned towards utilizing the $4 million for pension liabilities and the
Capital Investment Reserve.
Councilmember Keighran voiced her support for increasing community group funding. She noted that the
City needs to ensure that the community groups understand that the City’s funding is not guaranteed in the
future.
Councilmember Keighran discussed CCFD pension liabilities and stated that additional funds should be set
aside for CCFD in the Section 115 Fund.
Mayor Colson discussed the unknown cost of the new Community Center. She stated that the Council
needed to ensure that the Center is properly funded. She added that she wanted to better understand what
CCFD’s pension liability is before determining a course of action. She stated that CCFD’s pension liability
could be discussed at the mid-year review when Council has more information.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the Section 115 Fund is a lot more flexible than the OPEB Trust.
Mayor Colson asked if this meant that the City could draw down on the Section 115 Fund at any point.
Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative and added that the only rule is that the Section 115
Fund is to be utilized for pension liabilities.
Mayor Colson asked if the proposed personnel costs incapsulated current negotiations. Finance Director
Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked about the funding gap for the Community Center. City Manager Goldman
explained that staff and the consultants are undertaking some value engineering to ensure that the project
does not exceed $50 million. She noted that the $50 million is separate from the work that is being done on
the playground and sports court. She explained that it will be up to the Council to determine if the cost of the
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
8
Community Center goes beyond $50 million based on how strongly they feel about some of the features that
have been removed from the project.
Councilmember Keighran asked when the Council will have a better understanding of the costs of different
features. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that staff will have an update for the Council on
July 1, 2019.
Councilmember Brownrigg noted that $50 million is more than the lease revenue bond that the City expects
to get from Measure I.
Mayor Colson explained that the City is expected to obtain $30 million from the lease revenue bond. She
added that this would mean the City still has to fund $20 million of the project.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that this is why the Council should set aside some of the unassigned fund
balance for the Community Center.
Mayor Colson explained that the City will draw down on the lease revenue bond funds prior to utilizing the
Capital Investment Reserves. Therefore, the City has a few years before it will need to use Capital
Investment Reserves for the Community Center. However, she noted that Broadway Grade Separation is
looming right behind the new Community Center.
Mayor Colson asked City Manager Goldman for her opinion on how the unassigned funds should be utilized.
City Manager Goldman stated that although the City doesn’t know the total of the CCFD pension liability,
she felt that there was a symbolic value in setting aside some funds for this liability. She explained that the
City’s share of CCFD’s expenses is 42%. She suggested that Council set aside $250,000 to $500,000 for
CCFD’s pension liabilities. She stated that the Council should also put additional funds in the Capital
Investment Reserve for both the new Community Center and to assist in upgrading City Hall. Lastly, she
noted that the Council needed to ensure that the City had matching funds available for Broadway Grade
Separation.
Mayor Colson suggested putting $500,000 into the Section 115 Fund for CCFD and $3.5 million in the
Capital Investment Reserve. She discussed the potential of matching the $500,000 at the mid-year.
Mayor Colson stated that as the City pays off the pension obligation bonds, those funds could be used for
pension liabilities. Finance Director Augustine stated that the payments would be finished in 2036.
City Manager Goldman stated that there was consensus in increasing the community funding to $55,000.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if the $500,000 for the Section 115 Fund was in addition to the $2.2 million that
the City had already allotted for pension funds. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
9
Vice Mayor Beach suggested making the total payment to the Section 115 Fund an even $3 million.
Therefore, the City would allocate an additional $800,000 to the Section 115 Fund. She added that the
remaining $3.2 million should be put in the Capital Investment Reserve. She added that she wanted to see
the Community Center budget stick to $50 million because of the City’s other infrastructure needs.
Mayor Colson stated that the City had success in the past fundraising for the Library’s remodel and would be
undertaking similar efforts for the new Community Center.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the pension obligation bonds were refinanced. Finance Director
Augustine replied in the negative and stated that they couldn’t be refinanced.
Mayor Colson asked if the pension obligation bonds are at 6%. Finance Director Augustine replied in the
affirmative.
Mayor Colson discussed potentially paying off the pension obligation bonds ahead of time.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if there are prepayment penalties. Finance Director Augustine replied in
the affirmative.
The Council agreed on assigning $800,000 to the Section 115 Fund and approximately $3.2 million to the
Capital Investment Reserve.
b. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF DRAFT FY 2019-20 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Assistant Public Works Director Morimoto presented the proposed FY 2019-20 Capital Improvement
Program. He stated that it amounted to $8.665 million in General Fund projects.
Mr. Morimoto reviewed the proposed Mobility and Transportation Improvement Projects for FY 2019-20
including:
• Broadway Grade Separation (final design phase, local match towards $19.8 million total) - $1.5
million
• Sidewalk and ADA Improvements (General Fund $500,000, Measure I $700,000) - $1.2 million
• Traffic Signal Upgrades - $200,000
• Pedestrian Improvements - $100,000
• Residential Street Lighting Improvements - $100,000
• Traffic Calming Improvements - $100,000
• Annual Traffic and Transportation Studies - $80,000
• El Camino Real Development (Consultant Assistance) - $80,000
The total proposed budget for Mobility and Transportation Improvement Projects is $3.36 million.
Mr. Morimoto reviewed the proposed Parks and Recreation Projects for FY 2019-20, including:
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
10
• Field Renovations at Ray Park - $1.5 million
• BHS Pool Renovations - $700,000
• Ray Park Parking Lot Safety Improvements - $400,000
• BSD Synthetic Turf Replacement - $200,000
• Murray Field Synthetic Turf Replacement - $150,000
• Playground Replacement Fund - $100,000
• Central Irrigation Controller - $50,000
• El Camino Real Tree Safety - $50,000
• Mills Canyon Hazard Mitigation - $50,000
• Parks, Picnic Tables, Benches and Fountains - $50,000
• Playground Resilient Resurfacing/Treatment - $50,000
• Annual Tree Replace - $5,000
The total proposed budget for Parks and Recreation Projects is $3.305 million.
Mr. Morimoto reviewed the proposed Building Facilities Projects for FY 2019-20, including:
• Fire Stations 34, 35 and 36 Generators - $850,000
• Building Facilities Parking Lots Resurfacing - $250,000
• ADA Improvements Program - $250,000
• Minor Building Facilities Upgrades - $100,000
• City Attorney’s Office Remodel - $50,000
The total proposed budget for Building Facilities Projects is $1.5 million. He noted that the one addition
since the mid-year is the City Attorney’s Office remodel. He explained that the remodel is to create space
for the newly created Assistant/Deputy City Attorney position.
Mayor Colson asked for an explanation of the BHS pool renovations. City Manager Goldman stated that the
City is going to pay half the cost now and the other half when the community center is completed. She
stated that the City’s total contribution is $2.7 million, and thus far the City has paid $600,000.
Mayor Colson discussed the cost of the BHS pool renovation and stated that it is an enormous per capita
investment for the community.
Councilmember Brownrigg agreed and stated that the renovations don’t include the needed upgrade to the
changing rooms.
Mr. Morimoto reviewed the proposed Police Department Projects for FY 2019-20:
• Remodeling of Jail at BPD - $500,000
Mayor Colson asked for an explanation of the remodel of the jail at BPD. Mr. Morimoto stated that the
Police Department currently has holding cells that will be remodeled to create sleeping quarters and a
lactation room.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
11
Mr. Morimoto reviewed the proposed Parking Enterprise Fund Projects for FY 2019-20, including:
• City’s Contribution for Construction of a Parking Structure at Lot N - $1.85 million
• Smart Parking Meters for Downtown Parking Lots - $550,000
• Downtown Public Parking Lots Improvements - $250,000
The total cost of the Parking Enterprise Fund Projects is $2.65 million.
Mr. Morimoto reviewed the proposed Street Resurfacing Program for FY 2019-20 that will be funded by Gas
Tax, SB 1, Measure A, Measure I, and Measure M. The following streets are included in the resurfacing
program for the upcoming fiscal year:
• Atwater Drive – Escalante to Rivera
• Albermarle Way – Ray to End
• Arguello Drive – Escalante to Toledo
• Benito Avenue – Hillside to Easton
• Castenada Drive – Trousdale to City Limit
• Coronado Way – Ray to Davis
• Dolores Way – Mariposa to Capistrano
• Drake Avenue – Adeline to End
• Lassen Way – Davis to Ray
• Los Montes Drive – Margarita to Hillside
• Marco Polo Way – Ray to Davis
• Margarita Avenue – Skyline to Alturas
• Mills Canyon Court – End to End
• Quesada Way – Davis to Ray
The total cost of the Street Resurfacing Program is $2.35 million.
Vice Mayor Beach discussed the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan and the Lyon Hoag Traffic Calming Study.
She asked if projects arose from these studies, would a mid-year adjustment be necessary. Mr. Morimoto
stated that it is believed that both studies will be completed at the end of the calendar year. Thereafter, staff
will make recommendations on proposed projects at that time.
Senior Engineer Okada discussed the Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain CIP projects for FY 2019-20. Mr.
Okada stated that studies were performed to assess the conditions of the City’s water system. He noted that
the CIP master plan prioritized over $120 million of improvements. Since 2001, $43.5 million of work has
been completed, with an $81 million backlog of work remaining.
Mr. Okada reviewed the Water System CIP projects that were completed in FY 2018-19:
• Shoreland Subdivision Water Main Replacement Project – replaced old cast iron mains with new
PVC water mains, and the pipe size was increased to improve fire flows - $2 million
• Hillside and Skyview Reservoir Exterior Coating Project – coated the exterior of two concrete
reservoirs to extend the life of the reservoir and improve water quality by protecting the concreate
with a heavy pedestrian coating system - $200,000
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
12
• 12 Airport Boulevard Water Main Replacement Project – new 12” water main was constructed
jointly with the County of San Mateo to provide water to the new animal shelter - $300,000
• California Drive Roundabout – new hydrant and services to improve the water system under the
roundabout - $200,000
Mr. Okada and DPW Murtuza showed old water pipes from the 1920s to the Council. Mr. Okada reviewed
the proposed Water System CIP projects for FY 2019-20:
• South El Camino Real Water Main Replacement Project - $2.18 million
• Emergency Water Main Replacement - $300,000
• Sensory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System Upgrades - $120,000
• Water System Valve Replacements - $100,000
• Water Meter Replacements - $100,000
• Trousdale Pump Station Repairs - $100,000
• Regional Water Supply Studies/Modeling - $50,000
• Miscellaneous Coating of Above Ground Water Mains - $50,000
The total cost of the proposed Water System CIP projects is $3 million.
Mr. Okada noted that all of the residential water meters have been replaced and that staff is currently
working on replacing hotel and apartment building meters.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked whether it makes sense to wait on the water main replacement for El
Camino Real until Caltrans rebuilds El Camino Real. DPW Murtuza stated that this project has been
advanced for this purpose.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that these projects are funded by the water enterprise fund which is
distinct from the storm drain funds. Mr. Okada replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Okada next reviewed the Sewer System Capital Improvement Program. He explained that studies were
performed to assess the condition of the City’s sanitary sewer system. He noted that the CIP master plan
prioritized over $160 million of needed upgrades. He stated that $78.5 million of work has been completed
and that there is a backlog of $83 million of work that remains.
Mr. Okada reviewed the Sewer System CIP projects that were completed in FY 2018-19:
• Easton Addition and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation – Phase 3 – 6,230 linear feet of new sewer
pipelines and 31 new sewer manholes - $1.75 million
• Citywide Sanitary Sewer Point Repair Project – removal of structural deficiencies and replaced
sections with new PVC pipe - $400,000
• Carolan-Rollins Easement Sanitary Sewer Main Relocation – installed approximately 730 linear feet
of new 12-inch diameter PVC sewer main in the new sanitary sewer easement - $460,000
Mr. Okada reviewed the proposed Sewer System CIP projects for FY 2019-20:
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
13
• Sanitary Sewer Main Rehabilitation - $1.5 million
• Rollins Road Gravity and Force Main Rehabilitation - $1.2 million
• WWTP upgrades - $710,000
• Sewer System Modeling and Master Plan Updates - $600,000
• Burlingame Avenue East of California Utility Improvements - $500,000
• Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair - $200,000
• Easton Addition Subdivision Sewer Rehabilitation - $150,000
• SCADA System Upgrades - $120,000
• Force Main Sewer Studies - $50,000
• Miscellaneous Sewer Root Foaming and Miscellaneous Sewer Repair - $50,000
The total cost of the Sewer System CIP projects is $5.08 million.
Mr. Okada explained that in 2009, voters approved a ballot measure to upgrade the City’s storm drainage
system. Since the ballot measure passed, the City has completed $26 million of projects and $28 million of
projects remain.
Mr. Okada reviewed the Storm Drain System CIP projects that were completed in FY 2018-19:
• El Portal/Trousdale Channel Rehabilitation – removed build-up of sediment accumulated in the
channel over the years to improve drainage flow - $1.2 million
• Sanchez Lagoon Flap Gates Project – installation of flap gates prevents backwater from the Bay into
the surrounding neighborhoods during storm events - $185,000
• Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #10 – focused on upgrading areas that had drainage issues during
the winter 2017 storm - $1.12 million
Mr. Okada reviewed the proposed Storm Drain System CIP projects for FY 2019-20:
• 1740 Rollins and 842 Cowan Stormwater Pump Station Upgrades (including $900,000 from
Millbrae) - $1.9 million
• Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #12 - $1.5 million
• Easton Drive Drainage Improvements - $500,000
• El Portal Channel Flap Gates Rehabilitation - $150,000
• FY 2019-20 Program Management - $50,000
The total cost of the Storm Drain System CIP projects is $4.1 million.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the City is pretty much at the end of the wet season. He noted that his
impression is that the City emerged from it with a whole lot less collateral damage than the season before.
DPW Murtuza stated that the storms were spaced out evenly, and there was enough time between storms to
handle the capacity.
Mayor Colson asked how Caltrain’s parallel station 3 project was progressing and if the City has incurred
any costs. DPW Murtuza stated that there has been no construction activity.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19
May 8, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
14
Mayor Colson voiced her irritation that the City was informed that this needed to be done immediately and if
it wasn’t the City would be fined, and yet no construction has occurred.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
City Manager Goldman discussed the work load that staff has undertaken over the past years. She thanked
the Council for increasing the amount that the City has spent on these “bread and butter” projects.
The Council thanked staff for their hard work.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Colson adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8c
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Nicole Acquisti, Recreation Supervisor – (650) 558-7337
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an
Agreement with Galeb Paving, Inc. for the Construction of Skyline Park, City
Project No. 85460
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute
an agreement with Galeb Paving, Inc. at a cost of $384,800 for construction of Skyline Park,
including fencing and parking, City Project No. 85460.
BACKGROUND
For many years, community members have requested additional locations within the city to take
their dogs off leash. The City currently only has one dog park on the Bayfront and two sites that
have limited hours due to joint use of the sites by sports groups.
In 2015, the Dog Park Task Force (DPTF) asked Recreation Division staff to research possible
locations for a new dog off-leash area. Staff reviewed both City-owned and privately-owned
parcels. Most sites that staff considered were not owned by the City, posed challenges with access,
and/or were expensive to acquire. The Skyline parcel, however, belongs to the City and is vacant.
The area is about three acres and is located on Skyline just south of the Trousdale exit off the 280
Freeway. Staff presented the location to the DPTF and received their approval to start the public
outreach process to gather input about using the site as a passive park that would allow dogs off
leash during all hours when the park is open for use.
On October 3, 2015, the City sent 700 letters to neighbors in the area informing them that the City
was looking at the parcel as a possible location for a park that would allow dogs off leash. On April
25, 2016 and October 6, 2016, Parks Superintendent Bob Disco and Recreation Supervisor Nicole
Acquisti, along with Landscape Architect John Cahalan, hosted community meetings to discuss the
ideas for the parcel. Parks and Recreation staff also met with Community Development
Department (CDD) staff, the Town of Hillsborough Beautification Committee, and Hillsborough’s
then-City Manager, to discuss the proposed project.
At the November 17, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, after hearing from
community members and neighbors, the Commission unanimously approved moving forward with
Contract with Galeb Paving Inc., for Skyline Park Project May 20, 2019
conceptual plans and directed staff to work with CDD staff to address the parking and traffic
concerns that community members raised during the public outreach process.
In January 2017, Recreation Supervisor Acquisti met with CDD staff to discuss traffic and parking
concerns. Through an ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) report, CDD staff worked on
generating the information needed to determine the required parking and, in turn, how it would
affect traffic specifically during the peak hours between 7 and 9 AM and 4 and 6 PM. The ITE
parking generation model did not have a specific item for “dog park”, so CDD staff looked at other
sources including exclusive dog park locations and other studies in the Bay Area. They concluded
that three parking spaces were sufficient—two on-street spaces and one ADA off-street space.
Staff met throughout February and March 2017 to determine possible additional parking locations,
as well as entry and exit points, for minimal impact to the current traffic patterns and the residents
across the street. Staff determined that since there is a slight slope up from the edge of the
pavement at the proposed parking location, the best option was to put in parallel parking spaces at
the most level part of the road shoulder adjacent to the site. The first draft of the additional parking
spaces included the required eight foot wide parallel spot. After CDD staff reviewed the updated
plans, they determined that an 11 foot wide lane with a raised curb for the entry and exit point was
required to increase visitor safety when entering and exiting vehicles from the street spaces. The
landscape architect updated the plans to reflect the required changes and updated the cost
estimate.
On June 15, 2017, the project went back to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review, public
comment, and discussion. The Commission unanimously approved the updated plans that
addressed the community concerns regarding parking and traffic for Skyline Park.
Following the meeting, staff determined that investigating the option of adding one more off-street
parking space next to the accessible space, if cost effective, would be in the best interest of the
project. Staff met with the landscape architect, and new plans were proposed with an additional
parking spot. On November 16, 2017, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the plans
and costs associated with adding an additional off-street parking space. After public comment and
discussion, the Commission unanimously agreed to move forward with the original three parking
spaces—two on-street spaces and one ADA off-street space.
The Skyline Park project was brought to the City Council on April 16, 2018 for review and approval.
The City Council unanimously voted to proceed and allocated $400,000 in CIP funds for the project.
DISCUSSION
As construction documents were in development, the landscape architect informed staff that the
elevations on the site and the need for the off-street ADA accessible parking space would require
a geotechnical evaluation of the retaining wall structures in order to complete the construction
documents and bid the project. These costs were not anticipated when the project went before the
City Council for approval. Once the plans and geotechnical evaluation were completed, the
information was provided to the Public Works Department, Central County Fire Department, and
the Community Development Department.
Contract with Galeb Paving Inc., for Skyline Park Project May 20, 2019
All departments approved the updated construction documents, and the project was duly noticed
and advertised for bids on March 14, 2019. The City instructed bidders to bid a lump sum bid on
the basic project, which included the provision of all labor and materials required for project
construction, including but not limited to: traffic control, construction fencing, demolition and
clearing of the areas within the project limits, grading and drainage, concrete retaining walls, curbs
and gutters, paving, stamped concrete, asphaltic concrete, parking striping, seal coat, chain-link
fencing and gates, and other miscellaneous items.
The site furnishings, including landscaping and a water fountain, will be purchased and installed by
Parks staff. The anticipated cost is $8,000. The benches will be repurposed from other City parks.
On April 10, 2019, the City received 3 bids for the project, with the bids ranging from $368,000 to
$418,100. Gabel Paving, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive bid.
The bid results were as follows:
1 Galeb Paving, Inc $384,800.00
2 Guerra Construction Group $418,100.00
3 Rehak General Engineering $368,000.00 Non-Responsive
FISCAL IMPACT
The original engineer’s estimate for the project was $397,787. Due to the additional requirement
of the geotechnical evaluation and the need to revise the plans, an additional $19,525 was spent
to complete the construction documents.
Staff is requesting an additional $20,000 from the General Fund in order to complete the project.
There are adequate funds in the Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Program for the site
furnishings.
Estimated Project Costs:
Mobilization/traffic control $15,800.00
Removal, clearing, Excavation and grading $30,600.00
Concrete wall, drain and asphalt $96,352.00
Fencing $93,850.00
Signage/Striping $16,000.00
Water connections, Soil prep $70,100.00
Contingency, 10% $33,000.00
Design & Engineering Services $52,810.50
Benches, Landscaping, and a Water Fountain $8,000.00
Advertising $1,320.00
Total $417,832.50
Contract with Galeb Paving Inc., for Skyline Park Project May 20, 2019
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Skyline Park Designs
• Bid Summary
• Agreement with Galeb Paving, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO.________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECTURE AN AGREEMENT WITH GALEB
PAVING, INC. AT A COST OF $384,800 FOR SKYLINE PARK
CITY PROJECT NO. 85460
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Capital Improvement Program has identified the
Skyline Park as a location for a passive park in the Burlingame park system; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize
construction of the public work and improvements provided for in the attached contract; and
WHEREAS, a notice was duly published on March 14, 2019 for bids for the contract for the
Skyline Park Project; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2019, the City received three proposals, which were opened before
the City Clerk and representatives of the Parks & Recreation Department; and
WHEREAS, Galeb Paving, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the
project in the amount of $384,800; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The facts in the recitals above and in the staff report are true and correct.
2. The Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted.
3. The bid from Galeb Paving, Inc. in the amount of $384,800 is the lowest responsive and
responsible bid for said project and is accepted.
4. The City shall enter into a contact with the successful bidder, Galeb Paving, Inc. for the
performance of the Skyline Park, Project No. 85460, and 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.
__________________________
Donna Colson, 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 20th day of May, 2019,
and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
CS
SHEET
JOB No.
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
BYREVISIONS
BL
JC
10/12/18
AS NOTED
15.010
OF SHEETS17SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentCity Council Members:
Emily Beach
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
Donna Colson, Vice Mayor
Ricardo Ortiz
Ann Keighran
City Manager:
Lisa K. Goldman
Department of Parks & Recreation:
Margaret Glomstad, Director
Parks & Recreation Commission
Christine Ardito Ian Milne
Shari Lewis Bob Palacio
Karen Malekos-Smith Claire Schissler
Emily Matthews
Consultants:
John Cahalan, Landscape Architect
2050 Beavercreek Rd.
Ste. 101-447
Oregon City, OR 97045
Office: (503) 631-8634
Mobile: (408) 656-2713
E-mail: john.cahalan@comcast.net
NTerra Group, Inc
1295 East Dunne Avenue, Ste 230
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Office: (408) 656-8321
CSCOVER SHEETCITY OF BURLINGAME
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Project Number 85460
SHEET INDEX
No.SHEET
2.CONTRACTOR COORDINATION: EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL
COORDINATE AND OTHERWISE INTEGRATE HIS WORK WITH THAT OF
OTHERS IN AN EFFICIENT CRAFTSMAN-LIKE AND TIMELY MANNER
SO AS TO PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A WELL CONSTRUCTED
EASILY MAINTAINABLE PROJECT. EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL
NOTIFY THE OTHERS AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE
OF COVERING, COMPLETING OR EXPOSING WORK TO BE INSTALLED
BY OTHERS.
1.DESIGN INTENT: THESE DRAWINGS REPRESENT THE GENERAL
DESIGN INTENT TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON THE SITE. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR ANY CLARIFICATION OR DETAILS
NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE SITE CONDITIONS OR
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS.
3.CONTRACTOR'S JOB SITE CONDITIONS: CONTRACTOR AGREES
THAT HE SHALL ASSUME COMPLETE AND SOLE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF
THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING THE SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND
PROPERTY; THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY
AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS; AND THAT THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY AND HOLD THE
OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HARMLESS FROM ANY AND
ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING FOR
LIABILITY ARISING FROM SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
4.COMPOSITE BASE SHEET: THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN
ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE SUPERIMPOSED OR REDRAWN ON A
BASE SHEET. THIS BASE SHEET IS COMPILED FROM A
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY, ARCHITECTURAL OR ENGINEERING
DOCUMENTS, AND/OR OTHER DATA AS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, WHO SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR
CHANGES, INACCURACIES, OMISSIONS OR OTHER ERRORS ON
THESE DOCUMENTS. THE COMPOSITE BASE SHEET IS PROVIDED AS
AN AID ONLY AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
REVIEWING THESE DOCUMENTS AND INCORPORATING AND
INTEGRATING ALL CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED TO
ACCOMMODATE SAME.
THE TOPOGRAPHIC WAS PREPARED BY:
MacLEOD AND ASSOCIATES
Civil Engineering, Land Surveying
965 Center Street
San Carolos, CA 94070
Office (650) 593-8580
5.UTILITIES: THE CONTRACTOR IS HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT, PRIOR TO
COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION, HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
CONTACTING THE UTILITY COMPANIES INVOLVED AND REQUESTING
A VISUAL VERIFICATION IF NECESSARY, OF THE LOCATIONS OF
THEIR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. THE UTILITY COMPANIES ARE
MEMBERS OF THE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (U.S.A.) ON-CALL
PROGRAM. THE CONTRACTOR OR ANY SUBCONTRACTOR FOR THIS
CONTRACT MAY WISH TO NOTIFY MEMBERS OF THE U.S.A. 48
HOURS IN ADVANCE OF PERFORMING ANY EXCAVATION WORK BY
CALLING THE TOLL - FREE NUMBER AT 800 227-2600. EXCAVATION IS
DEFINED AS BEING 18 INCHES OR MORE IN DEPTH BELOW THE
EXISTING SURFACE.
SHEET TITLE
NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY MAP PROJECT TEAMGENERAL NOTES
1
THE DESCRIPTION OF WORK BELOW SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED
AS A COMPLETE LIST OF ALL WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR CAREFULLY REVIEWING THE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK
SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
THE CITY WILL PURCHASE AND INSTALL THE
DECOMPOSED GRANITE PADS AND BENCHES, TRASH /
RECYCLING BINS, DRINKING FOUNTAIN (INCLUDING
WATER LINE AND CONNECTIONS), WATER METER, SOIL
PREPARATION, FINE GRADING, IRRIGATION AND
PLANTING.
BASIC PROJECT:
1.CONSTRUCTION FENCING
2.DEMOLITION AND OFF-HAUL
3.GRADING AND DRAINAGE
4.ASPHALT PAVING, PATCHING AND SEAL COAT.
5.SITE CONCRETE WORK
6.PARKING LOT SIGNAGE AND STRIPING
7.JOB CLEAN-UP
SCOPE OF WORK
1 CS Cover Sheet
2 C1.00 Civil General Notes
3 C1.01 Legends, Abbreviations & Notes
4 C1.02 Construction Details
5 C1.03 Construction Details
6 C1.04 Construction Best Management Practices
7 C2.00 Topographic Survey
8 C2.01 Site Demolition & Erosion Control Plan
9 C3.00 Overall Site Plan
10 C3.02 Horizontal Control Plan
11 C4.01 Grading & Drainage Plan
12 L1.01 Irrigation Plan (1 " = 30'-0")
13 L1.02 Irrigation Plan (1 " = 10'-0")
14 L2.01 Planting Plan (1 " = 30'-0")
15 L2.02 Planting Plan (1" = 10'-0")
16 L3.01 Construction Details
17 L3.02 Construction Details
SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARK RENOVATION
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT LOCATION
(N) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK
FENCE - SEE CIVIL DRWGS.
2
1"
49 GPH
3
1"
47 GPH
(N) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK
FENCE - SEE CIVIL DRWGS.
(E) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK
FENCE ALONG EAST P.L.
TO REMAIN
SEE ENLARGED IRRIGATION
PLAN L1.02
SHEET
JOB No.
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
BYREVISIONS
BL
JC
10/12/18
AS NOTED
15.010
OF SHEETS17North15'30'60'120'0'SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentL1.01IRRIGATION PLAN12
IRRIGATION NOTES
SYM DESCRIPTION
DRIP SYSTEM: HUNTER PLD-06-18 (18); IN-LINE PRESSURE COMPENSATING
LANDSCAPE DRIPLINE WITH BUILT-IN CHECK VALVE. 0.6 GPH EMITTERS AT 18.0"
O.C. DRIP LATERALS SPACED AT 18.0" APART WITH EMITTERS OFF-SET FOR
TRIANGULAR PATTERN. UV RESISTANT. FOR ROW OF SHRUBS ALONG SKYLINE
BLVD., INSTALL TWO ROWS WITH FOUR (4) EMITTERS PER SHRUB.
DRIP CONTROL VALVE KIT: HUNTER PCZ-101-40 WITH DC LATCHING SOLENOID 1"
SIZE, GLOBE CONFIGURATION WITH HY100 FILTER SYSTEM. PRESSURE
REGULATION AT 40 PSI. FLOW RANGE: 0.5 TO 15 GPM. 150 MESH STAINLESS
STEEL SCREEN.
BALL VALVE: BRASS SHUT-OFF VALVE, NIBCO T-580-A; INSTALL ON PRESSURE
SIDE OF ALL VALVES IN A SEPARATE, ROUND CARSON BOX WITH BOLT DOWN
LID.
EXISTING 1" WATER METER
BACKFLOW PREVENTER: FEBCO 825Y WITH WYE STRAINER, 1-1/2" SIZE. INSTALL
IN ENCLOSURE TO BE SELECTED BY CITY.
IRRIGATION CONTROLLER: RAINBIRD T-BOS II FOR COMMERCIAL
BATTERY-POWERED SYSTEMS. TBOS2CM4, 4-STATION CONTROL MODULE WITH
FIELD TRANSMITTER TBOS2FTUS. WATERPROOF CASE IS IP-68 RATED.
QUICK COUPLER: HUNTER HQ-44LRC-AW. YELLOW RUBBER LOCKING COVER,
RED BRASS AND STAINLESS STEEL, WITH 1" NPT INLET, 2-PIECE BODY. ACME
KEY WITH ANTI-ROTATION WINGS. LOCATE AS SHOWN ON PLAN
MAIN: SCHED. 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE, 1" SIZE, 18" MIN. COVER.
LATERAL LINE: SCHED. 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE, 1" SIZE, 12" MIN. COVER.
SLEEVING: SCHED. 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE, 3" SIZE. 12" MIN. COVER
VALVE #
VALVE SIZE
APPROX. GAL./MINUTE OR
APPROX. GAL./HOUR (5.6 GPM)
IRRIGATION NOTES
1.SPECIFICATIONS: SEE THE TECHNICAL SECTION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AND REQUIREMENTS.
2.WATER PRESSURE AND FLOW VERIFICATION: SYSTEM DESIGN IS BASED ON MIN. 50 PSI STATIC WATER
PRESSURE AND A MINIMUM OF 25 GPM AVAILABLE AT DISCHARGE OUTLET OF METER OR OTHER POINT OF
CONNECTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXISTING STATIC PRESSURE AND GPM (GALLONS PER
MINUTE FLOW) AND NOTIFY CITY REPRESENTATIVE IF SUCH DATA ADVERSELY EFFECTS THE OPERATION
OF THE SYSTEM. SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH ANY
IRRIGATION INSTALLATION.
3.UTILITIES: VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO TRENCHING. SEE "GENERAL
NOTES".
4.SCHEMATIC CLARITY: SYSTEM FEATURES ARE SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY. INSTALL
ALL PIPING AND VALVES IN COMMON TRENCHES WHERE FEASIBLE AND IN PLANTING AREAS WHENEVER
POSSIBLE. ALL VALVES SHALL BE LOCATED IN GROUND COVER OR SHRUB AREAS INSTEAD OF LAWN
AREAS WHERE POSSIBLE.
5.CODES: IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL AND STATE CODES
AND ORDINANCES AND THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY
TELEPHONE AND IN WRITING IF ANY CONFLICTS OCCUR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
6.SLEEVES: CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SLEEVES TWICE THE DIAMETER OF ALL MAIN AND LATERALS
THAT OCCUR BENEATH PAVING, WALLS OR STRUCTURES. SLEEVES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE
NECESSARY DEPTHS PRIOR TO PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION. SLEEVES SHALL EXTEND 1'-0" FROM EDGE
OF PAVING INTO LAWN OR PLANTING, AND SHALL HAVE ENDS CLEARLY MARKED ABOVE GRADE.
7.QUICK COUPLER VALVES: SEE LEGEND AND DETAILS FOR TYPE.
TREE PROTECTION NOTES
1.FENCING REQUIREMENTS: TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE FENCED WITH TEMPORARY FENCING, SUCH AS
STEEL STAKES (MAX. 5'-0" ON CENTER) WITH WIRE OR PLASTIC MESH FABRIC (6X6 OPEN) OR SIMILAR
APPROPRIATE MATERIAL. FENCES SHALL BE INSTALLED A MINIMUM OF 2/3'S THE DISTANCE FROM THE
DRIP LINE AND SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4'-0" HIGH.
2.TRENCHING: ALL TRENCHING WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE BY HAND
WITH CARE TAKEN NOT TO DAMAGE ROOTS OVER 2" DIAMETER.
3.PRUNING: TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE PRUNED TO "THIN OUT" LIMBS TO MINIMIZE LIMB BREAKS AND WIND
DAMAGE AND TO REMOVE DEAD OR DISEASED WOOD. PRUNING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A LICENSED
TREE ARBORIST OR PROFESSIONAL SPECIFICALLY TRAINED IN PLANT PRUNING.
4.CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS: NO CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CARRIED ON WITHIN THE DRIP
LINE AREA OF ANY TREE DESIGNATED TO BE SAVED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
5.GRADING OPERATIONS: TREES WHICH REQUIRE ANY DEGREE OF FILL AROUND THE NATURAL GRADE SHALL
BE GUARDED BY RECOGNIZED STANDARDS OF TREE PROTECTION AND DESIGN OF TREE WELLS.
6.STORAGE: THE AREA UNDER THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN. NO CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS OR CHEMICAL SOLVENTS SHALL BE STORED OR DISPOSED OF AROUND OR UNDER TREES.
7.TREE DAMAGE: ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING TREE CROWNS OR ROOT SYSTEMS SHALL BE REPAIRED
IMMEDIATELY BY AN APPROVED AND LICENSED ARBORIST OR TREE SURGEON.
NOTE TO BIDDERS:
THE ENTIRE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND RELATED COMPONENTS WILL BE
PURCHASED AND INSTALLED BY CITY INCLUDING THE WATER METER.
1
1"
1
1"
21 GPH
DF
LITTER/RECYCLE
RECEPTACLES
3" SLEEVE
1" SERVICE
TO DRINKING
FOUNTAIN
SEE IRRIGAT
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
SHEET L1.01
SHEET
JOB No.
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
BYREVISIONS
BL
JC
10/12/18
AS NOTED
15.010
OF SHEETS175'10'20'40'0'North SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentL1.02IRRIGATION PLAN1
1"
13
IRRIGATION NOTES
SYM DESCRIPTION
DRIP SYSTEM: HUNTER PLD-06-18 (18); IN-LINE PRESSURE COMPENSATING
LANDSCAPE DRIPLINE WITH BUILT-IN CHECK VALVE. 0.6 GPH EMITTERS AT 18.0"
O.C. DRIP LATERALS SPACED AT 18.0" APART WITH EMITTERS OFF-SET FOR
TRIANGULAR PATTERN. UV RESISTANT. FOR ROW OF SHRUBS ALONG SKYLINE
BLVD., INSTALL TWO ROWS WITH FOUR (4) EMITTERS PER SHRUB.
DRIP CONTROL VALVE KIT: HUNTER PCZ-101-40 WITH DC LATCHING SOLENOID 1"
SIZE, GLOBE CONFIGURATION WITH HY100 FILTER SYSTEM. PRESSURE
REGULATION AT 40 PSI. FLOW RANGE: 0.5 TO 15 GPM. 150 MESH STAINLESS
STEEL SCREEN.
BALL VALVE: BRASS SHUT-OFF VALVE, NIBCO T-580-A; INSTALL ON PRESSURE
SIDE OF ALL VALVES IN A SEPARATE, ROUND CARSON BOX WITH BOLT DOWN
LID.
EXISTING 1" WATER METER
BACKFLOW PREVENTER: FEBCO 825Y WITH WYE STRAINER, 1-1/2" SIZE. INSTALL
IN ENCLOSURE TO BE SELECTED BY CITY.
IRRIGATION CONTROLLER: RAINBIRD T-BOS II FOR COMMERCIAL
BATTERY-POWERED SYSTEMS. TBOS2CM4, 4-STATION CONTROL MODULE WITH
FIELD TRANSMITTER TBOS2FTUS. WATERPROOF CASE IS IP-68 RATED.
QUICK COUPLER: HUNTER HQ-44LRC-AW. YELLOW RUBBER LOCKING COVER,
RED BRASS AND STAINLESS STEEL, WITH 1" NPT INLET, 2-PIECE BODY. ACME
KEY WITH ANTI-ROTATION WINGS. LOCATE AS SHOWN ON PLAN
MAIN: SCHED. 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE, 1" SIZE, 18" MIN. COVER.
LATERAL LINE: SCHED. 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE, 1" SIZE, 12" MIN. COVER.
SLEEVING: SCHED. 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE, 3" SIZE. 12" MIN. COVER
VALVE #
VALVE SIZE
APPROX. GAL./MINUTE OR
APPROX. GAL./HOUR (5.6 GPM)
IRRIGATION NOTES
1.SPECIFICATIONS: SEE THE TECHNICAL SECTION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AND REQUIREMENTS.
2.WATER PRESSURE AND FLOW VERIFICATION: SYSTEM DESIGN IS BASED ON MIN. 50 PSI STATIC WATER
PRESSURE AND A MINIMUM OF 25 GPM AVAILABLE AT DISCHARGE OUTLET OF METER OR OTHER POINT OF
CONNECTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXISTING STATIC PRESSURE AND GPM (GALLONS PER
MINUTE FLOW) AND NOTIFY CITY REPRESENTATIVE IF SUCH DATA ADVERSELY EFFECTS THE OPERATION
OF THE SYSTEM. SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH ANY
IRRIGATION INSTALLATION.
3.UTILITIES: VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO TRENCHING. SEE "GENERAL
NOTES".
4.SCHEMATIC CLARITY: SYSTEM FEATURES ARE SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY. INSTALL
ALL PIPING AND VALVES IN COMMON TRENCHES WHERE FEASIBLE AND IN PLANTING AREAS WHENEVER
POSSIBLE. ALL VALVES SHALL BE LOCATED IN GROUND COVER OR SHRUB AREAS INSTEAD OF LAWN
AREAS WHERE POSSIBLE.
5.CODES: IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL AND STATE CODES
AND ORDINANCES AND THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY
TELEPHONE AND IN WRITING IF ANY CONFLICTS OCCUR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
6.SLEEVES: CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SLEEVES TWICE THE DIAMETER OF ALL MAIN AND LATERALS
THAT OCCUR BENEATH PAVING, WALLS OR STRUCTURES. SLEEVES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE
NECESSARY DEPTHS PRIOR TO PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION. SLEEVES SHALL EXTEND 1'-0" FROM EDGE
OF PAVING INTO LAWN OR PLANTING, AND SHALL HAVE ENDS CLEARLY MARKED ABOVE GRADE.
7.QUICK COUPLER VALVES: SEE LEGEND AND DETAILS FOR TYPE.
TREE PROTECTION NOTES
1.FENCING REQUIREMENTS: TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE FENCED WITH TEMPORARY FENCING, SUCH AS
STEEL STAKES (MAX. 5'-0" ON CENTER) WITH WIRE OR PLASTIC MESH FABRIC (6X6 OPEN) OR SIMILAR
APPROPRIATE MATERIAL. FENCES SHALL BE INSTALLED A MINIMUM OF 2/3'S THE DISTANCE FROM THE
DRIP LINE AND SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4'-0" HIGH.
2.TRENCHING: ALL TRENCHING WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE BY HAND
WITH CARE TAKEN NOT TO DAMAGE ROOTS OVER 2" DIAMETER.
3.PRUNING: TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE PRUNED TO "THIN OUT" LIMBS TO MINIMIZE LIMB BREAKS AND WIND
DAMAGE AND TO REMOVE DEAD OR DISEASED WOOD. PRUNING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A LICENSED
TREE ARBORIST OR PROFESSIONAL SPECIFICALLY TRAINED IN PLANT PRUNING.
4.CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS: NO CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CARRIED ON WITHIN THE DRIP
LINE AREA OF ANY TREE DESIGNATED TO BE SAVED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
5.GRADING OPERATIONS: TREES WHICH REQUIRE ANY DEGREE OF FILL AROUND THE NATURAL GRADE SHALL
BE GUARDED BY RECOGNIZED STANDARDS OF TREE PROTECTION AND DESIGN OF TREE WELLS.
6.STORAGE: THE AREA UNDER THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN. NO CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS OR CHEMICAL SOLVENTS SHALL BE STORED OR DISPOSED OF AROUND OR UNDER TREES.
7.TREE DAMAGE: ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING TREE CROWNS OR ROOT SYSTEMS SHALL BE REPAIRED
IMMEDIATELY BY AN APPROVED AND LICENSED ARBORIST OR TREE SURGEON.
NOTE TO BIDDERS:
THE ENTIRE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND RELATED COMPONENTS WILL BE
PURCHASED AND INSTALLED BY CITY INCLUDING THE WATER METER.
(N) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK
FENCE - SEE CIVIL DRWGS.
(E) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK
FENCE ALONG EAST P.L.
SEE ENLARGED PLANTING
PLAN L2.02
25'R
L3.01
A BENCHES W/ D.G.
LIMITS OF AREA
TO BE CLEARED
(2 AT THIS LOCATION)
(E) TREE
HET ARB160
SHEET
JOB No.
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
BYREVISIONS
BL
JC
10/12/18
AS NOTED
15.010
OF SHEETS17North15'30'60'120'0'SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentL2.01PLANTING PLAN14
(E) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK
FENCE ALONG EAST P.L.
TO REMAIN
DF
SEE PLANTIN
G
P
L
A
N
SHEET L2.01
MAH REP19
CEA HOR62
MAH REP35
HET ARB9
(N) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK
FENCE - SEE CIVIL DRWGS.
CIS HYB45
L
R
L3.01
LITTER & RECYCLING
RECEPTACLES
C
L3.01
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
(SEE L1.02 FOR POTABLE
WATER LINE)
D
(N) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK
FENCE - SEE CIVIL DRWGS.
SHEET
JOB No.
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
BYREVISIONS
BL
JC
10/12/18
AS NOTED
15.010
OF SHEETS175'10'20'40'0'North SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentL2.02PLANTING PLAN15
(LITTER)(RECYCLING)
SHEET
JOB No.
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
BYREVISIONS
BL
JC
10/12/18
AS NOTED
15.010
OF SHEETS17SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentL3.01CONSTRUCTION DETAILS16
BENCH WITH DECOMPOSED GRANITE PAD - PLAN VIEW
L3.01
A LITTER / RECYCLING BINS
L3.01
C
SCORE JOINT EXPANSION JOINT
PLAN VIEW
BENCH WITH DECOMPOSED GRANITE PAD - SECTION
L3.01
B
SECTION
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
L3.01
D
NOTE:
ALL OF THESE SITE AMENITIES SHALL BE PURCHASED
AND INSTALLED BY CITY OF BURLINGAME AND ARE
NOT A PART OF THIS BID.
HG
BA C
L3.02 L3.02 L3.02
L3.02L3.02
SHRUB PLANTING
TRENCHINGE
L3.02
DRIP CONTROL ZONE KIT
I
L3.02
J
L3.02
VALVE BOX INSTALLATION
IRRIGATION CONTROLLER (PEDESTAL MOUNT)BACKFLOW PREVENTER
DRIP EMITTERS - PLAN VIEW
D
L3.02
QUICK COUPLING VALVE
F BALL VALVE
L3.02
SHEET
JOB No.
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED
DRAWN
BYREVISIONS
BL
JC
10/12/18
AS NOTED
15.010
OF SHEETS17SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentL3.02CONSTRUCTION DETAILS17
NOTE:
ALL FINE GRADING, SOIL PREPARATION, IRRIGATION,
PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE WILL BE
PURCHASED AND INSTALLED BY CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND ARE NOT A PART OF THIS BID.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8d
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Karen Hager, Management Analyst – (650) 558-7317
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to: Procure
Landscape Structures Playground Equipment and Installation; Procure
Robertson Industries, Inc. TotTurf Surfacing and Installation; and Execute
an Agreement with Suarez and Muñoz Construction, Inc. for the Washington
Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area, City Project Number 85670
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to: procure
Robertson Industries, Inc. TotTurf playground surfacing and installation at a cost of $158,000
through National IPA; procure the playground equipment and installation from Landscape
Structures at a cost of $498,262.82 through CMAS; and execute an agreement with Suarez and
Muñoz Construction, Inc. (Exhibit A) for the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court and Picnic
Area, City Project No. 85670 in the amount of $1,364,120.
BACKGROUND
On November 5, 2018, the City Council approved the phasing plan for the Burlingame Community
Center Project. Information about the Community Center, the process, and public outreach can be
found at www.burlingame.org/communitycenter.
With the goal of providing uninterrupted community access to the Washington Park playground
during the construction of the new Burlingame Community Center, Landscape Architect RHAA and
Group 4 Architecture, Inc. prepared the early site package that includes the design and construction
of the relocated children’s playground, sports court, and picnic area as phase one of the Community
Center Project.
Washington Park Playground Survey & Committee
To commence the playground redesign process, staff sent a letter and playground equipment
priority survey in August 2018 to the Washington Park neighbors informing them of the upcoming
Community Center project and the relocation and redesign of the Washington Park playground.
Additionally, the letter invited neighbors to submit an application to serve on the Washington Park
Playground Committee. Staff received six applications and chose three neighbors for the
committee.
Contract with Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. for Washington Park Playground, Sports Court & Picnic Area May 20, 2019
2
The Washington Park Playground Committee included the following members:
Ian Milne – Parks & Recreation Commission Chair
Christine Ardito – Parks & Recreation Commissioner
Melissa Matthews – Washington Park neighbor with small children
Daniel Devoy – Washington Park neighbor with small children
Jodie Keegan – Washington Park neighbor with a small child and current Board Member
of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Foundation
Richard Holtz – Parks Supervisor, Certified Playground Safety Inspector
Kevin Sanchez – Recreation Coordinator
James Ingels – RHAA, Landscape Architect
Maggie Luo – RHAA, Landscape Architect
Karen Hager – Management Analyst, Project Manager
The Committee convened on two occasions. The first meeting took place on October 1, 2018 and
included reviewing the survey results, discussing the timeline of the project, reviewing the site plan,
and identifying needs to provide direction to the playground vendors to submit proposals.
The subsequent meeting on November 13, 2018 included selecting Landscape Structures as the
playground vendor and preferred playground design based on the survey. The Committee then
approved final refinements to the playground design via email, and the Parks and Recreation
Commission approved the playground design (Exhibit B) at their meeting on January 17, 2018.
DISCUSSION
The City Council approved the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area Project
as a Capital Improvement Project in the FY 2018-19 mid-year budget adjustment. The project
description is as follows:
Basic Project: Contractor shall provide all labor and materials required for project construction
including but not limited to: construction preparation, temporary fencing and erosion control,
demolition and clearing of areas within the project limits, grading and drainage, wet and dry utility
work, tree protection and tree removal, pedestrian asphalt paving, pedestrian concrete, curbs,
stabilized decomposed granite, bioretention areas, landscape, irrigation, site lighting, concrete seat
walls, chain link and decorative fences, multi-use sports court, site furnishings installation, heritage
tree installation, and other miscellaneous items. Existing bleachers/benches adjacent to the
existing baseball field and picnic barbeque grills shall be salvaged and re-installed. Refer to
Package 1: Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area documents for detail on
the full scope of work.
Procurement and/or Work by Others: The City will be responsible for procuring and the
contractor will be responsible for installing a number of site furnishings including but not limited to:
benches, picnic tables, trash and recycling bins, bicycle racks, and a heritage tree. The City will
procure play equipment and playground synthetic surface separately and will arrange for another
contractor to install them during the normal course and schedule of construction.
Contract with Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. for Washington Park Playground, Sports Court & Picnic Area May 20, 2019
3
The project was advertised for bids on March 29, 2019. Bidders were instructed to bid a lump sum
proposal for all the labor and materials required to complete the project.
On April 23, 2019, the City received two bids (Exhibit C), with Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc.
submitting the lowest responsive bid. The bid results were as follows:
Company Name Bid
1. Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. $1,364,120
2. Interstate Grading & Paving $1,392,004
The City will purchase the playground turf surfacing and installation directly from Robertson
Industries through National IPA for $158,000 (Exhibit D), and the playground equipment and
installation from Landscape Structures through CMAS for $498,262.82 (Exhibit E). Both CMAS and
National IPA are purchasing cooperatives under the California Department of General Services
Procurement Division for California local governmental agencies. They are receptacles for Federal
General Services Administration previously bid and awarded contracts. National IPA and CMAS
then establish an independent California contract for the same products and services at equal or
lower prices.
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated project expenditures:
COMPONENT DETAILS TOTALS
Hard Costs
Package 1 $1,568,738
Construction Contract $1,364,120
Contingency $204,618
Ross Recreation Playground Equipment $498,263
Robertson Tot Turf $158,000
City Procured/Contractor Installed Items
Picnic Tables $30,800
6'-0" Table $15,750
6'-0" Table Accessible $3,550
12'-0" Table $11,500
Park Grill $5,200
Single $3,450
Double $1,750
Site Furnishings $62,500
Trash and Recycle Bins $7,000
Bike Racks $3,150
Park Benches
6' $10,200
8' $18,750
Drinking Fountains $23,400
Contract with Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. for Washington Park Playground, Sports Court & Picnic Area May 20, 2019
4
Subtotal $98,500
Delivery & Installation 15% $14,775
Tax 9% $8,865
Procurement Contingency 15% $14,775
Subtotal- Hard Cost $2,361,916
Soft Costs
A/E Fees - specific to Package 1 $191,835
Construction Manager $95,750
Inspection and Testing $30,000
Utility Company Connections Services & Fees $5,000
Miscellaneous Fees $15,499
Subtotal- Soft Cost $338,084
PACKAGE 1 MASTER BUDGET
$2,700,000
There are sufficient funds available in the Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Program to cover
the cost of the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area Project
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Agreement with Suarez and Muñoz Construction, Inc.
• Playground Design
• Bid Summary
• Purchasing Agreement for Robertson Industries, Inc. TotTurf Surfacing and Installation
• Purchasing Agreement for Landscape Structures, Playground Equipment and Installation
RESOLUTION NO.________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO: PROCURE LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION; PROCURE ROBERTSON
INDUSTRIES, INC. TOTTURF SURFACING AND INSTALLATION; AND EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH SUAREZ AND MUÑOZ CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE
WASHINGTON PARK PLAYGROUND, SPORTS COURT, AND PICNIC AREA PROJECT
NO 85670
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Capital Improvement Program has identified the
Washington Park Playground, Sports Court and Small Picnic Area as needing replacement due to the
construction of a new Community Center; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize
construction of the public work and improvements provided for in the attached contract; and
WHEREAS, a notice was duly published on March 29, 2019 for bids for the contract for the
Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area Project; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2019, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk
and representatives of the Parks & Recreation Department; and
WHEREAS, Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive and
responsible bid for the project in the amount of $1,364,120; and
WHEREAS, the Ross Recreation playground equipment and installation can be purchased
through CMAS, a government purchasing contract, for $498,262.82; and
WHEREAS, the Robertson Industries TotTurf playground surfacing and installation can be
purchased thorough National IPA, a government purchasing contract, for $158,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The facts in the recitals above and in the staff report are true and correct.
2. The Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted.
3. The bid from Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,364,120 is the
lowest responsive and responsible bid for said project and is accepted.
4. The City shall enter into a contract with the successful bidder, Suarez & Muñoz
Construction, Inc. for the performance of the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court,
and Picnic Area Project, Project No. 85670, and the City Manager is authorized on behalf
of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance
bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor.
__________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of May, 2019,
and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
City Project: 85670 Date: 4/23/19
General Signatures Page #1Sub-Contractors #2Experience Qualifications #3Non-Collusion #4Public Code Statement #5Public Contract Code Questionnaire #6Public Contract Code 10232 Statement #7Bid Form #8Required Documents Page #9Proposal Security #10 Addendum Acknowledgement1 x x x x x x x x x x x
2 x x x x x x x x x x x
3
4
5
6
Bid Summary Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department
Washington Park Playground, Sports Court and Picnic Area Renovation
Time: 3:00pm
Bid Amount
1,364,120.00$
1,392,004.00$
Company
Suarez & Munoz
Interstate Grading & Paving
PROPOSAL # 18-26100
Page 1 of 2
Robertson Industries, Inc.
2414 West 12th Street, Suite 5
Tempe, AZ 85281
(800) 858-0519
FAX: (602) 340-0402
www.totturf.com
Date Issued: May 8, 2019
Project Name:Washington Park, Burlingame ca
Sales RepresentativeAddress:850 Burlingame Ave Burlingame Ca 94010 Name:Kevin Cox
Contact:Karen Hager Phone:(650) 558-7317 Phone:(408) 390-0671 Fax: (602) 340-0402
Email:khager@burlingame.org Email:kevin.cox@totturf.com
PRICE EXPIRES: 08/06/2019
PRODUCT NAME DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
TotTurf Synthetic Turf see page 2 scope notes 1 $158,000.00 $158,000.00
GRAND TOTAL $158,000.00
CONTRACT TYPE: Regular WAGE TYPE: State Prevailing UNION:CA GRANT:
DETAILED SCOPE:
Robertson to supply and install the following material:
sq. ft. 7769
12' CFH SBR Cushion Layer- Attenuation 5" SBR
PL 929 Pro lay Elite
Enviro Fill
300 L. Ft of 2x4 Syn Nailer board
Scheduling/Site Contact:Karen Hager ESTIMATED INSTALL DATE:
Phone:(650) 558-7317 Email:khager@burlingame.org 4/19
INITIALS
PROPOSAL # 18-26100
Page 2 of 2
TERMS & CONDITIONS:
1.Quote is based on the information provided here within and is subject to change based on final installation unless otherwise
indicated in writing. Any changes or additions to this proposal will affect pricing.
2.Changes to the proposed scope not agreed to here within or separately in writing may result in additional charges (change
order). Work cannot commence until Change Order(s) are fully executed.
3.ANY additional site work not included here within, including sub base, is the responsibility of the owner.
4.Job site access must be at a maximum of 25' for trucks and mixer, with no stairs. Irrigation, sprinkler, and/or water systems
must be shut off 24 hours before install and remain off until 24 hours after the installation has completed.
5.Charges for downtime/stand-by may be assessed in the event that installation is delayed due to the site not being ready as
scheduled or if installation is interrupted for reasons other than those related to weather or general public emergencies.
6.Security during install and upon completion is the responsibility of the owner, unless specified otherwise in Project Scope.
7.Excess material at the job site upon completion is property of Robertson Industries, Inc., unless otherwise noted here within.
8.Installations scheduled after 90 days of proposal acceptance may be subject to price adjustments.
9.Scheduling and crew deployment is subject to local weather conditions.
10.Warranty will NOT be issued unless "Completion Sheet" is signed.
11.All projects over $2,500.00 will be issued a preliminary lien.
PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE:
I agree to the scope and details as provided for the abovementioned proposal as well as the terms outlined in this agreement. I
am duly authorized approve and accept this proposal as stated.
☐ CONTRACT to follow ☐ PURCHASE ORDER to follow
PAYMENT TERMS:
Payment may be made via Check, Cash, or Credit Card. Customers requesting a line of credit must submit a credit
application and/or a 50% deposit. Credit applications can be obtained from your sales representative.
Please attach a copy of your TAX EXEMPT CERTIFICATE if you or your company is claiming tax exemption.
TOTAL PURCHASE AMOUNT: $158,000.00
SIGNATURE:DATE:
Printed Name:Title:
Company Name:
Address:
BILLING Contact Name:
BILLING Email:Phone:Fax:
Issue all POs, Contracts, and payments to ROBERTSON INDUSTRIES, INC.
Send ALL completed forms back to your Sales Representative:
Kevin Cox: kevin.cox@totturf.com or Fax: (602) 340-0402
CLICK HERE TO PAY WITH A CREDIT CARD: …PAY NOW!...
Robertson Industries, Inc: 2414 West 12th Street, Suite 5, Tempe, AZ 85281 ~ (800) 858-0519, FX: (602) 340-0402
AZ: ROC091920, CLASS L-05 ~ CA: 667261, CLASS C/61 D/12 ~ FL: CGC 038554 ~ NV: 42331, CLASS C25 C40
CALIFORNIA PWC REGISTRATION NUMBER: 1000002700 (DIR#)
The PlayCore Surfacing Division Includes: Robertson Recreational Surfacing (Robertson Industries, Inc.),
Sports Surface Specialties, Rubber Designs and American Recycling Center
Check with Sales RepEst Lead Time
5/31/2019Quote Exp Date
2/12/2019Quote Date
Burlingame Ave & Carolan Drive
Burlingame, California 94010
United States
Ship To
Washington ParkShip To Name
ALL PURCHASE ORDERS, CONTRACTS, AND
CHECKS TO BE MADE OUT TO:
LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC.
601 7TH STREET SOUTH
DELANO, MN 55328 U.S.A.
763-972-3391 800-328-0035
Fax: 763-972-3185
Washington Park: Nature Play DesignQuote Name
00027560Quote Number
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, California 94010
United States
Bill To
Burlingame, City ofBill To Name
CMAS Contract # 4-10-78-0057A
CMAS Proposal
$498,262.82
alexh@rossrec.com
707.538.3800
00027560
Ross Recreation Equipment, Inc.
Alex Hailey
Thank you for the opportunity to quote your
upcoming project. PLEASE NOTE: quote does
not include installation, offload, payment and
performance bonds, engineering calculations,
security, storage, permits, inspection, or safety
surfacing unless otherwise noted.
Deposits may be required before order can be
placed depending on customer credit terms.
Your purchase is subject to the terms and
conditions of this quote, approval of this quote
agrees to those terms.
Signature _________________________________
Name ____________________________________
Title _____________________________________
Date _____________________________________
SIGNATURE BELOW ACCEPTING THIS PROPOSAL WILL
CONSTITUTE A PURCHASE ORDER ONLY UPON APPROVAL BY
LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC. CUSTOMER RECEIPT OF AN
ORDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CONSTITUTES SUCH
APPROVAL.
$498,262.82Total
$29,356.00Freight Amount
$120,095.00Labor Total
$28,065.32Tax Amount
$320,746.50Materials Amount
Quantity Product Product Description Sales Price Total Price
1.00 CMAS LSI
Discount CMAS LSI Discount CMAS Contract # 4-10-78-0057A ($14,255.40)($14,255.40)
1.00 CMAS Ross
Discount CMAS Ross Discount ($21,383.10)($21,383.10)
1.00 Installation Installation of Landscape Structures design #1132157-01-03 by a manufacturer certified
installer.$118,795.00 $118,795.00
1.00 Installation Installation of LSI Train into new play area (all existing hardware and footing posts to be
reused). *Does not include removal from existing playground.$1,300.00 $1,300.00
1.00 PlayBooster,
5-12 Landscape Structures PlayBooster Design #1132157-01-03 $356,385.00 $356,385.00
Notes to Customer
Check with Sales RepEst Lead Time
5/31/2019Quote Exp Date
2/12/2019Quote Date
Burlingame Ave & Carolan Drive
Burlingame, California 94010
United States
Ship To
Washington ParkShip To Name
ALL PURCHASE ORDERS, CONTRACTS, AND
CHECKS TO BE MADE OUT TO:
LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC.
601 7TH STREET SOUTH
DELANO, MN 55328 U.S.A.
763-972-3391 800-328-0035
Fax: 763-972-3185
Washington Park: Nature Play DesignQuote Name
00027560Quote Number
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, California 94010
United States
Bill To
Burlingame, City ofBill To Name
CMAS Contract # 4-10-78-0057A
CMAS Proposal
$498,262.82
alexh@rossrec.com
707.538.3800
00027560
Ross Recreation Equipment, Inc.
Alex Hailey
If ordering materials after the expiration date,
please add 3-6% annually to materials for
anticipated price increase. If this is for a BID, it is
the responsibility of the General Contractor
bidding to adjust their bid to accommodate
anticipated pricing. Please also note that sales
tax will be based on the current rate at the time
of shipping, not order date. Customer will be
expected to cover these taxes.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8e
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks & Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Murray Field Synthetic Turf Project,
City Project No. 84130
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Murray Field
Synthetic Turf Project, City Project No. 84130, in the amount of $1,114,846.
BACKGROUND
On January 16, 2018, the City Council awarded the base bid for the site work, including demolition
of the existing turf, irrigation, and hardscape, to Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. (IGP) at a cost
of $1,061,000.
The procurement and installation of Field Turf synthetic turf, Purefill, and a Brock pad, along with a
groomer and sweeper and an eight-year maintenance plan through CMAS, a purchasing
cooperative under the California Department of General Services Procurement Division, was
purchased under another contract at a cost of $785,371.80.
DISCUSSION
The project construction has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and
specifications. The final construction cost was $1,114,846. This includes two change orders
totaling $53,846.
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated final project construction expenditures:
Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. $1,114,846.00
Landscape Architect/Consultants $206,957.38
Field Turf Products $785,371.80
Construction Manager $74,635.00
Legal Ads/Permit Fees $2,605.00
Total Expenses $2,184,415.18
Accepting the Murray Field Synthetic Turf Project, City Project No. 84130 May 20, 2019
2
There are adequate funds available in the Capital Improvement budget to cover the estimated final
costs.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Final Progress Payment
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING
IMPROVEMENTS – (MURRAY FIELD PROJECT) BY INTERSTATE GRADING AND
PAVING, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 84130
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, which finds, orders,
and determines as follows:
1. The Director of Parks and Recreation of the City has certified the work done by Interstate
Grading and Paving, Inc. under the terms of its contract with the City dated February 6, 2018, has been
completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 84130
3. Said work is accepted.
__________________________
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 20th day of May, 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: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Term Sheet with the San Mateo Union
High School District for the Burlingame Aquatic Center
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving a term sheet with the San Mateo
Union High School District (SMUHSD, the District) for the Burlingame Aquatic Center construction
project.
BACKGROUND
The Burlingame Aquatic Center on the Burlingame High School campus includes a 50-meter by 25
yard competition pool, a smaller, warm pool for lessons, and a pool house that includes locker
rooms, offices, and pool equipment. The Center was built in the late 1990s using funds from an
anonymous donor ($1,210,000), the City ($1,166,695), and the District ($300,000).
Last summer, the District undertook a pool renovation project that included removal and
replacement of the deck, removal and replacement of the pool finish, and the replacement of the
interior lights with LED fixtures. The entire project, which was to begin June 1 and be completed
by September 21, had a projected budget of $1,902,659, with the City’s share $951,330, or 50% of
the total. The actual demolition began July 2.
Various problems related to corrosion of the rebar and improper concrete coverage, among other
challenges, arose throughout July, August, and September, and work on the pool ceased. In
October, District staff recommended to their Board that the District replace the pool rather than
repair it given the many problems uncovered. At their October 25 meeting, the District Board
approved proceeding with a replacement of the pool, rather than continuing with the repair of the
pool.
DISCUSSION
The City Council has held a number of discussions about the pool since the problems were
discovered, including study sessions on November 19, 2018, January 7, 2019, and March 18, 2019
(staff report attached), and a Council meeting on October 15, 2018. The discussions primarily
focused on how much the City would contribute to the reconstruction of the pool.
Approval of a Term Sheet for the Pool Construction Project May 20, 2019
2
City staff and District staff, with the assistance of a Council subcommittee (Mayor Colson and
Councilmember Brownrigg) and District Board subcommittee (President Land and Clerk of the
Board Griffin) have since developed a Term Sheet that lays out the City’s financial contribution to
the pool construction project and other items.
The District Board approved the Term Sheet at their meeting on May 9, 2019, and again on May
15. (Due to a clerical error, an earlier, incomplete version of the Term Sheet was presented to the
Board on May 9.)
Should the City Council approve the attached Term Sheet, then the District’s legal counsel will work
with the City Attorney to craft an amended and restated agreement between the City and the District
for the use, operation, and maintenance of the Burlingame Aquatic Center.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the Term Sheet does not obligate the City to commit any additional funds to this project.
(The City has already paid $605,799.99 to date.) Should the Council approve the amended and
restated agreement with terms similar to those in the Term Sheet, then the City’s total contribution
will be $2.7 million toward the reconstruction of the pool. The City would also like to explore
improving the locker rooms; additional funds in a yet-to-be-determined amount will be required
should the City and the District proceed with such improvements.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Term Sheet
• March 18, 2019 Study Session Staff Report
City of Burlingame/SMUHSD Aquatic Center, Term Sheet
May 15, 2019
1) Capital Expenditures and Replacement/Repair Program
a) The City shall contribute $2.7 million as its total contribution to the Burlingame
High School Aquatic Center reconstruction. This $2.7 million shall be paid out
$1,269,203 (less anything paid so far toward the repair project) upon billing in
2019 with the balance of the payment paid after the City completes its new
Community Center, but in any event no later than June 2023.
b) The City’s contribution of $2.7 million shall be divided such that $1,000,000 is for
the cost of the deck, $250,000 is for the mechanical room cost, and $1,450,000
is for the new pool shell. (Note - the reason for this division is that it corresponds
to roughly the same proportion of the cost of the components of the
reconstruction as the City is contributing, in total)
c) The City will not be obligated to contribute any additional funds beyond those
agreed to here for the deck or the shell during the amortization period as
outlined, except that in the case of an earthquake, catastrophic flood, or similar
disaster or act of god, the parties may agree to additional apportionment of
related repair costs.
2) City and District Allocation of Maintenance and Operating Expenses
a) The City’s share of maintenance and operations expenses will be changed from
78% prior to the pool shutdown in 2018 to 50%. The change will be implemented
the week after the Notice of Completion is filed for the new BHS replacement
project and will remain in place for one full year. After the one-year period, the
City and District staff will work together to determine a fair and equitable formula
to calculate the District’s and City’s share of expenses for all pool hours. The
formula will be based on the hours each party uses the facility, the hours of
shared time, and the hours of unused time with the formula to be documented in
the contract.
3) Term of Agreement
a) The expiration of the Amended and Restated Agreement will be extended from
January 1, 2026 to January 1, 2040. After January 1, 2035 either party can give
the other party five years notice that it does not intend to negotiate a continuation
of the agreement. If SMUHSD ends the agreement, it must reimburse the City
for the City’s unamortized contribution to the cost of the components of the BHS
Pool replacement. If the City of Burlingame ends the agreement, it shall be
eligible for reimbursement on the components it has paid for as identified in 1)
above. The schedule for amortization of the components shall be based on the
following expected lifespans:
Mechanical Room 16 years
Pool Shell 50 years
Pool Deck 27.5 years
4) Future Potential Improvements to the Aquatic Center
a) In order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other current
standards, the City or the School District may wish to make further improvements
to the Aquatic Center or its environs. If so, both parties commit to working with
the other with the goal of improving the facility for all users.
5) Annual Pool Maintenance Closure; City Use of District Pools (Similar to existing
agreement)
a) The possible maintenance windows are November 15-December 15, January 15-
January 31, and the week of the SMUHSD spring break. District and City would
agree to 1 or 2 closures maximum per year, unless an emergency repair or major
construction is scheduled.
b) District to provide 90-day notice of closure period except in emergency situations.
c) District to use ‘best efforts” to minimize closure period
d) If available, District to provide City use of SMHS, Mills or CHS pools, minimum 8
lanes, when BHS pool is anticipated to be closed longer than one week. District
to make locker rooms available to BAC if possible.
e) The City to pay labor costs at alternate facility during BHS closure.
f) The City to pay 50% of standard facility use fees (non-profit rate) at alternate
pools during BHS pool closure.
g) City will not pay for expenses at BHS (excluding those associated with projects
undertaken during closure) while using alternate facility.
6) Usage Allocation – Note that this information is from previous agreement and will be
reviewed and revised no later than two months before BHS pool renews operation
a) District use (for illustrative purposes based on usage before pool reconstruction)
i) Monday to Friday 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.: up to 10
adjoining swimming lanes (no buffer lane)
ii) Monday to Friday 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. as needed: up to 10 adjoining lanes
(no buffer lane). Entire pool up to three times per year for special school
events, e.g., Senior Day. Full-day use will begin no earlier than 8 a.m.
iii) PE Units [RESERVED] require exclusive use of pool; times TBD
iv) Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. during water polo season: up to 10 adjoining
lanes (no buffer lane)
v) Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. during swimming season: up to 10 adjoining
lanes (no buffer lane)
vi) Interscholastic competition scheduling as needed. Exclusive use of pool for
duration of contest required. District to provide notice of competitions as soon
as possible.
b) City use (this shall be adjusted as BAC and the city decide on usage)
i) Monday to Friday 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.: up to 10
adjoining lanes (no buffer lane)
ii) Monday to Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.: all lanes unless District requests
entire use (see 6aii above); if District requests use, then up to 10 adjoining
lanes (no buffer lane)
iii) Monday to Friday 7:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. all lanes
iv) Saturday 5:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.: all lanes
v) Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. during swimming season and 9:00 a.m. to
1:00 p.m. during water polo season: up to 10 adjoining lanes (no buffer lane)
vi) Saturday 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. all lanes
vii) Sunday 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. all lanes
viii) Scheduling of BAC swim meets or water polo tournaments outside the three
traditional events in February, June and October must be mutually agreed
upon by City and District.
ix) Usage allocation shall be discussed and reviewed at annual meetings.
7) Liability language will be incorporated as what was in the previous Amended and
Restated Agreement.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: STUDY
MEETING DATE: March 18, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: March 18, 2019
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Subject: Update on Negotiations Regarding Burlingame Aquatic Center Construction
Project
RECOMMENDATION
Receive an update on the negotiations between the City and the San Mateo Union High School
District (SMUHSD) regarding the Burlingame Aquatic Center construction project.
BACKGROUND
In November 1997, the City and the San Mateo Union High School District (the District) entered
into an agreement to jointly fund the construction and ongoing repair, improvements, and
operations of a new 25-yard pool at Burlingame High School. The agreement included terms
regarding scheduling of the facility, maintenance, record keeping, and the distribution of costs. In
August 1999, after an anonymous donor agreed to provide funding to upgrade the 25-yard pool
facility into a 50-meter pool, the City and the District approved a first amendment to the original
agreement. The amended agreement expanded the hours that the facility (the Burlingame Aquatic
Center) could be open and made various other changes. The total project cost $2,676,695, with
the anonymous donor paying $1,210,000, the City paying $1,166,695, and the District paying
$300,000.
Between the time the pool opened (2000) and 2011, the City operated the community programs at
the pool, including recreational swimming, lap swimming, swim lessons, and fitness classes, and
managed the scheduling. In 2011, the City contracted with the Burlingame Aquatic Club (BAC) to
operate these programs on the City’s behalf. BAC was already managing competitive programs in
adult and youth swimming and water polo at the pool.
DISCUSSION
In 2016, the City and the District approved a new pool agreement that extends the term by three
years, to January 1, 2026, and covers how maintenance and operating expenses are split (the City
pays 78%, while the District pays 22%), and how capital expenses are split (50-50 basis). The new
agreement also includes language related to when the City has exclusive use of the pool and when
the pool is to be shared with the District, and when the pool can be closed for annual maintenance
and where BAC is to be relocated during closure periods. The new agreement includes as an
exhibit a 2015 District-commissioned Aquatic Design Group facility audit of the aquatic center. The
Update on Negotiations with SMUHSD for Pool Construction Project March 18, 2019
2
intent of the audit was to help the City and District jointly develop a capital replacement program.
Among the items included in the five-year timeframe were removal and replacement of the pool
deck and drainage and removal and replacement of the pool finish in the competition pool.
Last year, the District undertook the renovation of the aquatic center; the project included removal
and replacement of the deck, removal and replacement of the pool finish, and the replacement of
the interior lights with LED fixtures. The entire project, which was to begin June 1 and be completed
by September 21, had a projected budget of $1,902,659, with the City’s share $951,330. (The City
originally budgeted $600,000 for its share of the project, prior to the bidding and approval of the
construction contract.) Due to a variety of factors, including the need to re-bid the project and
delays getting approvals from the Department of the State Architect, which approves school
construction projects, demolition of the deck actually began on July 2.
In July, District staff notified City staff that the pool shell contained problems related to rebar and
waterproofing, and that there were additional problems with the light fixtures and electrical work.
The cost to make the repairs to the electrical exceeded the Public Contract Code limits that the
District must follow, and the repair work needed to be formally bid, delaying any progress on the
pool.
Throughout August, the contractor uncovered additional problems with corrosion of the rebar at
various locations, such as the lights, stairs, and floor inlets, and improper concrete coverage in
many areas. (Per State Code, concrete coverage should extend at least three inches between the
soil and the rebar to maintain structural integrity and at least three inches between the rebar and
the pool shell to prevent water intrusion and subsequent corrosion. The current coverage is about
one each on either side.) In early September, the District requested that its pool engineer produce
an existing conditions report that highlighted the various challenges with the pool. The report,
completed later in September, concluded that the pool shell is compromised and should be
replaced, rather than repaired.
City staff and District staff met on September 28 to discuss options for moving forward, including
repair of the pool, at an estimated cost of $2,538,406 (with the City’s share 50%, or $1,269,203),
or replacement. At that time, City staff was under the impression that the estimated cost of
replacement was $4,988,452. At the District’s Board meeting of October 11, the District staff
recommended that the District pursue the replacement option given the many uncertainties
associated with the repair option. In particular, the staff and the District’s engineers and consultants
are concerned that there will be additional maintenance costs and significant pool downtime as the
pool shell steel continues to erode, and the new plaster dislodges. In addition, the engineers and
consultants believe that the pool will need to be replaced in 10-15 years, at an estimated cost of
$11.9 million in ten years, or $19.2 million in 15 years. This cost will be on top of the $2.54 millio n
spent now to bring the pool back online. Under the replacement option, in contrast, the consultants
and engineers believe that the life of the pool shell will be extended to 50 years, and the new shell
will require less maintenance than the repaired shell.
The District Board did not make a decision at the October 11 Board meeting and, instead, asked
staff to come back with additional information. At the October 25 Board meeting, the District Board
approved proceeding with the New Pool Project and hiring an architect.
Update on Negotiations with SMUHSD for Pool Construction Project March 18, 2019
3
In November, the City Manager met with the Council’s pool subcommittee (then-Mayor Brownrigg
and then-Vice Mayor Colson) to discuss the City’s proposed terms for a new agreement, and the
City Council discussed the proposed terms at a study session on November 19. The City proposed
contributing $2.5 million toward the $4,988,452 cost, with $1 million paid as bills come due, and
$1.5 million paid in the future, $150,000 per year for ten years. The City also proposed a long-term
lease, and a 50-50 split on operating expenditures for the first three years, followed by a re-
evaluation of the split based on actual BAC usage as it will take some time for BAC to rebuild its
programs. The City also wanted an opportunity to evaluate how the locker room building can be
rebuilt to improve the locker rooms and make space to accommodate transgender pool users and
employees.
On December 13, the SMUHSD Board met to receive an update on the pool and discuss the City’s
proposal. Just prior to the District’s Board meeting, as the City Manager and the School
Superintendent were discussing the City’s proposal and the Superintendent’s upcoming
presentation to his Board, the Superintendent informed the City Manager that the estimated cost
of the pool reconstruction project was not $4,988,452, which was the figure described as “Total
Project Cost” on an October District slide, but $6,430,108. Apparently, the Total Project Cost figure
did not include the estimates of the costs to date ($851,655), or the contract termination fee
($108,000). The other cost not included in the Total Project Cost figure was $482,001 for
mechanical room upgrades. The cost has continued to change since October; the estimate
presented to the District Board in February was just under $6.5 million.
At the December 13 Board meeting, which then-Mayor Brownrigg, the City Manager, and the Parks
and Recreation Director attended, the District Board rejected the City’s earlier offer but did not
come to a consensus on what they expected the City to contribute.
In early February, Mayor Colson, Councilmember Brownrigg, the City Manager, and the Parks and
Recreation Director met with the School Superintendent and the School Board’s newly appointed
subcommittee (President Greg Land and Clerk of the Board Robert Griffin) to develop a new term
sheet. Unfortunately, the School Board did not agree to that term sheet at their meeti ng on
February 21, though they did eventually come to consensus on some of the items, including the
City’s new offer of a $2.7 million contribution toward the capital costs.
The City Manager and School Superintendent have continued to work on the term sheet since the
February Board meeting. The latest iteration, which has not yet been considered by the School
Board or the City Council, includes the following terms:
Payment: $2.7 million total, with $1,269,203 (less anything the City has paid so far toward the
repair project) paid in 2019. This amount is the City’s half of the Option 1 repair only costs. For
cash flow purposes, the remainder of the funds would be paid after the City completes the new
Community Center, but no later than June 2023. The Superintendent included the following
language in the draft term sheet: “The City’s contribution of $2.7 million shall be divided such that
$1,000,000 is for the cost of the deck , $250,000 is for the mechanical room cost, and $1,450,000
is for the new pool shell. Note - the reason for this division is that it corresponds to roughly the
Update on Negotiations with SMUHSD for Pool Construction Project March 18, 2019
4
same proportion of the cost of the components of the reconstruction as the city is contributing , in
total.”
Term: The term of the agreement will be extended from January 1, 2026 to January 1, 2040. After
January 1, 2035, either party can give the other party five years’ notice that it does not intend to
negotiate a continuation of the agreement. If SMUHSD ends the agreement, it must reimburse the
City for the City’s unamortized contribution to the cost of the components of the BHS Pool
replacement. If the City ends the agreement, it shall be eligible for reimbursement on the
components it has paid for as identified in payment section above. The schedule for amortization
of the components shall be based on the following expected lifespans:
Mechanical Room 16 years
Pool Shell 50 years
Pool Deck 27.5 years
Locker Room Facility: In order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other
current standards, the City or the School District may wish to make further improvements to the
Aquatic Center or its environs. If so, both parties commit to working with the other with the goal of
improving the facility for all users.
Operating Expenses: The City’s share of maintenance and operations expenses will be changed
from 78% prior to the pool shutdown in 2018 to 50%. The change will be implemented the week
after the Notice of Completion is filed for the new BHS replacement project and will remain in place
for one full year. After the one-year period, the pool usage formula will be reviewed and revised
based usage.
An nual Pool Maintenance Closure and Usage Allocation: The language in the existing
agreement would remain in place, allowing BAC exclusive use of the pool at certain times of the
day, and shared use in the early mornings, weekday afternoons, and Saturday mornings except
during high school competition times (water polo games and swim meets).
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost to the City is unknown at this time and will depend on the final negotiated agreement.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8g
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of Resolutions Awarding a Construction Contract to G. Bortolotto
& Company, Inc. for the 2019 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No.
85120, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cost Sharing
Agreement with the City of Millbrae for the Resurfacing of Sequoia Avenue
& Murchison Drive
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions as follows:
(1) Awarding a construction contract to G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. for the 2019 Street
Resurfacing Program in the amount of $1,728,424.40 and authorizing the City Manager to
execute the same; and
(2) Authorizing the City Manager to execute a cost sharing agreement with the City of Millbrae
for the resurfacing of Sequoia Avenue and Murchison Drive.
BACKGROUND
The 2019 Street Resurfacing Program consists of performing asphalt base-failure repair (digouts),
asphalt overlay, striping improvements, and minor concrete repairs for the following streets:
• 1600 and 1700 block of Albemarle Way;
• 1300 block of Alvarado Avenue;
• 1300 block of Carlos Avenue;
• 1300 block of Castillo Avenue;
• 10 block through 200 block of Channing Road;
• 10 block through 200 block of Clarendon Road;
• 1300 block of Columbus Avenue;
• Corbitt Drive;
• 1500 block through 2300 block of Davis Drive;
• 1300 block of Desoto Avenue;
• Hillside Circle;
• Maple Avenue;
• 1300 block of Montero Avenue;
Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. May 20, 2019
for the 2019 Street Resurfacing Program, and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute a Cost sharing Agreement with the City of Millbrae
2
• 1000 and 2000 block of Murchison Drive;
• 800 block through 1000 block of Park Avenue;
• 1800 block of Sequoia Avenue; and
• Winchester Place.
DISCUSSION
The project bids were opened on April 30, 2019. The City received four bid proposals, with bids
ranging from $1,728,424.40 to $1,999,376. G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. is the lowest responsible
bidder with its bid amount of $1,728,424.40, which is 8.2% higher than the engineer’s estimate of
$1,597,226. The contractor has met all the project requirements and has a past history of
successful construction work for the City of Burlingame as well as for other public agencies in the
Bay Area.
The project construction is scheduled to begin in July 2019, and is expected to be completed by
November 2019. Staff will send construction notices to the residents in the affected areas and
coordinate with the contractor to minimize the construction inconvenience to the residents as much
as possible.
Both Murchison Drive and Sequoia Avenue are shared streets between the City of Burlingame and
the City of Millbrae, and therefore the costs of resurfacing these streets will be shared equally
between the agencies. The preliminary estimated cost of the City of Millbrae share is approximately
$200,000. However, it is understood and agreed between the agencies that the final cost may vary
and will be determined upon completion of the project. The City of Millbrae will reimburse the City
of Burlingame one half of the total actual cost to complete the shared work.
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated Project Expenditures:
The following are the estimated project construction expenditures:
Construction $ 1,728,424.40
Construction Inspection and Testing $88,060.00
Public Outreach Services $17,000.00
Engineering Design & Administration
Contingencies (15%)
$47,493.00
$275,022.60
Total $2,156,000
FUNDING AVAILABILITY:
There are adequate funds available in the FY 2018-19 Street Resurfacing Program budget to
complete the project. The estimated reimbursement from the City of Millbrae for the work on
Murchison Drive and Sequoia Avenue is approximately $200,000.
Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. May 20, 2019
for the 2019 Street Resurfacing Program, and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute a Cost sharing Agreement with the City of Millbrae
3
Exhibits:
• Resolution for Construction Contract
• Resolution for Cost Sharing Agreement
• Construction Contract
• Cost Sharing Agreement
• Cost Sharing Estimate
• Bid Summary
• Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO G. BORTOLOTTO & CO., INC.
FOR THE 2019 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
CITY PROJECT NO. 85120
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2019, the City issued a notice inviting bid proposals for the 2019
Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No. 85120; and
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2019, all proposals were received and opened before the City
Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc., submitted the lowest responsible bid for the
project in the amount of $1,728,424.40.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that the Plans and
Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc., for said
project in the amount of $1,728,424.40 is accepted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a contract be entered into between the successful
bidder 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 20th day
of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________ _____
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COST SHARING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
MILLBRAE FOR RESURFACING MURCHISON DRIVE AND SEQUOIA AVENUE AS PART
OF THE 2019 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Murchison Drive and Sequoia Avenue have been identified as streets to
be resurfaced as part of the 2019 Street Resurfacing Program; and
WHEREAS, Murchison Drive and Sequoia Avenue straddle the border of Burlingame
and Millbrae, and are shared between both cities; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Burlingame and Millbrae desire to share the cost of resurfacing
Sequoia Avenue and Murchison Drive; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame will receive approximately $200,000 for one half of the
associated project costs from the City of Millbrae; and
WHEREAS, both Burlingame and Millbrae understand and agree that the estimate is not
final, and Millbrae will reimburse Burlingame one half of the total actual cost to complete the
shared work.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The City Manager is authorized to enter into and execute a cost-sharing agreement with the
City of Millbrae for the resurfacing of Sequoia Avenue and Murchison Drive.
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 20th
day of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
AGREEMENT - 1
AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
2019 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM
CITY PROJECT NO. 85120
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 G. Bortolotto & Company, 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 _______________, 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:
2019 STREET RESURFACING PROGAM, CITY PROJECT NO. 85120.
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 “2019 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No. 85120” attached as Exhibit C;
AGREEMENT - 2
the State of California Standard Specifications 2010, as promulgated by the 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 million, seven hundred and twenty-eight
thousand, four-hundred and twenty-four dollars and forty cents ($1,728,424.40), 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
AGREEMENT - 3
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
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:
Robert Bortolotto
G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc.
582 Bragato Road
San Carlos, CA 94070
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
AGREEMENT - 5
applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.
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:
G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc.
Page 1 of 3
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE CITY OF MILLBRAE
FOR SHARING THE COST OF RESURFACING MURCHISON DRIVE
AND SEQUOIA AVENUE
THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into this ___________ day of
____________, 2019, by and between the City of Burlingame, herein called "Burlingame," and
the City of Millbrae, herein called “Millbrae,” for sharing the cost of resurfacing Murchison
Drive and Sequoia Avenue.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, after a public competitive bid process, Burlingame will award a contract
for resurfacing its city streets for the 2018-2019 fiscal year;
WHEREAS, two of the streets designated for resurfacing are Murchison Drive and
Sequoia Avenue, which straddle the border of Burlingame and Millbrae; and
WHEREAS, Burlingame and Millbrae desire to share the cost of resurfacing Murchison
Drive and Sequoia Avenue in order to efficiently use public funds.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Duties of City of Burlingame
Burlingame shall issue a Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, Plans and Specifications, and
related documents for the 2018-2019 Street Resurfacing Program Resurfacing Project
(“Resurfacing Project”). The Resurfacing Project will include resurfacing work on Murchison
Drive and Sequoia Avenue, parts of which are located within the city limits of the City of
Millbrae (“Work”). For the Resurfacing Project, Burlingame shall issue bid documents, receive
sealed bids, and publicly open the bids. Burlingame, in its sole discretion, shall award the
Resurfacing Project to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The contractor to whom the
Resurfacing Project is awarded shall complete the Work in conformance with the plans and
specifications contained in the Resurfacing Project contract documents, Project No. 85120.
Nothing in this Agreement shall constrain Burlingame’s discretion regarding the issuance of the
bid documents and the award of the Resurfacing Project.
2. Duties of City of Millbrae
Millbrae shall pay to Burlingame $200,000.00, which is one-half of the estimated total
cost of the Work ($400,000.00), as evidenced by the units prices and quantities estimated in
Attachment A. However, Millbrae and Burlingame understand and hereby agree that this
estimate is not final, as the total costs will be unknown until the Work is completed. Millbrae
Page 2 of 3
shall reimburse Burlingame one half of the total actual cost to complete the Work, as specified in
the Resurfacing Project contract documents, Project No. 85120. The total amount shall be due
and payable to Burlingame within thirty (30) days of City of Millbrae’s receipt of written notice
of completion of the Work.
3. Project Manager.
The Project Managers are Kevin Okada for Burlingame and Andrew Yang for Millbrae.
4. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given
if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to:
To Burlingame: Kevin Okada, P.E.
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
To Millbrae: Andrew Yang, P.E.
City of Millbrae
621 Magnolia Avenue
Millbrae, CA 94030
or personally delivered to a party at such address or such other address as the party designates in
writing to the other party.
5. Indemnity.
The City of Burlingame shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Millbrae,
its officers, agents and employees from all claims, damages, suits or actions arising out of the
performance of this agreement to the extent such claims, suits or actions are due to the
negligence or willful misconduct of the City of Burlingame or its failure to perform obligations
required of it under this Agreement.
The City of Millbrae shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Burlingame,
its officers, agents and employees from all claims, damages, suits or actions arising out of the
performance of this agreement to the extent such claims, suits or actions are due to the
negligence or willful misconduct of the City of Millbrae or its failure to perform obligations
required of it under this Agreement.
6. Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by
and construed to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this
Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo.
Page 3 of 3
7. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this
Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Consultant.
8. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of
the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms, conditions, understandings or
agreements purporting to modify or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and
signed by the party to be bound, shall be binding on either party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Millbrae have executed this Agreement as of the
date indicated on page one (1).
City of Burlingame City of Millbrae
By By_______________________
Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager Tom Williams, City Manager
Approved as to form: Approved as to form:
__________________________ __________________________
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney Joan Cassman, City Attorney
ATTEST: ATTEST:
___________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk Elena Suazo, City Clerk
City of Millbrae and City of Burlingame Cost Sharing Estimate
MURCHISON AND SEQUOIA RESURFACING COST ESTIMATE
1 A.C. Digout Repair 135 TON $252.00 $34,020.00
2 A.C. Overlay 1330 TON $135.00 $179,550.00
3 Cold Plane 660 C. Y.$82.00 $54,120.00
4 Adjust Manholes 19 EACH $900.00 $17,100.00
5 Adjust Valves, Lampholes, Etc 47 EACH $600.00 $28,200.00
6 Type "D" & Blue (Pavement Markers)176 EACH $15.00 $2,640.00
7 4" Solid Line -- Thermoplastic 3350 L. F.$3.27 $10,954.50
8 8" Solid Line -- Thermoplastic 168 L. F.$8.25 $1,386.00
9 12" Solid Line -- Thermoplastic 2001 L. F.$5.55 $11,105.55
10 24" Solid Line -- Thermoplastic 460 L. F.$15.00 $6,900.00
11 Legends & Arrows -- Thermoplastic 659 S. F.$6.45 $4,250.55
12 Bike Proof Grates 5 Each $2,051.00 $10,255.00
Construction TOTAL:$360,481.60
Soft costs (12%)$12,607.20
Contingency (7.5%)$26,911.20
Total Cost $400,000.00
City of Millbrae (50%):$200,000.00
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8h
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Engineered
Soil Repairs Inc., for the Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project,
City Project No. 85090, 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 Engineered Soil Repairs Inc., for the Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project,
City Project No. 85090, in the amount of $290,723, and authorizing the City Manager to execute
the construction contract.
BACKGROUND
An 8-inch sanitary sewer main was constructed in 1980 along a sewer easement within Mills
Canyon. A paved access road approximately 0.4 miles in length and 10 feet in width was
constructed over the pipeline alignment. Due to recent heavy rainfall and subsurface soil
movement, three sections of the roadway have settled, resulting in damages to the road with
potential risk of further settlement, and damage to the sanitary sewer main. Any damage to the
sanitary sewer main could lead to sewage spills into the creek and natural environment that is
located at the bottom of the sewer access road embankment. The Mills Canyon Sewer Access
Road Repair project includes construction of three new soldier piles and lagging retaining walls
ranging from 50 feet to 100 feet long, consisting of steel beams embedded in cast-in-drilled-hole
(CIDH) caisson foundations with treated wood lagging and wall back-drains. Within the failed
roadway area, the project also includes removal of soil and replacement with new engineered fill
or controlled-low-strength-material, installation of surface drainage improvements, and installation
of new asphaltic concrete road and dikes.
DISCUSSION
The project was advertised for bids on March 19, 2019. The sealed bids were opened on April
30, 2019, and three bid proposals were received, with bids ranging from $290,723 to $427,020.
Engineered Soil Repairs Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of $290,723,
which is approximately $27,000, or about 9%, lower than the engineer’s estimate of $317,525.
Staff has reviewed the bid proposal from Engineered Soil Repairs Inc. and finds that the contractor
Construction Contract for Mills Canyon Sewer Access May 20, 2019
Road Repair Project, City Project No. 85090
2
has met all the project requirements and is well qualified for the job. The contractor also has a
track record of successfully completing similar work for other agencies. Staff has verified the
contractor’s references and received positive feedback about the contractor’s work.
The project construction is planned to begin in June 2019 and is tentatively scheduled to be
completed by October 2019, barring construction delays due to weather and unforeseen
conditions. Staff will coordinate the construction activities with adjacent residential neighborhood
to minimize inconveniences and construction noise impacts as best as possible.
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated Project Expenditures
The following are the estimated project construction expenditures:
Construction Contract $290,723
Construction Management $79,844
Construction Materials Testing $25,544
Construction Contingency 15% $59,417
Contract Administration $24,472
Total $480,000
Funding Availability
There are adequate funds available in the Sewer Capital Improvement Program to complete the
project.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Construction Contract
• Bid Summary
• Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE MILLS CANYON SEWER
ACCESS ROAD REPAIR PROJECT TO ENGINEERED SOIL REPAIRS INC., AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT
CITY PROJECT NO. 85090
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2019, the City issued a notice inviting bid proposals for the Mills
Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project, City Project No. 85090; and
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2019, three proposals were received and opened before the City
Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, Engineered Soil Repairs Inc., submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job
in the amount of $290,723.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that the Plans and
Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of Engineered Soil Repairs Inc., for said project
in the amount of $290,723 is accepted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a contract be entered into between the successful
bidder and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager be
authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute the 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 20th day of May,
2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_____________________________
City Clerk
AGREEMENT - 1
AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
MILLS CANYON SEWER ACCESS ROAD REPAIR PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 85090
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 Engineered Soil Repairs 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 _______________, 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:
MILLS CANYON SEWER ACCESS ROAD REPAIR PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO.
85090.
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 “Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project, City Project No. 85090” attached
AGREEMENT - 2
as Exhibit C; the State of California Standard Specifications 2010, as promulgated by the
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 two hundred and ninety thousand, seven hundred
and twenty three dollars ($290,723), 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
AGREEMENT - 3
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
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. Mahesh Yedluri
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows:
Mark Wilhite
Engineered Soil Repairs Inc.
1267 Springbrook Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
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:
Engineered Soil Repairs Inc.
BID DATE: April 30, 2019 at 2:00PMMILLS CANYON SEWER ACCESS ROAD REPAIR PROJECTCITY PROJECT NO. 85090Page 1 of 1ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION OF ITEMESTIMATED QUANTITYUNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST 1Mobilization and Demobilization1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ 11,182$ 11,182$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 42,000$ 42,000$ 2Site Preparation1 LS 3,000$ 3,000$ 10,400$ 10,400$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 37,000$ 37,000$ 3Survey Layout1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ 2,160$ 2,160$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 4 Retaining Wall Pier Excavations 665 LF 150$ 99,750$ 123$ 81,795$ 80$ 53,200$ 110$ 73,150$ 5Retaining Wall Piers665 LF 180$ 119,700$ 89$ 59,185$ 140$ 93,100$ 190$ 126,350$ 6Retaining Wall Lagging550 SF 25$ 13,750$ 41$ 22,550$ 40$ 22,000$ 49$ 26,950$ 7Retaininig Wall Back-drains32 LF 50$ 1,600$ 290$ 9,280$ 60$ 1,920$ 10$ 320$ 8Drop Inlet1 EA 4,000$ 4,000$ 2,196$ 2,196$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 9Storm Drain Pipe100 LF 40$ 4,000$ 60.50$ 6,050$ 150$ 15,000$ 100$ 10,000$ 10Chain Link Fence145 LF 40$ 5,800$ 120$ 17,400$ 90$ 13,050$ 50$ 7,250$ 11Grading220 CY 60$ 13,200$ 112$ 24,640$ 180$ 39,600$ 150$ 33,000$ 12Pavement1,620 SF 20$ 32,400$ 20$ 32,400$ 30$ 48,600$ 20$ 32,400$ 13Asphaltic Concrete Dike 55 LF 15$ 825$ 4$ 220$ 70$ 3,850$ 120$ 6,600$ 14Stormwater Pollution Prevention1 LS 3,000$ 3,000$ 180$ 180$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 8,000$ 8,000$ 15Erosion Control1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$ 5,645$ 5,645$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 16Gate1 LS 4,500$ 4,500$ 5,440$ 5,440$ 7,000$ 7,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 317,525$ 290,723$ 388,320$ 427,020$ TOTAL BID (ITEMS 1-16)BID SCHEDULEEngineer's Estimate Hillside Drilling, Inc. Graniterock Company Richmond, CA San Jose, CA Engineered Soil Repairs, Inc. Walnut Creek, CA
Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project
City Project No. 85090
Project Location Map
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8i
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to PMK
Contractors LLC for the Police Station Underground Fuel Storage Tank
Removal, 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 PMK Contractors LLC for the removal of two underground fuel storage tanks (UST) at
the Police Station in the amount of $285,607 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the
construction contract.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has authorized funds for removal of a 12,000 gallon gasoline underground storage
tank and a 4,000 gallon diesel underground storage tank (UST). Both single-walled fiberglass
USTs were constructed when the Police Station was built in 1983 and are beyond their design life.
In addition, the County has required all single-wall USTs to be removed.
The City obtained a subsurface drilling permit from the San Mateo County Department of
Environmental Health to perform exploratory soil boring during the design phase. Seventeen initial
underground exploratory borings were performed to a depth of up to 24 feet. The field and test
results indicate that petroleum hydrocarbon constituents are present in the soil and groundwater
around the gasoline tank. No evidence of contaminated soil was found around the diesel tank.
Results of the investigation activities were submitted to the County, and the County opened a case
naming the City as a responsible party for the release of gasoline from the UST. The County has
been informed of the plan to remove the tanks and has requested a UST removal report be
submitted no later than August 15, 2019. After the tanks are removed, the County will have
additional requirements primarily focused on the extent of petroleum hydrocarbon migration in the
groundwater, monitoring, and reporting.
DISCUSSION
The project was advertised for bids on April 8, 2019. The City received one sealed bid, which was
opened on April 24, 2019. PMK Contractors LLC was the apparent low bidder with its bid of
$285,607, which is approximately 1% lower than the engineer’s estimate of $292,900. Staff has
Award of Construction Contract to PMK Contractors LLC May 20, 2019
for removal of UST’s at the Police Station
2
reviewed PMK’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.
As a result, staff recommends that the City Council award the project to PMK Contractors LLC 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 the unknown extent of
soil contamination and other unforeseen conditions that may present problems during construction.
The project is anticipated to begin in July 2019 and be completed by September 2019. After the
decommissioning of the underground fuel tanks at the Police Station, the Police vehicles will be
fueling at the Public Works Corporation Yard fuel station site.
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated Project Expenditures
The following are the estimated project construction expenditures:
Construction $285,607
Environmental Engineering & Testing $73,880
Contingencies (15%) $53,923
Engineering & Administration $6,590
Total $420,000
Funding Availability
There are adequate funds available in the Facilities Capital Improvement Fund to complete the
project.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Construction Contract
• Bid Summary
• Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT FOR REMOVAL OF TWO UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS AT THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT TO PMK CONTRACTORS LLC
CITY PROJECT NO. 84640
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2019, the City issued a notice inviting bid proposals for the
Removal of Two Underground Storage Tanks at the Police Station, City Project No. 84640; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2019, all proposals were received and opened before the City
Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, PMK Contractors LLC submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the
amount of $285,607.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that the Plans and
Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of PMK Contractors LLC for said project in the
amount of $285,607 is accepted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a contract be entered into between the successful
bidder 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 20th day of May,
2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________
City Clerk
AGREEMENT - 1
AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
POLICE STATION UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REMOVAL 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 PMK
CONTRACTORS LLC, 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 _______________, 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 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REMOVAL, 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
AGREEMENT - 2
titled “Police Station Underground Storage Tank Removal, City Project No. 84640”
attached as Exhibit C; the State of California Standard Specifications 2010, as
promulgated by the 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 two hundred eighty five thousand, six hundred and
seven dollars ($285,607), 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
AGREEMENT - 3
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
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:
Preet Johal
President
PMK Contractors LLC
1580 Chabot Court, Second Floor
Hayward, CA 94545
7. Interpretation
As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes
AGREEMENT - 4
the plural and vice versa.
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
AGREEMENT - 5
shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be
applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.
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: PMK Contractors LLC
Police Station UST Removal Project
City Project No. 84640
BID SUMMARY
Page 1 of 1
BID OPENING: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:00 P.M.
ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION
No.QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 San Mateo Co. UST Removal Permit 1 LS 2,827.00$ 2,827.00$ 4,800.00$ 4,800.00$
2 Stormwater Quality Control Plan and Maintenance 1 LS 2,750.00$ 2,750.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
3A Mobilization/demobilization Gasoline UST 1 LS 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
3B Mobilization/demobilization Diesel UST 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
4 Excavation Support and Protection 1 LS 6,600.00$ 6,600.00$ 36,000.00$ 36,000.00$
5 Concrete and Asphalt Demolition/Removal 1 LS 5,500.00$ 5,500.00$ 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$
6 Concrete/Asphalt Transportation and Disposal 81 tons 30.80$ 2,494.80$ 48.00$ 3,888.00$
7 Remove and Dispose of Residual Liquid, Solid or Sludge
from both Underground Storage Tanks 1 LS 26,400.00$ 26,400.00$ 39,600.00$ 39,600.00$
8 Excavate and Remove Material Surrounding Gasoline
UST 560 CY 16.50$ 9,240.00$ 17.00$ 9,520.00$
9 Excavate and Remove Material Surrounding Diesel UST 65 CY 16.50$ 1,072.50$ 77.00$ 5,005.00$
10 Transportation and Disposal of Excavated Spoils to Class
II (Gasoline UST)1020 ton 75.90$ 77,418.00$ 60.00$ 61,200.00$
11 Transportation and Disposal of Excavated Spoils
Material to Class III (Diesel UST)120 ton 38.50$ 4,620.00$ 58.00$ 6,960.00$
12 Excavate and Remove USTs 1 LS 33,000.00$ 33,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
13 Transportation and Disposal of USTs 1 LS 22,000.00$ 22,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$
14 Backfill - Class 1 Permeable Material 50 CY 55.00$ 2,750.00$ 103.00$ 5,150.00$
15 Backfill - Aggregate Base 540 CY 57.20$ 30,888.00$ 36.00$ 19,440.00$
16 6-inch Aggregate Base Subgrade 42 CY 57.20$ 2,402.40$ 157.00$ 6,594.00$
17 6-inch Asphalt Pavement 90 tons 308.00$ 27,720.00$ 245.00$ 22,050.00$
18 Allowance for Dewatering including disposal of water 1 LS 22,000.00$ 22,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$
19 All work in accordance with the contract documents,
except for work included under Bid Times 1 through 20 1 LS 2,200.00$ 2,200.00$ 4,400.00$ 4,400.00$
Total Base Bid 292,900.00$ 285,607.00$
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE PMK Contractors LLC
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8j
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Extending the Agreement with Maze & Associates
Accountancy Corporation to Serve as the City of Burlingame’s Independent
External Financial Auditors for Three Additional Years
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the extension of the agreement with Maze &
Associates Accountancy Corporation for external financial audit services for an additional three
years.
BACKGROUND
The City is required to have an annual, independent, external audit of its financial statements to
ensure compliance with federal, state and local laws, generally accepted accounting principles, and
pronouncements and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).
In accordance with the best practices promulgated by the Government Finance Officers Association
(GFOA), governmental entities should enter into multiyear agreements of at least five years in
duration when obtaining the services of independent auditors. Such multiyear agreements can take
a variety of different forms (e.g., a series of single-year contracts), consistent with applicable legal
requirements. Such agreements allow for greater continuity and help minimize the potential for
disruption in connection with the independent audit. Multiyear agreements can also help to reduce
audit costs by allowing auditors to recover certain "startup" costs over several years, rather than
over a single year. In addition, GFOA best practices also stipulate that a governmental entity should
actively seek to replace the auditor at the end of the multiyear agreement in order to preserve and
enhance independence, objectivity and impartiality.
In April, 2016, after a thorough RFP process, the City selected Maze & Associates as the best
qualified firm to provide independent audit and consulting services. The term of the agreement
was for three years, terminating on March 31, 2019, with the option of the City to extend the
agreement for up to two additional years. The first year of the audit engagement covered the audit
and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ended June 30, 2016, and the
third year of services covered the audit and CAFR for the year ended June 30, 2018. As staff had
every intention of extending the contract for the additional two years, no RFP was planned for
alternative service providers for the current fiscal year audit services.
Extension of Contract for Audit Services May 20, 2019
2
DISCUSSION
Each year the audit firm prepares an Engagement Letter outlining the audit services to be
performed for the upcoming fiscal year end. Maze & Associates informed the City that a CPI
increase to the audit fee of 4.5% would apply to each fiscal year for which the contract was
extended. However, the firm would be able to keep the fee flat for the next two fiscal years, plus
provide a $5,000 discount for fiscal year 2021 services, if the agreement was extended for a three-
year period.
If extended for a three-year period, the City would save nearly $6,100 over the next two years, as
well as enjoy the final year discount offered. Staff has been pleased with the services provided by
Maze & Associates and would like to extend the agreement for audit services. As the agreement
confers the authority of extending the contract only two years, staff is requesting that the City
Council approve an amendment to the contract to provide for an additional third year of auditing
services. (The agreement would be amended to provide a three-year extension as opposed to the
current two-year extension allowed at the sole option of the City.)
FISCAL IMPACT
The price for the most recent audit services – for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 – was
$66,137. If extended for a three-year period, the annual cost of the audit engagement with Maze
& Associates would remain stable for the next two years of engagement (covering fiscal years
ending June 30, 2019 and 2020), saving the City approximately $6,100. The City would also benefit
from a $5,000 discount on these services in the third year of the extension (fiscal year ended June
30, 2021).
Exhibit:
• Resolution
1
RESOLUTION NO. _________________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND MAZE & ASSOCIATES ACCOUNTANCY
CORPORATION FOR EXTERNAL FINANCIAL AUDITING SERVICES TO ALLOW
FOR AN EXTENSION OF THREE YEARS
WHEREAS, the City is required by State law to have an annual, independent, external
audit of its financial statements to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local laws, with
generally accepted accounting principles and with pronouncements and standards of the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the best practices promulgated by the Government
Finance Officers Association (GFOA), governmental entities in practice enter into multiyear
agreements (usually no longer than five years) when obtaining the services of independent
auditors, as such agreements allows for greater continuity and minimize the potential for disruption
in connection with the independent audit ; and
WHEREAS, the GFOA best practices also state that a governmental entity should actively
seek to replace the external auditor at the end of the multiyear agreement in order to preserve and
enhance independence, objectivity, and impartiality; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the GFOA best practices, the City issued a Request for
Proposals for external financial auditing services; seven firms submitted qualified proposals, three
firms were selected for interviews, and after completion of the review process, the City selected
Maze & Associates Accountancy Corporation as the best qualified firm; and
WHEREAS, the current three-year agreement with Maze & Associates, terminating on
March 31, 2019, authorizes an extension of up to two additional years; and
WHEREAS, the City has been very satisfied with the audit and consulting services
provided to date; and
WHEREAS, Maze & Associates has offered cost savings to the City if the agreement is
extended an additional three years instead of the two-year extension provided in the 2016
agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a three-year extension of the
Agreement with Maze & Associates Accountancy Corporation, to include performance of annual
external auditing services for the City of Burlingame for fiscal years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-
21.
2
_____________________________
Mayor
I, MEAGAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of
May, 2019 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_____________________________
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8k
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk – (650) 558-7203
Subject: Adoption of a Proclamation Recognizing June as Immigrant Heritage Month
RECOMMENDATION
Mayor Colson recommends that the City Council adopt a proclamation recognizing June as
Immigrant Heritage Month.
BACKGROUND
Mayor Colson recently received a request from FWD.us Northern California Director of Systems
and Projects Jenny Barin asking if the City would issue an official proclamation declaring June 2019
Immigrant Heritage Month. Ms. Barin explained that “this summer marks the 5th annual Immigrant
Heritage Month, which is a time to celebrate the many contributions immigrants make to American
communities.” In the past few years, Governors and Mayors from 48 states, including then-
Governor Brown, issued a proclamation for Immigrant Heritage Month.
DISCUSSION
Mayor Colson drafted the attached proclamation, which recognizes the City’s strong immigrant
base and notes the City’s founder, Anson Burlingame, was a champion of open borders between
nations. Mayor Colson recommends adopting the proclamation recognizing June as Immigrant
Heritage Month.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact
Exhibit:
• Proclamation
PROCLAMATION
Recognizing June as Immigrant Heritage Month
Whereas, since 2015, June has been recognized nationwide as “Immigrant Heritage Month” in order to
celebrate the inextricable links between immigration and our country’s growth and
development; and
Whereas, generations of immigrants from each corner of the globe have built our country’s economy and
created the unique character of our state and nation; and
Whereas, immigrants continue to grow businesses, innovate, strengthen our economy, and create
American jobs in Burlingame and the Bay Area generally; and
Whereas, over 35% of residents of Silicon Valley are first generation immigrants; and
Whereas, immigrants have provided the United States with unique social and cultural influence,
fundamentally enriching the extraordinary character of our nation; and
Whereas, each new wave of immigration over the last 240 years has had its detractors at the time, whether
the wave was from Germany or Ireland or Greece or China or Latin America, and yet each wave
of immigration has been absorbed by our great nation and contributed to making the whole
greater than the sum of the parts; and
Whereas, our City’s namesake, Anson Burlingame, was a champion of more open borders between nations
as a way of building mutual respect, understanding, peace, and growth; and
Whereas, despite these countless contributions over decades, the role of immigrants in building and
enriching our nation is being criticized (again) by nationalists and isolationists, and therefore it
is important to speak out for the values and contributions of immigrant.
Now therefore I, Donna Colson, Mayor of the City of Burlingame in the State of California, hereby recognize
June 2019 as Immigrant Heritage Month.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the
seal of the City of Burlingame to be affixed this, the 20th day of
May, 2019.
Donna Colson, Mayor
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8l
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Prohibiting Retaliation for Smoking Complaints
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the adoption of an ordinance amending Section
8.18.090 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to broaden prohibitions on retaliation for persons
making complaints of illegal smoking. In order to do so, the Council should:
A. By motion, adopt the proposed ordinance.
B. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
Burlingame’s current smoking regulations, located in Chapter 8.18 of the Municipal Code, contain
a prohibition on discrimination or retaliation by employers for making complaints regarding illegal
smoking. Since that provision was enacted, the City Council has amended the Code to extend
smoking prohibitions to multi-family housing and has increased the number of public locations
where smoking is prohibited. Rental tenants, in particular, may be vulnerable to or afraid of
retaliation in this tight rental market and may be reluctant to come forward with complaints. The
proposed code amendment would prohibit retaliation and discrimination broadly, including in the
housing context as well as in other circumstances where a manager or other person or entity in
authority may retaliate for smoking complaints. The proposed amendment recognizes a carve-out
for malicious prosecution and defamatory statements, in the rare circumstance where a complaint
is made in bad faith in order to harass or defame another person.
The Council introduced the ordinance and held a public hearing on it at the May 6, 2019 Council
meeting. The ordinance is now back for adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the City General Fund.
Exhibit:
• Proposed Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING SECTION 8.18.090 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
COMPLAINTS OF ILLEGAL SMOKING
WHEREAS, Chapter 8.18 of the Burlingame Municipal Code contains numerous
regulations regarding smoking, enacted to preserve the public health and welfare; and
WHEREAS, existing Section 8.18.090 is designed to protect current and
prospective employees from discrimination or retaliation for making complaints of illegal
smoking , by stating “[n]o person shall discharge, refuse to hire or in any manner
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because such employee
or applicant exercises any rights afforded by this chapter;” and
WHEREAS, the City has a complaint-based code enforcement program, which
relies on the public to indicate areas needing enforcement; and
WHEREAS, good faith attempts to protect oneself or other members of the public
from the negative health effects of prohibited smoking should not be discouraged; and
WHEREAS, Section 8.18.090 can be broadened to provide greater protections for
those complaining of illegal smoking;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
DIVISION 1:
Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Section 8.19.090 is amended as follows:
Existing Section 8.18.090 is re-titled as follows:
“8.18.090 Nondiscrimination and Prohibition on Retaliation.”
The text of Section 8.18.090 is amended to add the following at the end of the existing
statutory language:
“Further, no landlord, property manager, homeowners’ association, business manager, or
other person in authority shall discriminate or retaliate against any person for making a
complaint to the person or entity in authority, the city’s code enforcement or police
departments, or to the County Health Department, regarding alleged violations of this
Chapter, unless such complaints have been determined by a competent court to be
defamatory or malicious prosecution. Discrimination or retaliation against persons making
complaints regarding alleged violations of this Chapter shall themselves be deemed a
violation of the Municipal Code and shall be punishable and enforceable under its
provisions.”
DIVISION 2:
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 3:
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 6th day of May, 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
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9a
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Public Hearing to Renew the Levy and Collection of Assessments for the
Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project for Fiscal
Year 2019-20
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions to renew the levy and collection
of assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Assessment
District No. 2012-1 for fiscal year 2019-20:
1. Hold a Public Hearing; and
2. Adopt the attached resolution confirming the assessments and ordering the levy for the
Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1
for fiscal year 2019-20.
BACKGROUND
At its April 2, 2012 meeting, the City Council initiated the proceedings to form the Downtown
Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1. The proceedings
were conducted under the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division
15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (Act). Weighted ballots were sent via certified mail
to the property owners on April 5, 2012. At the May 21, 2012 meeting, the City Council conducted
a Public Hearing to tabulate ballots for the Assessment District. The results of the ballot showed
no “majority protest”, thereby allowing the City Council to order improvements, form the
Assessment District, and levy assessments totaling $335,787 annually for 30 years to the
downtown Burlingame Avenue property owners. Property owners were given the option to pre-pay
their assessments to avoid paying annually. Five property owners have exercised this option.
DISCUSSION
The Engineer’s Report is updated annually to reflect any changes that may have occurred to
property configuration in the Assessment District. The Act requires an annual Public Hearing to
confirm and levy the assessment.
Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Assessments May 20, 2019
2
FISCAL IMPACT
The total assessment for fiscal year 2019-20 is $310,156, which reflects pre-payments by property
owners. There are no changes to the annual assessment from the last year. Funds collected
through assessments will be used as part of the debt payment for Burlingame Avenue Streetscape
bonds.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Engineer’s Report for FY 2019-20
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,
CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING THE LEVY FOR
THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2012-1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20
The City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Burlingame (the “City”) resolves as follows:
WHEREAS, the Council previously completed its proceedings in accordance with the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways
Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the “Act”) to establish the City’s Downtown Burlingame
Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project (the “Assessment District”); and
WHEREAS, the City has, by previous resolution, declared its intention to hold a Public
Hearing concerning the levy and collection of assessments within the Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing has been held and concluded and notice thereof was given
in accordance with Section 22626 of the Act; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place specified in the Resolution of Intention the City
conducted such hearing and considered all objections to the assessment.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE
COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS:
1. Confirmation of Assessment and Diagram: The Council confirms the assessment and
the diagram as is described in full detail in the Annual Report on file with the Clerk.
2. Levy of Assessment: Pursuant to Section 22631 of the Act, the adoption of this resolution
shall constitute the levy of an assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2019 and
ending June 30, 2020.
3. Ordering of the Levy: The Council orders City staff to prepare and submit the levy of
assessments to San Mateo County for placement on the fiscal year 2019-20 secured
property tax roll, including executing any necessary and appropriate documents on behalf
of the City to accomplish the levy and collection of assessments.
Donna Colson, 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 20th day of May,
2019 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
City of Burlingame Assessment District
No. 2012-1, Dow ntow n Burlingame Avenue
Streetscape Improvement Project
Engineer’s Report
City of Burlingame
Fiscal Year 2019/20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMM ARY 1-1
2. INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1. Background of District ................................................................................... 2-1
2.2. Reason for the Assessment..........................................................................2-1
2.3. Establishment of the Assessment .................................................................2-1
3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 3-1
3.1. Description of the Boundaries of the District ................................................. 3-1
3.2. Description of the District Improvement Project ............................................ 3-1
3.3. Map of District Improvement Project ............................................................. 3-1
4. ESTIM ATE OF COSTS 4-1
4.1. District Improvement Project Costs .............................................................. 4-1
5. SPECI AL AND GENER AL BENEFIT 5-1
5.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................5-1
5.2. Identif ication of Benefit .................................................................................. 5-1
5.3. Separation of General Benefit ......................................................................5-3
5.4. Quantif ication of General Benefit ..................................................................5-4
5.5. Apportioning of Special Benefit.....................................................................5-5
6. METHOD ASSESSMENT 6-1
6.1. Assessment Budget ....................................................................................... 6-1
6.2. Method of Assessment Spread.....................................................................6-2
6.3. District Improvement Project Debt Financing................................................. 6-2
6.4. Assessment Prepayment Formula ................................................................. 6-3
7. ASSESSMENT DIAGR AM 7-1
8. ASSESSMENT ROLL 8-1
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
3-1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
T he City Council of the City of Burlingame (“City Council”), pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (“1972 Act”),
previously form ed the assessm ent district k nown and designated as “Assessment District No. 2012-1,
Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvem ent Project”, (hereafter referred to as the “District”).
T he City Council has initiated proceedings directing the preparation and filing of a report for Fiscal Year
2019/20 presenting the improvem ents, an estim ated cost, including debt financing, of the improvem ents,
annual administrative costs, and a diagram showing the area and properties to be assessed.
T he following assessm ent is authorized in order to pay the estim ated costs, including debt financing of the
improvements and annual administrative costs to be paid by the assessable real property within the
boundaries of the District in proportion to the special benefit received. The following table summarizes the
assessm ent:
Description Amount
District Im provem ent Project Costs $11,227,015
Less: Allocation to General Benefit(1) (3,238,994)
Subtotal: Allocation to Special Benefit $7,988,021
Less: Sewer and W ater Enterprise Fund Contribution(2) ($922,000)
Less: T LC Grant (301,000)
Less: Additional Contribution from Park ing Enterprise Fund (782,432)
Less: Additional City Contribution (20,195)
T otal Amount to be Specially Assessed $5,962,394
T otal Amount Pre-Paid During 30 Day Collection Period $341,582
Annual Assessable Budget:
Average Annual Debt Service Pa ym ent(3) $310,156
T otal Annual Assessable Budget $310,156
(1)See Section 5.4.
(2)Contemporaneously with the District Improvement Project, the City, using sewer and water
enterprise funds, replaced the sewer and water lines under Burlingame Avenue (the overall total
cost for all projects is $15,443,660). A portion of the money for that project was allocated for
patching the streets and sidewalks. Since the District Improvement Project eliminates the need
for patching, the $922,000 is being contributed to the District Improvement Project.
(3)See Section 6.3.
This annual report represents no changes to the Fiscal Year 2018/19 annual report.
____________________________
Art Morimoto
Assistant Public Works Director
City of Burlingame
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
4-1
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Background of District
The City of Burlingam e (“Cit y”) has com pleted, in coordination with planned utility im provem ents, the
Downtown Burlingam e Avenue Streetscape Im provem ent Project (“District Im provem ent Project”). The
District Im provem ent Project provided an opportunit y for comm unity stak eholders to plan and im plem ent
streetscaping and sidewalk im provem ents that com plem ent the evolving vision and needs of the
Burlingam e Avenue property owners, m erchants and comm unity. The District Im provem ent Project
im proves the public infrastructure that fronts propert y along Burlingam e Avenue (and portions of certain
side streets at intersections with Burlingam e Avenue) between El Cam ino Real and California Drive.
Further, the District Im provem ent Project enhances the overall experience of m erchants and visitors by
creating a m em orable Burlingam e Avenue for shopping, dining, and strolling.
2.2. Reason for the Assessment
T he assessm ent covered by this Engineer’s Report will generate the assessment revenue necessary to
provide for a portion of the public im provem ents provided b y the District Im provem ent Project and further
described in Section 3.2 of this Engineer’s Report. The District im provem ents m ay include but are not
lim ited to, all of the following: streetscape im provem ents, sidewalk im provem ents, District financing costs,
and adm inistrative costs as sociated with the ongoing annual adm inistration of the District.
2.3. Establishment of the Assessment
The Cit y form ed the Distric t and established assessments b y com plying with the procedures specified in
Article XIIID and the Proposition 218 Om nibus Im plem entation Act (“Proposition 218”). In Novem ber 1996,
the voters in the State of California added Article XIIID to the California Constitution im posing, am ong other
requirem ents, the necessity for the Cit y to conduct an assessm ent ballot procedure to enable the owners
of each propert y on which assessm ents are proposed to be enacted, the opportunity to express their
support for, or opposition to the proposed assessm ent. The basic steps of the assessm ent ballot procedure
are outlined below.
The City prepared a Notic e of Public Hearing (“Notice”), which describes, along with other m andated
inform ation, the reason for the proposed assessm ents and provided a date, tim e, and location of a public
hearing to be held on the matter. The City prepared an assessm ent ballot, which clearl y gave the propert y
owner the abilit y to sign and execute their assessm ent ballot either in favor of, or in opposition to, the
assessm ent. T he Notice and assessm ent ballots were m ailed to each affected property owner within the
District a m inim um of 45 days prior to the public hearing date as shown in the Notice. The City held
comm unity m eetings with the propert y owners to dis cuss the issues f acing the District and to answer
propert y owner questions directl y.
After the Notice and asses sm ent ballots were m ailed, propert y owners were given until the close of the
public hearing, as stated in the Notice, to return their signed and executed assessm ent ballot. During the
public hearing, propert y owners were given the opportunit y to address the Cit y Council and ask questions
or voice their concerns. After the public hearing, the returned assessm ent ballots received prior to the close
of the public hearing were tabulated, weighted b y the proposed assessm ent am ount on each propert y and
the results were announced b y the City Council.
Article XIIID provides that if, as a result of the assessment ballot proceeding, a m ajority protest is found to
exist, the City Council shall not have the authorit y to enact the assessm ents as proposed. A majority protest
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
2-2
exists if the assessm ents represented b y ballots subm itted in opposition exceed those subm itted in favor
of the assessm ent. All returned ballots were tabulated and weighted according to the financial obligation
of each particular parcel. T here wasn’t a m ajority protest as described above and the Cit y Council approved
the District form ation and assessm ents.
T he City Council will annuall y declare its intention to levy and collect the assessm ents within the District
and hold a public hearing concerning such lev y of assessm ents. At such tim e all interested persons shall
be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard.
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
3-1
3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The District provides for various Burlingam e Avenue streetscape and sidewalk improvem ents located within
the public right-of-wa y and dedicated easem ents within the boundaries of the District.
3.1. Description of the Boundaries of the District
The boundaries of the District include properties located along Burlingam e Avenue within the Cit y. The
District runs along Burlingam e Avenue and is bounded on the east b y California Drive and on the west b y
El Cam ino Real. T he City will not provide public im provem ents from the District Im provem ent Project to
any area located outside of the District boundaries.
Section 7 of this Engineer’s Report provides an assessm ent diagram that m ore fully provides a description
of the District’s boundaries and the parcels within thos e boundaries.
3.2. Description of the District Improvement Project
The District Im provem ent Project includes streetscape item s such as sidewalk, street and pedestrian
lighting, trees and landscaping, seating, signage, k iosks, gatewa y treatm ents, site furnishings, and other
park ing im provem ents, appurtenant facilities, and soft costs. The District Im provem ent Project provides for
public im provem ents to be distributed throughout the entire District, and as such, are of direct and specia l
benefit to the parcels within the District. The District Im provem ent Project consists of a classic design style
with touches of traditional and contem porary design. This desired design style creates a structured, tim eless
design with patter ned, elegant m aterials consistent throughout the Burlingam e Avenue area.
Not only does the District Im provem ent Project provide necessary street im provem ents, but it allows for an
increase in pedestrian space along Burlingam e Avenue. To allow for this additional pedestrian space,
parallel park ing replaced the existing angled park ing. The change from angled parking to parallel parking
will allow for an expanded 16 foot width of sidewalk area on both sides of Burlingam e Avenue. This
additional sidewalk area can provide sufficient space for seating, art features, landscaping, and lighting.
Burlingam e Avenue will be m aintained with two-wa y traffic and 10 foot wide travel lanes. The parallel
park ing stalls, with a park ing assist zone, will have a width of nine feet. The park ing assist zone allows for
car door openings and lim ited bik e through lanes along Burlingam e Avenue.
At the intersection corners along Burlingam e Avenue bulb-outs are proposed to allow for additional
pedestrian areas. In addition to providing an enhanced pedestrian area, the corner intersection bulb-outs
will reduce pedestrian crossing distances. As an additional safety feature, the crosswalk s will be of a
different construction m aterial than the street surface to provide a warning for traffic to slow down.
The District Im provem ent Project includes asphalt paving in the roadwa y and colored concrete for the
park ing and park ing assist zones. The sidewalk s, corner intersection bulb-outs and cross walk s will be
constructed of concrete pavers. Trees, street lights with lim ited features, and other public furnishings are
also included throughout the District.
3.3. Map of District Improvement Project
The following m ap provides the approxim ate location (for reference only – m ay not include all) of the
im provem ents provided b y the District Im provem ent Project throughout the District.
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
4-1
4. ESTIMATE OF COSTS
The estim ated cost of the District Im provem ent Project as m ore fully described in Section 3 of this
Engineer’s Report is outlined below.
4.1. District Improvement Project Costs
T he following table provides the costs for the District Im provem ent Project. Refer to Section 6 for m ore
detail on the financing plan and the annual assessm ent budget.
Description
Amount
District Improvement Project Costs
Construction $9,709,355
Construction Managem ent 825,660
Construction Engineering 332,000
Engineering Adm inistration 360,000
T otal District Improvement Project Costs $11,227,015
Contem poraneousl y with the District Im provem ent Project, the City, using sewer and water enterprise
funds, replaced the sewer and water lines under Burlingam e Avenue (the overall total cost for all projects
was $15,443,660). B y c om pleting the District Im provem ent Project in coordination with the utility
im provem ents, it saved significant project costs and m inim ize the construction im pacts to property and
businesses along Burlingam e Avenue. A portion of the planned utility im provem ent budget, $922,000, was
allocated for patching the streets and sidewalk s. Since the District Im provem ent Project elim inates that
need for patching, the $922,000 is being contributed to the streetscape project from the sewer and water
enterprise funds and thus will not be specially assessed. Thus, overall, the District Im provem ent Project
was funded by state gas tax, Measure A funds, grant funds, sewer and water enterprise funds, the parking
enterprise fund, and revenues from District special assessm ents.
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
5-1
5. SPECIAL AND GENERAL BENEFIT
5.1. Introduction
Pursuant to Article XIIID, all parcels that receive a special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the
im provem ents shall be identified, and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel
shall be determ ined in relationship to the entire costs of the im provem ents. Division 12 of the Streets and
Highwa ys Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, perm its the establishm ent of assessm ent
districts b y local agencies for the purpose of providing certain public im provem ents necessary or convenient
for providing certain public services.
Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that assessm ents m ust be levied
according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This Section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be
apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all
assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each
such lot or parcel from the improvements."
Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution lim its the am ount of any assessm ent to the
proportional special benefit conferred on the property. Article XIIID also provides that publicly owned
properties m ust be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive
no spec ial benefit from the assessm ent. Exam ples of parcels exem pted from the assessm ent would be the
areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys,
public easem ents and rights-of-wa ys, public greenbelts, and public park ways.
Furtherm ore, Proposition 218 requires that the Cit y separate the general benefit from special benefit, so
onl y spec ial benefit m ay be assessed.
5.2. Identification of Benefit
The District Im provem ent Project will provide benefits to both those properties within the District boundaries
and to the comm unity as a whole. The benefit conferred to propert y within the District can be grouped into
three prim ary benefit categories; aesthetic benefit, safety benefit, and econom ic activity benefit. The three
District benefit categories are further expanded upon in each section below.
Aesthetic Benefit
The aesthetic benefit relates to the increase in the overall aesthetics as a result of the District Im provem ent
Project. T he District Im provem ent Project will provide public street and sidewalk infrastructure
beautification throughout the District, that will enhance the overall im age and desirabilit y of the properties
within the District. Burlingam e Avenue streetscape im provem ents within the District were last com pleted
back in the early 1960s. Since that tim e, the public facilities have deteriorated. The following aesthetic
benefits will be provided as a result of the District Im provem ent Project:
The District Im provem ent Project enhances the comm unity identit y of the Burlingam e Avenue area,
which will lead to a stronger and healthier street corridor. The im age of the Burlingam e Avenue
area will be increased b y correcting the visual clutter such as trash containers and news racks that
currently encroach on the pedestrian area.
Uniform and up to date streetscape and sidewalk im provem ents creates cohesion throughout the
District from El Cam ino Real to California Drive. This District cohesion enhances the retail
experience as well as encourage m axim um use of space.
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
5-2
Upgraded streetscaping and sidewalk am enities provided by the District Im provem ent Project
enhances the appearanc e, des irabilit y, and “livability” of the property directly fronting the
im provem ents provided throughout the District.
As a result of the District Im provem ent Project, the overall “livability” of the District increases. “Livability”
encom passes several qualities and characteristics that are unique to a specific area. The Victoria Transport
Polic y Institute (www.vtpi.org) expands on the concept of “livability” and the various benefits associated
with that designation:
“The livability of an area increases property des irability and business activity. Livability is
largely affected by conditions in the public realm, places where people naturally interact
with each other and their community, including streets, parks, transportation terminals and
other public facilities. Livability also refers to the environmental and social quality of an
area as perceived by employees, customers and visitors. This includes local environmental
conditions, the quality of social interactions, opportunities for recreation and entertainment,
aesthetics, and existence of unique cultural and environmental resources.”
Safety Benefit
The District Im provem ent Project provides an increased level of safety to the property, businesses, and
visitors to the District. Additionally, the District Im provem ent Project help m itigate potential crim inal activit y
throughout the District area. The f ollowing safety benefits are provided as a result of the District
Im provem ent Project:
The District Im provem ent Project repaired uneven and deteriorating sidewalks within the District.
Im provem ents to the existing sidewalk infrastructure will reduce the num ber of future trip and fall
occurrences potentially occurring in front of District property.
The District Im provem ent Project provides better lighting throughout the Burlingam e Avenue area.
The im proved lighting ensures that sidewalk s, streets, and propert y fronts are m ore visible. This
increased level of visibilit y reduces the opportunities for vandalism to propert y within the District.
W ider sidewalk s provide additional space between vehicle and propert y as well as vehicle and
pedestrian, which provides a safety benefit for both property and pedestrian.
Traffic calm ing im provem ents can reduce autom obile traffic and speeds, which in turn, increases
the safety for vehicular passengers, pedestrians, and other non-m otorized travels.
The streetscaping strategies utilized in the developm ent of the District Im provem ent Project provide
num erous safety benefits to propert y and people throughout the District. Again, the Victoria Transport
Polic y Institute (www.vtpi.org) notes the safet y benefit attributable to streetscaping im provem ents:
“Several studies indicate that common streetscaping strategies, such as landscaping and
narrowing traffic lanes, tend to increase traffic safety. Streetscaping that reduces traffic
speeds and improves pedestrian crossing conditions can significantly reduce collisions.
Research by the U.S. Highway Safety Research System concludes that road diets (arterial
street traffic calming) typically reduce crash rates by 47% on major highways through small
urban areas, by 19% on corridors in larger city suburban areas, and 29% overall.”
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
5-3
Econom ic Activit y Benefit
The econom ic activit y benefit relates to the increase in the District’s econom ic activit y and further potential
as a result of the District Im provem ent Project. The econom ic activity for property within the District can
best be described as the abilit y for the propert y within the District to develop and operate at the property’s
highest and best use. Properties within the District receive the following econom ic activit y benefits as a
result of the District Im provem ent Project:
The District Im provem ent Project revitalizes the Burlingam e Avenue area. This revitalization will
encourage new business developm ent and existing business expansion which will reduce vacanc y
rates and increase lease rates for propert y within the District.
The streetscaping im provem ents encourages an increase in comm erce throughout the District.
The Burlingam e Avenue area will becom e m ore pedestrian friendly, thus im proving custom er
activit y for stores and restaurants.
The streetscaping im provem ents not onl y add econom ic value to property adjacent to the im provem ents,
but the im provem ents m ake the propert y appear more stable and prosperous. The National Com plete
Streets Coalition (www.com pletestreets.org) notes that:
“Street design that is inc lus ive of all modes of transportation, where appropriate, not only
improves conditions for existing businesses, but also is a proven method for revitalizing an
area and attracting new development. W ashington, DC’s Barracks Row was experiencing
a steady decline of commercial activity due to uninviting sidewalks, lack of streetlights, and
speeding traffic. After many design improvements, which included new patterned
sidewalks, more efficient public parking, and new traffic signals, Barrack ’s Row attracted
44 new businesses and 200 new jobs. Economic activity on this three-quarter mile strip
(measured by sales, employees, and number of pedestrians) has more than tripled since
the inception of the project.”
5.3. Separation of General Benefit
Section 4 of Artic le XIIID of the California Constitution provides that once a local agency which proposes to
im pose assessm ents on propert y has identified those parcels that will have special benefits conferred upon
them and upon which an assessm ent will be im posed, the local agenc y m ust next “separate the general
benefits from the special benefits conferred,” and onl y the special benefits can be included in the am ount
of the assessm ents im posed.
General benefit is an overall and sim ilar benefit to the public at large resulting from the im provem ents to be
provided b y the assessm ents levied. T he District im provem ents, which are m ore fully presented in Section
3.2 of this Engineer’s Report, will be constructed and provided within the District boundaries only. There
will be no im provem ents from the District Im provem ent Project constructed outside of the District
boundaries.
The District Im provem ent Project provide aesthetic, safety, and econom ic benefits to the propert y within
the District, but it is recognized that the District Im provem ent Project also provides a level of benefit to some
propert y and bus inesses within proxim ity to the District, as well as visitors and individuals passing through
the District. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic from propert y within and outside of the District as well as
individual passing through the downtown Burlingam e Avenue area are able to utilize the im provem ents to
not onl y access property and businesses located within a close proxim ity to the District, but also roadwa ys
located outside of the District. Therefore, the general benefit created as a result of the District Im provem ent
Project has been considered.
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
5-4
5.4. Quantification of General Benefit
In order for propert y within the District to be assessed onl y for that portion of special benefit received from
the District Im provem ent Project, the general benefit provided b y the District Im provem ent Project needs to
be quantified. T he am ount of general benefit provided from the District Im provem ent Project can not be
assessed to the benefitting properties within the District. To quantif y the general benefit provided to the
variet y of traffic that pass es through the District for the general benefit of enjoying the surrounding
atm osphere, observing the level of econom ic activit y, or accessing adjacent property or arterial streets in a
m ore efficient and safe m anner, both vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows have been incorporated in the
quantification of general benefit.
Vehicular Traffic Activity
Access to the Burlingam e Avenue comm ercial core area is provided b y m ajor north-south arterials. Those
m ajor arterials are El Cam ino Real to the west of the District and California Drive to the east of the District.
Collector streets feed traffic to these and other arterials throughout the City. As such, Burlingam e Avenue
is considered a collector street within the City. In 2010, the Cit y adopted the Burlingam e Downtown Specific
Plan (“Specific Plan”). The Specific Plan included a Traffic Im pact Analysis Technical Mem orandum
(“T raffic Analysis”) prepared by W ilbur Sm ith Associates. This Traffic Anal ysis evaluated existing traffic
conditions at various points throughout the project area. One point evaluated by the consultants was
existing travel conditions at the intersection of Burlingam e Avenue and Park Road. The Traffic Analysis
evaluated, am ong other characteristics, traffic counts, turning m ovem ent data, vehicle dela y, and level of
service for each intersection. Existing conditions for the project area intersections, including the Burlingam e
Avenue intersection, were evaluated during a week day, evening peak hour tim efram e. There were 664
observed traffic counts at the intersection of Burlingam e Avenue and Park Road. Park Road term inates at
Burlingam e Avenue requiring traffic to either turn left or right onto Burlingam e Avenue. In addition to the
Traffic Analysis, inform ation related to vehicle trips by purpose was used from the Summ ary of Travel
Trends 2009 National Household Travel Survey (“2009 NHTS”) sponsored by the U.S. Departm ent of
Transportation Federal Highwa y Adm inistration. Of the observed 2,171 vehicle trips in the 2009 NHTS
survey, 643 trips represented social, recreational and other travel purposes; the rem aining 1,425 vehicle
trips represented work , shopping and other errands. Appl ying this vehicle trip break down to the observed
traffic counts at the intersection of Burlingam e Avenue and Park Road, 207 of the traffic counts represent
social, recreational, and other travel purposes not directly related to District activities but m ore lik ely utilizing
Burlingam e Avenue as a collector street to feed to one of the adjacent arterial streets. This non-District
related traffic count represents approxim ately 31.20% of the total observed traffic counts and is considered
to be general benefit from the District Im provem ent Project.
Pedestrian Traffic Activity
As result of the sidewalk im provem ents and beautification provided b y the District Im provem ent Project,
there is a level of benefit to those pedestrians not involved with an y of the shopping, dining, or other
comm erce activities provided b y the District properties. People walk for a variety of reasons; work , errands,
shopping, recreation, health, and m any others. Further, pedestrians will seek out and utilize sidewalk
facilities that provide a safe place to walk as well as an environm ent that provides a certain am ount of visual
interest. Again, the 2009 NHTS analyzed the annual num ber of walking trips and the purpose of the walk ing
trips m ade by individuals surve yed. Of the annual total 40,962 (in m illions) walk ing trips, 30,129 of those
walk ing trips were for travel, work , shopping, errands, business obligations, and m eals; the rem aining
10,833 walk ing trips were for social, recreational, and other purposes. The social, recreational, and other
purpose walk ing trips represented 26.5% of the total walk ing trips reported. Therefore, to account for that
portion of the Burlingam e Avenue pedestrian activit y utilizing the im provem ents provided b y the District
Im provem ent Project for non-District related activities, 26.50% of pedestrian traffic activit y is considered to
be of general benefit.
Since the District Im provem ent Project provides a blend of both vehicular and pedestrian activit y the two
categories m ust be addressed in a collective form rather than independently. Therefore, to appropriately
quantify the overall level of general benefit provided b y the District Im provem ent Project the arithmetic m ean
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
5-5
of the general benefit percentages from the vehicular traffic activit y and the pedestrian traffic activit y has
been calculated. T his general benefit result is provided in the table below.
Description Percentage
General Benefit 28.85%
Accordingl y, 71.15% of the benefits from the District Improvem ent Project are considered to provide special
benefits to the properties within the District and thus could be subject to assessm ent therein.
5.5. Apportioning of Special Benefit
As outlined above, each of the parcels within the District is deem ed to receive special benefit from the
District Im provem ent Project. Each parcel that has a special benefit conferred upon it as a result of the
District Im provem ent Project is identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified
parcel is determ ined in relationship to the entire cost of the District Im provem ent Project.
Benefit Point Assignment
Aesthetic Benefit Points
Aesthetic benefit points are assigned based upon not only the propert y’s location to the District
Im provem ent Project, but also the propert y’s zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the
Burlingam e Avenue Commercial District, which has a comm ercial zoning designation. Additionally, since
the District Im provem ent Project is provided uniform ly throughout the District all properties within the District
are within the sam e proxim ity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Im provem ent
Project. Therefore, the aes thetic benefit to each parcel in the District is deem ed to be the sam e. Each
propert y within the District is assigned one (1.00) benefit point for the aesthetic benefits received from the
District Im provem ent Project.
Safety Benefit Points
T he safety benefit points are assigned based upon not onl y the property’s location to the District
Im provem ent Project, but also the property’s zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the
Burlingam e Avenue Commercial District, which has a comm ercial zoning designation. Additionally, since
the District Im provem ent Project is provided uniform ly throughout the District all properties within the District
are within the sam e proxim ity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Im provem ent
Project. T herefore, the safety benefit to each parcel in the District is deem ed to be the sam e. Each propert y
within the District is assigned one (1.00) benefit point for the safety benefits received from the District
Im provem ent Project.
Econom ic Activit y Benefit Points
The econom ic activity benefit points are assigned based upon not onl y the property’s location to the District
Im provem ent Project, but also the property’s zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the
Burlingam e Avenue Commercial District, which has a comm ercial zoning designation. Additionally, since
the District Im provem ent Project is provided uniform ly throughout the District all properties within the District
are within the sam e proxim ity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Im provem ent
Project. Therefore, the econom ic activit y benefit to each parcel in the District is deem ed to be the sam e.
The Burlingam e Avenue Commercial District is already a well-established comm ercial district with a strong
econom ic activity presence. The Burlingam e Avenue area features a m ixture of restaurants, national retail
stores, and m any locall y based retailers. Mark eting and prom otional efforts to increase the econom ic
presence of an expanded area that includes the District boundaries is currently being funded b y the
Burlingam e Avenue Downtown Business Im provem ent District (“DBID”). In an effort to increase the
econom ic presence, business owners within the DBID pay an annual assessm ent to fund various activities
that aid in the prom otion, advertising and im age building of the businesses within the DBID boundaries.
Existing m ark eting and prom otional activities throughout the District area have resulted in higher tenant
lease rates. According to Loopnet.com on March 23, 2012, the average lease rate along Burlingam e
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
5-6
Avenue was approx im ately 45% higher than the average lease rate along the City’s Broadwa y Avenue,
another comm ercial area. Retail sales are also strong within the District, according to Cit y Econom ic
Developm ent data, with s ales per square foot generall y ranging from $300 to $800+ per square foot.
Further, there were a few new buildings constructed in the downtown around the tim e of form ation of the
District and several m ajor rem odels of existing buildings to accomm odate new retail uses generall y lim ited
to tenant im provem ents. Given this alread y existing strong econom ic activity presence throughout the
District, as well as the potential for propert y to further develop and enhance their econom ic presence, each
propert y within the District is assigned one-half (0.50) benefit point for the econom ic activit y benefits
received from the District Im provem ent Project.
The following table provides a summ ary of the special benefit points assigned to each parcel within the
District.
Parcel L and Use
Classification
Aesthetic
Benefit Point
Assignment
Safety
Benefit Point
Assignment
Economic
Activity Benefit
Point Assignment
All District Parcels 1.00 1.00 0.50
Parcel Factors
T he m ethod of apportioning the benefit to the parcels within the District reflects the proportional special
benefit assigned to each propert y from the District Im provem ent Project based upon the various propert y
characteristics for each parcel as com pared to other properties within the District. As part of the special
benefit analys is, various propert y characteristics were analyzed including parcel size, street frontage,
building size, land use, trip generation etc. Given that the special benefits provided b y the District
Im provem ent Project focuses on aesthetic benefit, safety benefit, and econom ic activity benefits it was
determ ined that linear frontage and lot s quare footage are the m ost appropriate parcel factors. Each
parcel’s linear frontage and lot square footage have been used as the prim ary assessm ent variables for the
calculation and assignm ent of parcel factors.
By adjusting the assigned s pecial benefit points set forth above b y parcel factors, a m ore com plete picture
of the proportional special benefits received b y each parcel from the District Im provem ent Project is
presented. T herefore, linear and lot parcel factors were calculated for each parcel in the District according
to the form ulas below:
Linear Factor
Pursuant to Section 25.32.050 of the City’s Zoning Code for the Burlingam e Avenue Comm ercial District,
each lot shall have a street frontage of at least 50 feet. Utilizing the prescribed street frontage as set forth
in the City’s Zoning code, a linear factor is calculated for each parcel based upon the assigned linear
frontage for the parcel divided b y 50.00:
Linear Factor
=
Parcel’s Assigned
Linear Street Frontage
/
50.00
There are several parcels located at street intersections within the District. The District Im provem ent
Project partiall y extends along the side streets at these intersections with Burlingam e Avenue. To account
for the partial extension of the District Im provem ent Project at each street intersec tion, the side street linear
frontage of the im provem ent has been added to eac h corner parcel to account for this increased linear
frontage adjacent to the District Im provem ent Project.
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
5-7
Lot Factor
Pursuant to Section 25.32.050 of the City’s Zoning Code for the Burlingam e Avenue Comm ercial District,
each lot shall have an area of at least 5,000 square feet. Utilizing the prescribed lot square footage as set
forth in the City’s Zoning code, a lot factor is calculated for each parcel based upon the assigned lot square
footage for the parcel divided b y 5,000:
Lot Factor
=
Parcel’s Assigned
Lot Square Footage
/
5,000
Total Special Benefit Point Calculation
Parcel’s T otal
Special Benefit
Points
=
Parcel’s Total
Aesthetics Points
+
Parcel’s Total
Safety Points
+
Parcel’s Total Economic
Activit y Points
Parcel’s T otal Aesthetic Points
The District Im provem ent Project, as well as the store and property fronts that are adjacent to those linear
im provem ents provide an enhanced level of interest and “curb appeal” that add to the overall experience
along Burlingam e Avenue. Since the im provem ents and furnishings are uniform throughout the District,
the “curb appeal” is consis tent for the front of each parcel located within the District. Additionall y, the
uniform landscaping aids in softening the surrounding edges of each parcel’s front exposure to the District
Im provem ent Project b y adding life, color, and texture to the property’s appearance, and overall pedestrian
experience. Given the linear nature of the aesthetic benefits provided by the District Im provem ent Project,
the aesthetic benefit that each propert y receives is also perceived on a linear basis. To appropriately
quantif y and assign the aesthetic benefit received b y each parcel within the District, the aesthetic benefit
point is further adjusted according to the form ula below:
Parcel’s Total
Aesthetic Points
=
Aesthetic Benefit
Points Assigned
x
Linear Factor
Parcel’s T otal Safety Points
The District Im provem ent Project provides enhanced lines of travel and sight along Burlingam e Avenue,
which increases the level of safety by m itigating potential accidents and crim e by having the additional
exposure to property and tr affic. The lighting im provem ents also increase the visual sight line b y providing
additional exposure to property fronts, espec iall y during the evening hours. This additional exposure
reduces the potential for crim e and vandalism to the front of propert y throughout the District. Further, the
sidewalk and park ing zone along Burlingam e Avenue provides a buffer for traffic and the property frontage.
Again, given the linear nature of the safet y benefits provided by the District Im provem ent Project, the safet y
benefit that each propert y receives is also perceived on a linear basis. To appropriately quantif y and assign
the safety benefit received by each parcel within the District, the safet y benefit point is further adjusted
according to the form ula below:
Parcel’s Total
Safety Points
= Safety Benefit
Points Assigned
x
Linear Factor
Parcel’s T otal Econom ic Activit y Points
The District Im provem ent Project creates a m ore pedestrian friendly and inviting Burlingam e Avenue
environm ent that supports and encourages additional comm erce activity throughout the District. The
im provem ents allow parcels within the District to develop and redevelop to their highest and best use in
accordance with City zoning and developm ent regulations. However, the one lim iting propert y
characteristic that constrains a parcel from developing to the highest and best use is the size of the parcel
itself. T he size of a parcel lim its the am ount of developm ent and redevelopm ent that m ay occur on the
footprint of the parcel. Lar ger parcels allow for greater area to develop and redevelop than do sm aller
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
5-8
parcels, which corresponds to larger parcels receiving proportionally greater econom ic activity benefit when
com pared to sm aller parcels within the District. Therefore, the econom ic activit y benefit for parcels in the
District is in direct proportion to the size of the parcel. Since the econom ic activity benefits are in direct
relation to the size of a parcel, then the econom ic activit y benefits provided by the District Im provem ent
Project is also perceived on a parcel size basis. To appropriately quantif y and assign the econom ic activity
benefit received by each parcel within the District, the econom ic activit y benefit point is further adjusted
according to the form ula below:
Parcel’s T otal Econom ic
Activit y Points
= Econom ic Activity
Benefit Points Assigned
x
Lot Factor
Data Considerations and Parcel Changes
The use of the latest San Mateo Count y Assessor’s Secured Roll inform ation served as the basis in
determ ining each parcel’s linear frontage and lot square footage, unless better data was available to the
Cit y. In addition, if any parcel within the District is identified by the San Mateo Count y Auditor/Controller to
be an invalid parcel num ber, the linear frontage and lot square footage of the subsequent valid parcel shall
be the basis for assigning the future total special benefit points. If a single parcel subdivides into m ultiple
parcels, the total special benefit points shall be apportioned based on the linear frontage and lot square
footage of the newl y created parcels.
Total Special Benefit Points
The total special benefit points assigned to the parcels at form ation of the District were 183.28. The
following table provides a break down of the total special benefit point assignm ent for each parcel in the
District:
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – City of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
5-9
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
ID
Aesthetic
Benefit
Points
Safety
Benefit
Points
Economic
Activit y
Benefit Points
Linear
Frontage
Linear
Factor
Lot
Square
Footage
Lot
Factor
Total
Aesthetic
Benefit
Points
Total
Safety
Benefit
Points
Total Economic
Activit y Benefit
Points
Total
Special
Benefit
Points
029-122-190 1* 1.00 1.00 0.50 70.00 1.40 2,123 0.42 1.40 1.40 0.21 3.01
029-122-220 2 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.50 1.01 10,776 2.16 1.01 1.01 1.08 3.10
029-122-230 3 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 10,286 2.06 1.00 1.00 1.03 3.03
029-122-240 4 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 9,791 1.96 1.00 1.00 0.98 2.98
029-122-250 5 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 9,971 1.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
029-122-260 6 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.10 1.00 6,195 1.24 1.00 1.00 0.62 2.62
029-122-270 7 1.00 1.00 0.50 49.90 1.00 13,897 2.78 1.00 1.00 1.39 3.39
029-122-280 8 1.00 1.00 0.50 55.00 1.10 10,879 2.18 1.10 1.10 1.09 3.29
029-122-330 9 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 6,829 1.37 1.00 1.00 0.69 2.69
029-122-360 10 1.00 1.00 0.50 116.00 2.32 16,786 3.36 2.32 2.32 1.68 6.32
029-122-999 11 1.00 1.00 0.50 147.00 2.94 28,296 5.66 2.94 2.94 2.83 8.71
029-152-110 12 1.00 1.00 0.50 80.00 1.60 5,748 1.15 1.60 1.60 0.58 3.78
029-152-120 13 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,853 0.57 0.50 0.50 0.29 1.29
029-152-160 14 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 9,596 1.92 1.20 1.20 0.96 3.36
029-152-190 15* 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.00 1.30 8,134 1.63 1.30 1.30 0.82 3.42
029-152-200 16 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.82 1.32 8,237 1.65 1.32 1.32 0.83 3.47
029-152-210 17 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 7,200 1.44 1.20 1.20 0.72 3.12
029-152-220 18 1.00 1.00 0.50 41.57 0.83 4,988 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.50 2.16
029-152-230 19 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.00 1.30 6,000 1.20 1.30 1.30 0.60 3.20
029-152-270 20 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 7,508 1.50 1.20 1.20 0.75 3.15
029-152-310 21* 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 8,322 1.66 1.20 1.20 0.83 3.23
029-152-320 22 1.00 1.00 0.50 104.58 2.09 27,590 5.52 2.09 2.09 2.76 6.94
029-152-330 23 1.00 1.00 0.50 75.00 1.50 8,572 1.71 1.50 1.50 0.86 3.86
029-153-090 24 1.00 1.00 0.50 91.50 1.83 3,726 0.75 1.83 1.83 0.38 4.04
029-153-120 25 1.00 1.00 0.50 88.33 1.77 3,781 0.76 1.77 1.77 0.38 3.92
029-153-150 26 1.00 1.00 0.50 95.50 1.91 10,347 2.07 1.91 1.91 1.04 4.86
029-201-030 27 1.00 1.00 0.50 40.00 0.80 5,000 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.50 2.10
029-201-040 28 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 6,250 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.63 2.63
029-201-060 29 1.00 1.00 0.50 108.08 2.16 14,823 2.96 2.16 2.16 1.48 5.80
029-201-070 30* 1.00 1.00 0.50 54.00 1.08 9,069 1.81 1.08 1.08 0.91 3.07
029-201-080 31 1.00 1.00 0.50 54.08 1.08 9,643 1.93 1.08 1.08 0.97 3.13
029-201-100 32 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 3,750 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.38 2.38
029-201-110 33 1.00 1.00 0.50 86.00 1.72 3,750 0.75 1.72 1.72 0.38 3.82
029-201-320 34 1.00 1.00 0.50 159.39 3.19 13,316 2.66 3.19 3.19 1.33 7.71
029-201-360 35 1.00 1.00 0.50 100.00 2.00 18,000 3.60 2.00 2.00 1.80 5.80
029-201-370 36 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 3,125 0.63 0.50 0.50 0.32 1.32
029-201-380 37 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 3,125 0.63 0.50 0.50 0.32 1.32
029-202-010 38 1.00 1.00 0.50 136.00 2.72 12,675 2.54 2.72 2.72 1.27 6.71
029-202-020 39 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.50 1.21 7,086 1.42 1.21 1.21 0.71 3.13
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – City of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
5-10
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
ID
Aesthetic
Benefit
Points
Safety
Benefit
Points
Economic
Activit y
Benefit Points
Linear
Frontage
Linear
Factor
Lot
Square
Footage
Lot
Factor
Total
Aesthetic
Benefit
Points
Total
Safety
Benefit
Points
Total Economic
Activit y Benefit
Points
Total
Special
Benefit
Points
029-202-030 40* 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,552 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.26 1.26
029-202-040 41 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,403 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.24 1.24
029-202-080 42 1.00 1.00 0.50 75.06 1.50 4,453 0.89 1.50 1.50 0.45 3.45
029-202-090 43 1.00 1.00 0.50 51.24 1.02 4,770 0.95 1.02 1.02 0.48 2.52
029-204-030 44 1.00 1.00 0.50 55.00 1.10 5,500 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.55 2.75
029-204-040 45 1.00 1.00 0.50 45.00 0.90 4,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.45 2.25
029-204-050 46 1.00 1.00 0.50 45.00 0.90 4,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.45 2.25
029-204-060 47 1.00 1.00 0.50 94.00 1.88 5,850 1.17 1.88 1.88 0.59 4.35
029-204-270 48 1.00 1.00 0.50 116.50 2.33 8,100 1.62 2.33 2.33 0.81 5.47
029-211-010 49 1.00 1.00 0.50 103.33 2.07 4,417 0.88 2.07 2.07 0.44 4.58
029-211-260 50 1.00 1.00 0.50 169.00 3.38 15,400 3.08 3.38 3.38 1.54 8.30
Totals: 50.00 50.00 25.00 3,527.93 70.56 420,488 84.13 70.56 70.56 42.16 183.28
* Indicates assessm ent has been prepaid.
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
6-1
6. METHOD ASSESSMENT
6.1. Assessment Budget
In order to assess the parcels within the District for the special benefits received from the District
Im provem ent Project, the general and special benefits m ust be separated. As previously quantified in
Section 5.4 of this Engineer’s Report, the general benefit received from the District Im provem ent Project is
28.85%. Accordingl y, 71.15% of the benefits from the District Im provem ent Project are considered to
provide special benefits to the properties within the District and thus could be subject to assessment therein.
However, as shown below, because of contributions from various funds available to the City, including the
sewer, water, and park ing enterprise funds, Measure A funds, and grant funds, only 53.11% of the District
Im provem ent Project c osts are being speciall y assessed. Reducing the District Im provem ent Project costs
by thes e contributions, the total District Im provem ent Project costs to be specially assessed are as follows:
Description
Amount
T otal Net District Im provem ent Project Costs $11,227,015
Less: General Benefit Contribution (28.85%) (3,238,994)
Subtotal – Portion of Budget Assessable for Special Benefit $7,988,021
Less: Sewer and W ater Enterprise Fund Contribution ($922,000)
Less: T LC Grant (301,000)
Less: Additional Contribution from Park ing Enterprise Fund (782,432)
Less: Additional City Contribution (20,195)
T otal District Improvement Project Costs Assessed for Special Benefit(1) $5,962,394
T otal Amount Pre-Paid During 30 Day Collection Period $341,582
Annual Assessable Budget:
Average Annual Debt Service Pa ym ent for District Im provem ent Project Costs $310,156
T otal Annual Assessable Budget $310,156
(1) $5,620,812 of the District Improvement Project c osts have been financed over a period of 30 years.
T he City issued bonds for the total District Im provem ent Project costs assessed for special benefit and will
use the assessm ent revenues to repa y the bonds, over a period of 30 years, for the District’s portion of that
cost, $5,620,812, plus the Cit y’s estim ated financing and interest costs. Section 6.3 of this Engineer’s
Report provides the basis of the average annual debt service pa ym ent used to establish the annual
assessm ents.
Assessm ent Rate per Spec ial Benefit Point
The assessment rate per special benefit point is calculated b y dividing the total annual assessable budget
by the total special benefit points assigned to the parc els in the District. The following form ula provides the
assessm ent rate per special benefit point calculation:
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
6-2
(A) (B) (C)
= Parcel’s Total + Parcel’s Total + Parcel’s Total Econom ic
Aesthetics Points Safety Points Activit y Points
Total Annual Assessable Budget / Total Special Benefit Points =
Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point
$310,156 / 169.29 = $1,832.10
T he total am ount of financed District Im provem ent Project costs, which has been determ ined to provide
special benefit to parcels within the District, will be assessed over a period of 30 years. The individual
assessm ents are shown on the assessm ent roll in Section 8 of this Engineer’s Report.
6.2. Method of Assessment Spread
The m ethod of assessm ent is based upon a form ula that assigns the special benefit to each parcel, with
special benefit points being adjusted b y parcel linear and lot factors. The form ulas below provide a
summ ary of the annual ass essm ent calculation for eac h parcel in the District.
(A) Parcel’s
T otal Aesthetic
Points
(B) Parcel’s
T otal Safety
Points
= Parcel’s Assigned Aesthetic Benefit Points (1.00)
= Parcel’s Assigned Safety Benefit Points (1.00)
x (D)
Linear Factor
x (D)
Linear Factor
(C)
Parcel’s Total Economic
Activit y Points
= Parcel’s Assigned Econom ic Activit y Benefit Points (0.50)
x (E) Lot Factor
(D)
Linear Factor =
(E)
Lot Factor =
Parcel’s Assigned
Linear Frontage / 50.00
Parcel’s Assigned
Lot Square Footage / 5,000
(F) Parcel’s
Total Special
Benefit Points
Parcel’s Annual
Assessm ent =
Assessm ent Rate:
$1,832.10 x
(F) Parcel’s
Total Special
Benefit Points
6.3. District Improvement Project Debt Financing
The $5,620,812 portion of District Im provem ent Project costs assessed to property within the District has
been financed over a period of 30 years. In addition to the am ount of financed District Im provem ent Project
costs, an y financing costs related to the issuance of debt such as the cost of issuance, original issue
discount, and contingencies were included as part of the total am ount financed. The Cit y has calculated
the annual assessm ent based on its costs of financing the District’s portion of the District Im provem ent
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
6-3
(
Project assessed for special benefit costs over a 30 year period, and has determ ined that it requires an
annual assessm ent am ount of $310,156 from the District. The difference between the original estim ated
financing costs and the actual financing costs will not affect the annual assessm ents shown in this
Engineer’s Report.
6.4. Assessment Prepayment Formula
Assessment Prepayment Formula During the 30 Days Following District Formation
In the 30 days after the form ation of the District, property owners had the option to prepa y and perm anently
satisf y their portion of the total District Im provem ent Project costs assessed for special benefit, without
interest, and without financing costs, according to the following form ula:
Parcel’s 30 Da y
Prepa ym ent Am ount =
Total District
Im provem ent Project
Costs Assessed for
Special Benefit
Parcel’s Total
x ( Special ÷
Benefit Points
District’s Total
Special )
Benefit Points
Parcel’s 30 Da y
Prepa ym ent Am ount = $4,475,000 x
Parcel’s T otal
Special
Benefit Points
÷ 183.28 )
Assessment Prepayment Formula After the 30 Day Period Following District Formation
Propert y owners within the District m ay prepay and perm anently satisf y their entire portion (no partial
prepa ym ents) of the total annual assessm ent of an assessor’s parcel, provided that a prepa ym ent m ay be
m ade only if there are no delinquent assessm ents with respect to such assessor’s parcel at the tim e of
prepa ym ent. An owner of an assessor’s parcel intending to prepa y the ongoing annual assessm ent
obligation shall provide the City with written notice of intent to prepay. W ithin 30 da ys of receipt of such
written notice, the Cit y shall notif y suc h owner of the prepa ym ent am ount of such assessor’s parcel. The
assessm ent prepa ym ent am ount shall be calculated by the following steps:
Step 1: Com pute the special benefit points that could be assigned to the assessor’s parcel prepaying the
annual assessm ent obligation in the fiscal year in which the prepaym ent would be received by the City.
Step 2: Divide the special benefit points com puted pursuant to Step 1 for such assessor’s parcel b y the
total special benefit points that could be assigned in that fiscal year to property in the entire District.
Step 3: Multiply the quotient com puted pursuant to Step 2 b y the total annual assessm ent to com pute that
portion of the total annual assessm ent to be prepaid (“Parcel’s Annual Assessm ent Am ount”).
Step 4: Calculate the revenue stream produced b y the Parcel’s Annual Assessm ent Am ount from the date
of prepa ym ent up to and including the m aturity date of the District, June 30, 2042, except that this assum ed
final m aturity date m ay be am ended b y the Cit y no later than the tim e of the calculation of the prepa ym ent.
Step 5: Calculate the present value of the annual revenue stream determ ined in Step 4. The present value
shall be calculated using that discount rate which, when the prepa ym ent is invested in Cit y approved
available investm ents earning a rate of interest equal to the discount rate, would produce annual revenues
equal to the am ount calculated in Step 4.
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
6-4
Step 6: Determ ine the prepaym ent am ount by adding to the present value calculated in Step 5 any fees or
expenses incurred b y the Cit y in connection with the prepaym ent calculation or the application of the
proceeds of the prepaym ent.
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e
Fiscal Year 2019/20
7-1
7. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
An Assessm ent Diagram for the District is shown on the following page. The lines and dim ensions of each
lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dim ensions shown on the m aps of the Count y Assessor
of the Count y of San Mateo, at the tim e this report was prepared, and are incorporated b y reference herein
and m ade part of this Engineer’s Report.
8. ASSESSMENT ROLL
The assessm ent roll is a listing of the assessm ent apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the last
equalized roll of the Assessor of the Count y of San Mateo. The following table summ arizes the
assessm ents for the District for Fiscal Year 2019/20:
Propert y Land
Use T yp e
Parcel
Count
Total
Special Benefit
Points
Allow able Annual
Assessment
Total Annual
Assessment
All Parcels
45
169.29 $1,832.10 per special
benefit point
$310,156
T otal 45 169.29 $310,156
The assessm ent roll is a listing of the District assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on
the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of San Mateo. The assessm ent roll for the District is
listed on the following page.
Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e 8-1
Fiscal Year 2019/20
City of Burlingame
City of Burlingame Assessment District No. 2012-1
Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project
Fiscal Year 2019/20 Assessment Roll
Assessor's Parcel
Number
Assessment
ID
Site Address
Total Special
Benefit Points
Annual
Assessment(1)
029-122-220 2 1420 BURLINGAME AVE 3.10 $5,679.51
029-122-230 3 1426 BURLINGAME AVE 3.03 5,551.26
029-122-240 4 1436 BURLINGAME AVE 2.98 5,459.66
029-122-250 5 1442 BURLINGAME AVE 3.00 5,496.30
029-122-260 6 1448 BURLINGAME AVE 2.62 4,800.10
029-122-270 7 1460 BURLINGAME AVE 3.39 6,210.82
029-122-280 8 1462 BURLINGAME AVE 3.29 6,027.61
029-122-330 9 1408 BURLINGAME AVE 2.69 4,928.35
029-122-360 10 1490 BURLINGAME AVE 6.32 11,578.87
029-122-999 11 1476-80 BURLINGAME AVE 8.71 15,957.59
029-152-110 12 1200 BURLINGAME AVE 3.78 6,925.34
029-152-120 13 1208 BURLINGAME AVE 1.29 2,363.41
029-152-160 14 1232 BURLINGAME AVE 3.36 6,155.86
029-152-200 16 1316 BURLINGAME AVE 3.47 6,357.39
029-152-210 17 1348 BURLINGAME AVE 3.12 5,716.15
029-152-220 18 1354 BURLINGAME AVE 2.16 3,957.34
029-152-230 19 1380 BURLINGAME AVE 3.20 5,862.72
029-152-270 20 1300 BURLINGAME AVE 3.15 5,771.12
029-152-320 22 1218 BURLINGAME AVE 6.94 12,714.77
029-152-330 23 1210 BURLINGAME AVE 3.86 7,071.91
029-153-090 24 1100 BURLINGAME AVE 4.04 7,401.68
029-153-120 25 1150-60 BURLINGAME AVE 3.92 7,181.83
029-153-150 26 1108-18 BURLINGAME AVE 4.86 8,904.01
029-201-030 27 1471 BURLINGAME AVE 2.10 3,847.41
029-201-040 28 1461 BURLINGAME AVE 2.63 4,818.42
029-201-060 29 1435 BURLINGAME AVE 5.80 10,626.18
029-201-080 31 1423 BURLINGAME AVE 3.13 5,734.47
029-201-100 32 1407 BURLINGAME AVE 2.38 4,360.40
029-201-110 33 1401 BURLINGAME AVE 3.82 6,998.62
029-201-320 34 1479-91 BURLINGAME AVE 7.71 14,125.49
029-201-360 35 1417 BURLINGAME AVE 5.80 10,626.18
029-201-370 36 1453 BURLINGAME AVE 1.32 2,418.37
029-201-380 37 1451 BURLINGAME AVE 1.32 2,418.37
029-202-010 38 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 6.71 12,293.39
029-202-020 39 1325 BURLINGAME AVE 3.13 5,734.47
029-202-040 41 1315 BURLINGAME AVE 1.24 2,271.80
029-202-080 42 1301 BURLINGAME AVE 3.45 6,375.71
029-202-090 43 1309 BURLINGAME AVE 2.52 4,561.93
029-204-030 44 1221 BURLINGAME AVE 2.75 5,038.28
029-204-040 45 1213 BURLINGAME AVE 2.25 4,122.23
029-204-050 46 1207 BURLINGAME AVE 2.25 4,122.23
029-204-060 47 1205 BURLINGAME AVE 4.35 7,969.64
029-204-270 48 1227 BURLINGAME AVE 5.47 10,021.59
029-211-010 49 1101 BURLINGAME AVE 4.58 8,391.02
029-211-260 50 1111 BURLINGAME AVE 8.30 15,206.43
TOTALS: 169.29 $310,156.23
(1) Difference due to rounding.
Page 1 of 1
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9b
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7263
Subject: Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of
the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs at Various Locations in
the City
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing to introduce the attached ordinance
amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) to add stop signs at the
below listed intersections:
• Primrose Road at Douglas Avenue
• Primrose Road at Bellevue Avenue
• Bayswater Avenue at Lorton Avenue
By taking the following actions:
1. Requesting the City Clerk to 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 a second
reading and adoption; and
5. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before
proposed adoption.
BACKGROUND
The City periodically receives requests for new stop signs to address traffic safety needs. In order
to determine the viability of stop signs, a stop sign warrant analysis and associated traffic studies
are conducted by staff as required by State laws. The stop sign warrant analysis includes review
of traffic counts and reported accident data of the affected intersections. Other factors taken into
consideration are the proximity to a school, the traffic controls at adjacent intersections, as well as
right-of-way assignment.
Staff originally received requests to add stops signs at three street intersections, as listed below:
Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs May 20, 2019
2
• Primrose Road at Douglas Avenue;
• Primrose Road at Bellevue Avenue; and
• Bayswater Avenue at Lorton Avenue.
Staff presented the recommendations to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) at the
April 11, 2019 meeting. Based on the Commission’s discussion and public input received at the
meeting, the TSPC concurred with staff’s recommendation to install the permanent stop signs as
mentioned above. In addition, the TSPC recommended the installation of marked crosswalks at
the Bayswater Avenue/Lorton Avenue intersection.
DISCUSSION
Multi-way stop controls at the following three intersections are recommended based on the
guidance from the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD).
Primrose Road at Douglas Avenue (City Hall) and Primrose Road at Bellevue (Library)
The intersection of Bellevue Avenue, Primrose Road, and Douglas Avenue is a five-way
intersection with existing stop controls on three approaches and with no stop controls on the
remaining two approaches. There is also a physical traffic island with a pass through for traffic on
Bellevue Avenue. The contributing factors are:
1. In a two-year period, there were three collisions in the intersection area, which may be
potentially improved through the installation of an all-way stop control.
2. There is a lack of clarification of right-of-way assignments for motorists.
3. There is high pedestrian activity at the crosswalks in the intersection area. There is a need to
provide a control mechanism to prevent potential vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that
generate high pedestrian volumes.
4. Where traffic control signal system (or roundabout) is justified, the multi-way stop is an interim
measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for
the installation of the traffic control signal.
In August 2018, temporary multi-way stops were installed on an interim basis at the intersections
of Primrose Road and Douglas Avenue, and at Primrose Road and Bellevue Avenue following a
preliminary engineering study. This was done to address the immediate right-of-way concerns.
Both intersections are adjacent to City Hall and the Main Library, and also within close proximity to
Downtown Burlingame Avenue. All these facilities are high pedestrian generators and significantly
contribute to the pedestrian activity and overall traffic operations at these intersections. Stop signs
installed at the subject approaches have already made the right-of-way assignments clearer, and
have significantly improved both pedestrian and motorists’ safety. Hence, staff recommends that
these stop signs be made permanent.
Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs May 20, 2019
3
Bayswater Avenue at Lorton Avenue (All-Way)
The intersection of Bayswater Avenue and Lorton Avenue is a four-way intersection with existing
stop controls on the two approaches on Lorton Avenue. The contributing factors are:
1. In a two-year period, there were three reported collisions that are potentially susceptible to
correction through the installation of an all-way stop control.
2. High density housing units on all-four corners create a high parking demand that compounds
visibility issues.
Additionally, while reviewing the Burlingame Municipal Code for stop signs, staff discovered that
the existing stop signs on Douglas Avenue approaching Primrose Road and Lorton Avenue
approaching Bayswater Avenue were not included in the Municipal Code. Staff is recommending
adding these existing stop signs to update the Municipal Code.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs associated with the installation of stop signs and roadway stop markings are minimal
and will be absorbed within the Public Works Department operations budget.
Exhibits:
• Ordinance
• BMC Update
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING CHAPTER 13.20.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ADD S TOP SIGNS AT THREE INTERSECTIONS IN THE CITY
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME ordains as follows:
Section 1. Factual Background and Findings.
WHEREAS, the City’s Public Works Department received requests for, and
conducted stop sign analysis at the intersections of Primrose Road/Bellevue Avenue,
Primrose Road/Douglas Avenue, and Bayswater Avenue/Lorton Avenue; and
WHEREAS, as part of the analysis, the three intersections satisfied the criteria for
consideration of new stop signs to be installed on a permanent basis; and
WHEREAS, staff presented the matter to the Traffic Safety and Parking
Commission (TSPC) at the April 11, 2019 meeting; and
WHEREAS, based on the TSPC’s deliberation and public input received at the
meeting, the TSPC unanimously recommended permanent installation of stop signs at all
three locations mentioned above; and
WHEREAS, while reviewing the Burlingame Municipal Code, staff discovered that
the existing stop signs on Douglas Avenue approaching Primrose Road, and Lorton
Avenue approaching Bayswater Avenue were not included in the Code. Staff
recommends that the City Council update the Code to include these existing signs.
Section 2. The City Council hereby amends Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame
Municipal Code to add the following intersections for stop signs:
“Primrose Road approaching Bellevue Avenue”,
“Primrose Road approaching Douglas Avenue”,
“Douglas Avenue approaching Primrose Road”,
“Bayswater Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue”,
“Lorton Avenue approaching Bayswater Avenue”.
Section 3. The City Engineer is directed to make the stop signs and stop markings
permanent on Primrose Road approaching Bellevue Avenue, Primrose Road approaching
Douglas Avenue, Douglas Avenue approaching Primrose Road, Bayswater Avenue
approaching Lorton Avenue, and Lorton Avenue approaching Bayswater Avenue.
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 public hearing at a regular meeting of
the City Council held on the 20th day of May, 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
__________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
13.20.010 Stop intersections.
The operator of any vehicle entering any of the following designated intersections shall
bring the vehicle being driven to a full stop:
(a) Adeline Drive approaching Alvarado Avenue;
Adeline Drive approaching Balboa Avenue;
Adeline Drive approaching Bernal Avenue;
Adeline Drive approaching Cabrillo Avenue;
Adeline Drive approaching Columbus Avenue;
Adeline Drive approaching Poppy Drive;
Adrian Court approaching Adrian Road;
Albermarle Way approaching Ray Drive;
Alturas Drive approaching Hillside Drive;
Alvarado Avenue approaching Hillside Drive, while travelling south (northern
end;)
Alvarado Avenue approaching Hillside Drive, while travelling south (southern
end);
Anita Road approaching Bayswater Avenue;
Anita Road approaching Howard Avenue;
Arguello Drive approaching Sebastian Drive;
Arguello Drive approaching Toledo Avenue;
Arundel Road approaching Bayswater Avenue;
Arundel Road approaching Howard Avenue;
South Ashton Drive approaching Trousdale Drive;
Atwater Drive approaching Hunt Drive.
(b) Balboa Drive approaching Davis Drive;
Balboa Way approaching Ray Drive;
Barroilhet Avenue approaching Cypress Avenue;
Bayswater Avenue approaching Anita Road;
Bayswater Avenue approaching Dwight Road;
Bayswater Avenue approaching Arundel Road;
Bayswater Avenue approaching Bloomfield Road;
Bayswater Avenue approaching Humboldt Road;
Bayswater Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue;
Bayswater Avenue approaching Park Road;
Bellevue Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue;
Bellevue Avenue approaching Primrose Road, including City Hall Circle;
Bernal Drive approaching Devereux Drive;
Bloomfield Road approaching Bayswater Avenue;
Broadway approaching Vancouver Avenue;
Broadway Avenue approaching Cortez;
Burlingame Avenue approaching Anita Road;
Burlingame Avenue approaching Bloomfield Road;
Burlingame Avenue approaching Carolan Avenue and East Lane;
Burlingame Avenue approaching Dwight Road;
Burlingame Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue;
Burlingame Avenue approaching Park Road.
(c) Carmelita Avenue approaching Cortez Avenue;
Carmelita Avenue approaching Vancouver Avenue;
Canyon Road approaching Easton Drive;
Carolan Avenue approaching North Lane;
Castenada Drive approaching Trousdale Drive and Martinez Drive;
Chula Vista Avenue approaching Majilla Avenue;
Clarice Lane approaching Quesada Way;
Columbus Avenue approaching Easton Drive;
Coronado Drive approaching Davis Drive;
Cortez Avenue approaching Carmelita Avenue;
Cortez Avenue approaching Hillside Drive;
Cortez Avenue approaching Sherman Avenue;
Cypress Avenue approaching Barriolhet Avenue.
(d) Davis Drive approaching Quesada Drive;
Devereux Drive approaching Balboa Way;
Douglas Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue;
Douglas Avenue approaching Primrose Road.
(e) East Lane approaching Burlingame Avenue and Carolan Avenue while traveling
west;
East Lane approaching North Lane;
Easton Drive approaching Canyon Road;
Easton Drive approaching Cabrillo Avenue;
Easton Drive approaching Columbus Avenue;
Easton Drive approaching Cortez Avenue;
Easton Drive approaching Montero Avenue;
Easton Drive approaching Vancouver Avenue;
Edgehill Drive approaching Paloma Drive;
El Prado Road approaching Canyon Road;
El Prado Road approaching Summit Drive;
Escalante Drive approaching Rivera Drive.
(f) Fairfield Road approaching Edgehill Drive;
Fairfield Road approaching Palm Drive;
East Frontage Road of El Camino Real approaching Murchison Drive;
East Frontage Road of El Camino Real approaching Trousdale Drive;
West Frontage Road of El Camino Real approaching Murchison Drive;
West Frontage Road of El Camino Real approaching Trousdale Drive;
Frontera Way approaching Sebastian Drive;
Frontera Way approaching Loyola Drive.
(g) [Reserved for future use].
(h) Hale Drive approaching Columbus Avenue;
Highway Road approaching Mills Avenue;
Highway Road approaching Oxford Road/Cambridge Road;
Hillside Circle approaching Hillside Drive;
Hillside Drive approaching Vancouver Avenue;
Hillside Drive approaching Alvarado Avenue, while travelling west;
Hillside Drive departing Alvarado Avenue, while travelling west;
Hillside Drive approaching Cortez Avenue;
Hillside Drive approaching Skyline Boulevard;
Hillside Lane approaching Skyline Boulevard;
Hinckley Road approaching Gilbreth Road;
Howard Avenue approaching Anita Road;
Howard Avenue approaching Arundel Avenue;
Howard Avenue approaching Dwight Road;
Howard Avenue approaching Humboldt Street;
Howard Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue;
Howard Avenue approaching Occidental Avenue;
Howard Avenue approaching Primrose Road;
Humboldt Street approaching Howard Avenue;
Hunt Drive approaching Frontera Way;
Hunt Drive approaching Rivera Drive;
Hunt Drive approaching Trousdale Drive.
(i) [Reserved for future use].
(j) [Reserved for future use].
(k) [Reserved for future use].
(l) La Mesa Drive approaching Hillside Drive;
Larkspur Drive approaching Linden Avenue;
Lexington Way approaching Bloomfield;
Loma Vista Drive approaching Skyline Boulevard;
Private Road at the most northerly end of Loma Vista Drive approaching Loma
Vista Drive;
Lorton Avenue approaching Bayswater Avenue;
Lorton Avenue approaching Burlingame Avenue;
Los Altos Drive approaching Hillside Drive;
Los Montes Drive approaching Hillside Drive;
Loyola Drive approaching Trousdale Drive.
(m) Magnolia Drive approaching Murchison Drive;
Majilla Avenue approaching Chula Vista Avenue;
Malcolm Road approaching Gilbreth Road;
Marco Polo Way approaching Davis Drive;
Marco Polo Way approaching Trousdale Drive;
Margarita Avenue approaching Skyline Boulevard;
Mariposa Drive approaching Frontera Way;
Marsten Road approaching Rollins Road;
Martinez Drive approaching Trousdale Drive and Castenada Drive;
Mitten Road approaching Gilbreth Road;
Montecito Way approaching Frontera Way;
Montero Avenue approaching Easton Drive;
Murchison Drive approaching California Drive;
Murchison Drive approaching Magnolia Drive;
Murchison Drive approaching Ogden Drive while traveling east.
(n) North Lane approaching Carolan Avenue while traveling west;
North Carolan Avenue approaching Rollins Road.
(o) Oak Grove both directions approaching Winchester;
Occidental Avenue approaching Howard Avenue;
Ogden Drive approaching Murchison Drive;
Ogden Drive approaching Trousdale Drive.
(p) Palm Drive approaching Fairfield Road;
Palm Drive approaching Paloma Avenue;
Paloma Drive approaching Easton Drive;
Paloma Drive approaching Palm Drive;
Park Road approaching Burlingame Avenue;
Plymouth Way approaching Bloomfield Road;
Poppy Drive approaching Columbus Avenue;
Primrose Road approaching Bellevue Avenue;
Primrose Road approaching Douglas Avenue.
(q) Quesada Drive approaching Davis Drive;
Quesada Way approaching Ray Drive;
Quesada Way approaching Trousdale Drive.
(r) Ralston Avenue approaching Pepper Avenue;
Ray Drive approaching Balboa Avenue;
Ray Drive approaching Davis Drive;
Ray Drive approaching Devereux Drive;
Rivera Drive approaching Sebastian Drive;
Rivera Drive approaching Skyline Boulevard;
Rollins Road approaching Marsten Road and North Carolan Avenue;
Rollins Road approaching Toyon Drive.
(s) Sanchez Avenue approaching Cortez Avenue;
Sebastian Drive approaching Arguello Drive;
Sebastian Drive approaching Frontera Way;
Sebastian Drive approaching Mariposa Drive;
Sebastian Drive approaching Trousdale Drive;
Sequoia Avenue approaching Murchison Drive;
Sequoia Avenue approaching Trousdale Drive;
Sherman Avenue approaching Cortez Avenue;
Skyline Boulevard approaching Trousdale Drive;
Skyview Drive approaching Skyline Boulevard;
Stanton Road approaching Gilbreth Road;
Summit Drive approaching El Prado Road;
Summit Drive approaching Hillside Circle.
(t) Toledo Avenue and Court approaching Martinez Drive;
Toledo Drive approaching Trousdale Drive;
Trousdale Drive approaching California Drive;
Trousdale Drive approaching Castenada Drive and Martinez Drive;
Trousdale Drive approaching Hunt Drive;
Trousdale Drive approaching Loyola Drive while traveling west;
Trousdale Drive approaching Marco Polo Drive;
Trousdale Drive approaching Ogden Drive;
Trousdale Drive approaching Quesada Drive;
Trousdale Drive approaching Sebastian Drive;
Trousdale Drive approaching Sequoia Avenue;
Trousdale Drive approaching Toledo Drive while traveling east.
(u) [Reserved for future use].
(v) Vancouver Avenue approaching Broadway;
Vancouver Avenue approaching Hillside Drive.
(w) Walnut Avenue approaching Willow Avenue;
Westmoor Road approaching Rosedale Avenue;
Winchester Drive approaching Oak Grove Avenue.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9c
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 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 a portion of 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 June 3, 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 June 3, 2019 regular meeting of the City Council.
Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial District May 20, 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 main 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.
During the meetings, commercial recreation was discussed as a potential use to add to the
Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) district. Commercial recreation generally includes uses
such as athletic or fitness centers, gymnasiums, art and dance studios, martial arts studios, bowling
alleys, billiard halls, museums, performance theaters, and active learning and play centers for
children and/or adults.
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.
On April 15, 2019, the City Council introduced the proposed ordinance to amend the BAC District
and Off-Street Parking regulations. After discussing the proposed amendments, the Council
continued action on the item until further discussions could be held at the Burlingame Talks Shop
event on April 17th. This allowed further consultation with the Economic Development
Subcommittee on the matter, including a discussion of whether commercial recreation should be
limited to particular blocks in the BAC District, and what form the requirement for active retail uses
at the front of the space should take (minimum depth, percentage of visibility into space, etc.).
Direction provided by the Economic Development Subcommittee at their meeting on May 8, 2019
was to limit commercial recreation uses to the 1400 block of Burlingame Avenue (between Primrose
Road and El Camino Real). This block has a number of larger tenant spaces that could
accommodate commercial recreation uses, and it is not at the core of the Downtown retail district.
The subcommittee also considered whether to require specific dimensions for visible active uses
such as retail, waiting/reception, or lounge areas at the front of the space, but ultimately
Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial District May 20, 2019
and Off-Street Parking Regulations
3
recommended not specifying a specific minimum depth requirement in order to allow flexibility for
different situations. Compliance with the active use requirement would be reviewed as part of the
Conditional Use Permit within the particular context of each application, with Planning staff
providing an initial assessment/recommendation to the Planning Commission in the staff report.
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, limited to tenant spaces with frontages on
Burlingame Avenue between Primrose Road and El Camino Real. The proposed ordinance also
sets forth text 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, limited to tenant spaces with frontages
on Burlingame Avenue between Primrose Road and El Camino Real, 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; 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
Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial District May 20, 2019
and Off-Street Parking Regulations
4
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.
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; 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 within the core). 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.
Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial District May 20, 2019
and Off-Street Parking Regulations
5
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
April 15, 2019 City Council Minutes
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 May 10, 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, limited to tenant spaces with frontages on Burlingame
Avenue between Primrose Road and El Camino Real, 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; and
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the City Council of the City of Burlingame on April 15,
2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing and continued action on the item for further discussions regarding
requiring active retail uses at the front of the space and in what form it should be provided.
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, limited to tenant spaces with frontages on Burlingame Avenue
between Primrose Road and El Camino Real, which meet all of the following criteria:
(1) Active visible uses including retail, waiting/reception or lounge areas associated with the
business, 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 20th
day of May, 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, limited to tenant spaces with frontages on Burlingame
Avenue between Primrose Road and El Camino Real, which meet all of the following
criteria:
(1) Active visible uses including retail, waiting/reception or lounge areas associated
with the business, 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, May 20, 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, May 10, 2019
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 10a
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Cleese Relihan, Economic Development Specialist – (650) 558-7264
Subject: Consideration of a Façade Improvement Pilot Program for the Broadway
Commercial District
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the proposed Façade Improvement Pilot Program
for the Broadway Commercial District.
BACKGROUND
As part of a broad consideration of potential initiatives to promote the economic vitality of
Burlingame’s commercial districts, the Economic Development Subcommittee of the City Council
has been developing a façade improvement grant program to provide assistance with improving
the appearance of storefronts in the City’s commercial districts. Over the course of several
meetings beginning in the fall of 2018, the Subcommittee provided staff with direction to prepare
the various elements of a façade improvement grant program, including project guidelines,
selection criteria, and application process.
This intent of the program is to provide grants to rehabilitate eligible commercial buildings in order
to encourage more shoppers and residents to visit the business district and patronize businesses.
While such a program could be beneficial to each of the commercial districts in Burlingame
(Broadway, Downtown, California Drive, Burlingame Plaza, and the Bayfront), the Subcommittee
suggested that the initial pilot program focus on the Broadway commercial district.
The pilot program went through the Economic Development Subcommittee last year under the
review of then-Vice Mayor Donna Colson and then-Councilmember Emily Beach, who comprised
the Subcommittee at that time. Since then, the Subcommittee has had a rotation of membership;
Vice Mayor Beach and Councilmember Ann Keighran are the current members. To avoid Brown
Act issues, the current Subcommittee members felt it prudent to bring the program to the full Council
for consideration, with a note that the 2018 Subcommittee members recommended the program to
the full City Council.
DISCUSSION
The Broadway Façade Improvement Pilot Program would allow eligible property owners and
Façade Improvement Pilot Program May 20, 2019
2
commercial tenants to receive City funding assistance to undertake commercial façade
improvements that will enhance the character of the shopping district. The program would be
funded by the City's General Fund. During the pilot program phase, only buildings fronting
Broadway (whether vacant or occupied) would be eligible for façade grants.
Eligible improvements would include signs, awnings, and exterior painting. To be eligible for
funding, the applicant must be a property owner or a business tenant who has secured the written
consent of the property owner. For projects involving planning and/or building permits, permits must
be obtained as required; the cost of permitting fees may be in included in the application.
Under the proposal, the City would allocate a total of up to $50,000 for the pilot program, with a
maximum of $10,000 in grant funding for any individual project. Applications would be evaluated
based on the intended improvements and their relationship to the program goals. A two-month
timeframe for the initial application period is suggested, with applications reviewed at the end of
the two-month period. Should additional funds be available after the first round of grantees has
been selected, additional applications could be reviewed as they are submitted.
The program would be structured on a reimbursement basis. Interested applicants would first meet
with City staff to review the application, site plan and schematics of the building, and any preliminary
designs. Following the meeting, staff may conduct an inspection to document the existing property
conditions and record the scope of work. The City would then review the application and either
approve or deny the grant proposal, or request additional information. Once the improvements are
completed and signed off by City staff, the grantee would submit reimbursement documents to the
City, including all paid invoices. Page 4 of the application packet provides detailed information on
the application process.
To determine eligibility and rank applicants, a scoring sheet has been developed that evaluates
how well the project would meet the goals and objectives of the program, the work plan, budget,
potential community and economic benefit represented by the project, as well as completeness of
the application itself. Demonstration of support or disagreement would also be considered. The
scoring sheet is included on page 5 of the application packet.
The City Council is being asked to discuss whether to implement the program, and to provide further
input as appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT
Up to $50,000 would be allocated from the General Fund for the pilot program.
Exhibits:
• Draft Façade Improvement Pilot Program Application Packet
• September 21, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee Meeting Minutes
• November 16, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee Meeting Minutes
• December 21, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee Meeting Minutes
City of Burlingame
Broadway
Façade Improvement
Pilot Program
This guide is provided as a reference for Burlingame property owners and commercial
businesses interested in applying for funding through the City of Burlingame Broadway Façade Improvement Pilot Program.
To apply, call the Community Development Department at 650.558.7250, or visit the City’s
website at www.burlingame.org.
Check with the City’s Community Development Department before proceeding with the completion of the packet to confirm that you are eligible. If determined eligible, please
complete the packet and email to Cleese Relihan at crelihan@burlingame.org, or mail to:
City of Burlingame
Community Development Department
Economic Development Division
501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010
Your application will be reviewed for completeness and eligibility. Please contact Cleese Relihan at crelihan@burlingame.org or 650.558.7250 if you have any questions regarding
this program or application process.
Program Guidelines
Overview
The City of Burlingame Broadway Façade Improvement Pilot Program is a pilot program for property
owners and commercial tenants with businesses located in the Broadway Business District. Eligible
property owners and commercial tenants can receive City funding assistance to undertake commercial
façade improvements that will enhance the character of the shopping district. The program is funded by the
City's General Fund. During the pilot program phase, only buildings fronting Broadway—whether vacant or
occupied—are eligible for façade grants. Applications open on [date] and close on [date].
Program Goals
This program provides grants to rehabilitate eligible commercial buildings in order to encourage more
shoppers and residents to visit the business district. This program provides a way for business owners to
make their businesses more appealing to downtown visitors and shoppers.
Program Area
Although the City of Burlingame is dedicated to aiding businesses throughout Burlingame, the Broadway
Business District is the initial program area during this pilot period. Properties fronting Broadway are
eligible for the program.
Eligibility
• Eligible improvements include signs, awnings, and exterior painting.
• To be eligible for funding, the applicant must be a property owner or a business tenant who has
secured the written consent of the property owner.
• Modifications to the building may subject the project to City planning or building requirements and
to State, and/or Federal environmental and historical preservation requirements. Any permitting
expenses and fees should be included in the budgeting section of the application.
NOTE: The program is for new façade improvement projects only. Projects in progress or already
completed are not eligible.
Funding Available
The City has set aside up to $50,000 for this program; approved projects will receive a maximum of $10,000 in grant
funding. There will be an initial two-month application period, with applications reviewed at the end of the two-month
period. Should additional funds be available after the first round of grantees has been selected, additional applications
shall be reviewed as they are submitted.
Program Process
APPLICATION PROCESS
1. Email crelihan@burlingame.org to obtain an application, or visit the City website
www.burlingame.org to download a copy of the application. Make sure to schedule
an appointment with City staff to review program procedures by calling
650.558.7250 or emailing crelihan@burlingame.org.
2. For the first meeting with City staff, please bring your completed application, site
plan and schematics of your building, and any preliminary designs.
3. Following the meeting, the City may need to conduct an inspection to document the
existing property conditions and record the scope of work.
4. The City will review the application and either approve or deny the grant proposal,
or request additional information.
CONTRACT PHASE
1. To finalize the contract process, the City, the applicant, and the property owner
shall review the design plans and funding amount one last time to ensure everyone
is in agreement. Any work not approved by the City will not be covered by the
grant. The tenant or property owner will only be reimbursed up to the agreed amount
regardless of changes to the project.
2. The City and the applicant should make sure copies of all contracts match and are
available for future review if needed.
REIMBURSEMENT PHASE
1. Once the repair and improvements are completed and signed off by City staff, the
applicant has 45 days to submit the reimbursement documents to the City,
including all paid invoices.
2. Prior to final reimbursement, the City will conduct an on-site inspection to confirm
all improvements are complete.
Contact Information
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Community
Development
Phone: 650.558.7250
Fax: 650.696.3790
Economic
Development
Phone: 650.558.7264
Fax: 650.696.3790
Email:
crelihan@burlingame.org
Planning Division
Phone: 650.558.7250
Fax: 650.696.3790
Building Division
Phone: 650.558.7260
Fax: 650.696.7208
Engineering Division
Phone: 650.558.7230
Fax: 650.685.9310
Application Instructions and Application Evaluation
Applicants should fill out the Application and Landlord Consent form, as applicable. If the tenant’s lease
agreement authorizes a tenant to make modifications to the exterior of the building without landlord
confirmation needed, tenants may check the “in lieu of” box on the bottom of the Landlord Consent Form
instead of including the landlord’s signature. In addition, all applicants should include a site plan that shows
property lines, front and side elevations that show building frames, structural calculations, and images of
the proposed façade improvement. Preference will be given to property owners and business tenants who
have not yet received this grant before. Applications will be scored on six different criteria: goals and
objectives, work plan, budget, community and economic benefit, application completeness, and
demonstration of support or disagreement. Each of these categories is described in more detail below and
on the following page.
A. Goals and Objectives
Please write a paragraph defining your goals and objectives. Your goals should include what improvements
you want to make, how you believe your property will improve, and why you believe you are a good
candidate for the grant. If you are a landlord with a vacant property, describe how the improvements can
assist in attracting a tenant. If there is an existing tenant, describe how the improvement will benefit the
business. Your objectives should include the actions you would take if you received a grant. Actions can
include, but are not limited to, repair of awnings, repainting of the exterior, replacing window lighting with
LED lighting products, and installation of new business signs.
B. Work Plan
Summarize in a paragraph how you plan to implement the building improvements, which contractor you
plan to work with, and if they have worked on similar building improvement projects. Provide a detailed
timeline for the project from setup to finish, and include images and blueprints of the proposed façade
design.
C. Budget
Please include a spreadsheet or table that itemizes the costs of materials, supplies, and equipment that will
be used to repair or modify the façade of your building. Please note that the grant will cover up to a maximum
of $10,000.
D. Community and Economic Benefit
Please write a paragraph or two that defines how your proposed project will contribute toward the
community. Does your proposed project preserve or enhance the neighborhood identity or image; increase
the chances of attracting a new tenant if your space is vacant or retain the business if occupied; or increase
foot traffic to your business? Is the property distressed or dilapidated? You may list other benefits you see
resulting from your project.
E. Application Completeness
Please make sure to complete each segment of the application, and ensure that all information requested
is included. Incomplete applications will not be considered, and applicants may receive a list of requested
items. If you need clarification on what is needed to complete the application, you can contact the Economic
Development Specialist at 650.558.7264.
F. Demonstration of Support
In addition to providing information on your proposal, you can attach copies of letters of support for your
proposed façade improvement project. Letters of support can come from property owners, neighbor
tenants, and customers of the established business.
Exemplary
(3 points)
Adequate
(2 points)
Poor
(1 point)
Inadequate
(0 points)
Score Comments
Goals States clearly why they States in general Goals and objectives No details provided.
& Objectives are seeking grant &
how grant can improve
terms why they are
seeking grant but
are vague and need
lots of clarification.
their conditions and could use
surrounding area. clarification.
Work Plan Provides clear Provides a brief Provides vague No details provided.
explanation about how description of how explanation of how
they will implement they will implement they plan to
building improvements. building implement building
Explains how they can improvements but improvements and
complete the grant needs clarifications. A not clear how they
program within time frame is stated will complete the
specified term. but no additional work.
details are provided.
Budget Provides an itemized Provides an itemized Provides a general No cost analysis or
cost breakdown, cost breakdown and summary of costs, itemized breakdown of
includes contacts for summary of contractor contact costs provided, no
building contractors, estimates with other information is contractor contact
and provides estimates documentation. included, limited information or company
and other Includes contacts for documentation that information. No additional
documentation that building contractors. supports costs stated. documentation to support
support the costs costs stated.
stated.
Community and Will significantly Will provide modest Will provide No details on how
Economic Benefit improve the aesthetics,
feel, and value of both
improvements to the
aesthetics, feel, and
improvements to the
aesthetics of the
improvements will impact
nearby buildings and
the subject building value of both the subject building, but surrounding area, or
itself as well as subject building itself negligible impact to potential to have a
neighboring buildings as well as nearby nearby buildings and negative impact on the
and surrounding area. buildings and the the surrounding area. surrounding area.
surrounding area.
Application Application is Application is Application is Application is not
Completeness thoroughly completed,
provides full details of
completed correctly
but is missing a small
completed but has
errors and/or is
completed and/or has not
provided documents.
proposed project, and number of needed missing critical
all needed documents documents. documents.
are included.
Demonstration of Positive comments Mostly positive No comments of No support, and negative
Support or
Disagreement
from neighbor tenants,
property owners,
and/or customers.
comments from
tenants, property
owners, and/or
support or
disagreements.
feedback only. Is there
opposition?
customers.
Total
City of Burlingame
Business District Façade Improvement Program
Application
Prior to meeting with City staff, complete this application to the best of your knowledge.
Applicant Information
Business Name:
Business Address:
Applicant Name:
Applicant Mailing Address:
Applicant Telephone:
Applicant Email:
Are you the owner or tenant of the building? Owner Tenant
Describe what improvement(s) you would like to pursue? You may attach additional
information to this application.
Note: If you are a tenant, you must obtain written consent from your landlord prior to starting any improvement
projects. You are responsible for complying with any applicable terms of your lease. Please have your landlord
complete the Landlord Consent Form and submit this with your application. Please review the criteria on page 1 to
make sure you are eligible to apply.
Tenant Signature Date
Application Confirmation
I certify that all statements on this application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge. I understand that any intentional misstatements will be grounds for
disqualification. I authorize City staff to access the property to be improved for the purpose
of inspecting or obtaining information for the Business District Façade Improvement
Program. I understand that this is a grant agreement with the City and that I will meet my
obligations according to the plan agreed upon between the City and me. I further agree
to comply with all City ordinances and the design requirements and recommendations of
the Planning Division.
City of Burlingame
Business District Façade Improvement Program
Landlord Consent Form
Signature Date
In lieu of landlord signature, see attached lease agreement that authorizes tenant to make
modification to façade or building exterior.
Property Owner
Name
(Mailing Address)
Title
Phone Number Email
As the legal owner of the above property, I hereby grant authorization to complete the improvements
indicated on the submitted application.
Consent
I, the undersigned owner of the existing building located at (address)
certifies that (business name) operates or intends
to operate a business at this location. The undersigned agrees to permit the applicant and
his/her contractors to implement improvements listed on the City of Burlingame Business
District Façade Improvement Program. Application dated: .
The undersigned agrees to hold the City of Burlingame harmless for any charges,
damages, claims, or liens arising out of the applicant’s participation in the Business
District Façade Improvement Program.
Community Development Department
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
www.burlingame.org
650.558.7250
1
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee
MINUTES
Conference Room A
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California
Friday, September 21, 2018 – 9:00 a.m.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Council Member (CC) Beach and Vice Mayor (VM) Colson
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan, Finance Director Carol
Augustine, and Community Development Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Potential Tools and Incentives for Business Attraction:
EDS Relihan presented information on various programs other communities have implemented to attract
businesses. He presented a memo that provides a list of things the City already does to help with business
attraction.
Subcommittee members suggested that there are larger market forces at work with commercial and retail
space, and that providing $5,000-$10,000 incentives to businesses may not make a significant difference,
particularly for Burlingame Avenue. However there was interest in the San Leandro Awning, Sign and
Paint Program example provided with the memo, with subcommittee members suggesting that such an
approach could be useful for Broadway.
EDS Relihan mentioned that the Broadway BID provides grants of up to $500 for awning repairs.
Subcommittee members agreed new or repaired awnings and paint can be effective, particularly for
Broadway. EDS Relihan suggested he could draft a façade improvement program.
Subcommittee members recalled that in a previous Economic Development Subcommittee meeting there
had been discussion to have the City allocate $50,000 for improvements. Given that a nice sign can cost
$10,000, the thinking is $10,000 should be the grant target. The City could issue a Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA) for grant applications for façade improvements, seating, or signage, up to $10,000 per
bid. The application would require a budget and schematics of the proposed improvements. Grants could
also be considered for major maintenance items such as awning cleanings.
The intent would be for the grants to help the businesses, rather than the landlords, and that the
availability of funding could help attract and retain businesses. It would be an open bid process with a
rating system. Subcommittee members suggested a draft score sheet be developed and reviewed with the
full City Council to get consensus and direction. The program should be coming from the whole City
Council, rather than the Economic Development Subcommittee. The goal would be to get the program
prepared by the end of the year, and implement the NOFA in January.
Subcommittee members also suggested the proposal be reviewed by the City Attorney, particularly to
ensure fairness and avoid favoritism and conflicts of interest.
The direction from the Subcommittee was to summarize application criteria from other examples, and
describe how they are scored. The proposal would be for grants to be provided in a reimbursement
2
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes September 21, 2018
arrangement to ensure the work gets done as promised. The program would be piloted on Broadway, and
other areas could be considered in subsequent years if the program is successful.
Succession Planning for Businesses Being Sold:
EDS Relihan discussed how there have been a number of recent examples of business owners wanting to
sell their businesses to others. He noted that his work is more involved with connecting brokers with
tenants looking for spaces, rather than finding buyers for business opportunities.
In the staff report packet there was an example of a business succession checklist from a municipality in
Alberta, Canada. It provides a to-do list for succession planning.
Subcommittee members said that they did not think the City should be in the business of succession
planning. They provided direction that it would be sufficient if the City just provided a list of resources to
businesses interested in succession planning.
CDD Gardiner asked if there is a website that allows businesses to list their business opportunities for
sale. EDS Relihan noted that websites such as LoopNet typically list spaces for sale or lease, rather than
business opportunities.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Bring the discussion of commercial recreation uses on Burlingame Avenue to the full City Council
for direction.
Interest in considering allowing condominium conversions of small apartment buildings as a means
for providing homeownership opportunities to a wider range of incomes. Would like to see what
conversion policies other municipalities have. (Per City Manager: This issue would be outside the
scope of the Economic Development Subcommittee but could be discussed at the full Council
level.)
Consideration of having a discussion of a City-mandated minimum wage. Other communities such
as San Mateo, Belmont, and Redwood City have adopted minimum wages. The County may
propose a countywide minimum wage, and Burlingame would need to decide whether to opt in or
opt out.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:21 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin Gardiner
Community Development Director
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee
MINUTES
Conference Room A
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California
Friday, November 16, 2018 – 9:00 a.m.
1
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Council Member (CC) Beach and Vice Mayor (VM) Colson
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan and Community
Development Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner
Members of the Public Present: None
READ AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER MEETING
Meeting Minutes approved.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Updated Facade Improvement Program Draft:
EDS Relihan introduced the item. He noted that the grant application document has been updated to
reflect input received from the subcommittee previously.
Subcommittee members inquired whether the program would be for loans or grants. EDS Relihan
clarified that it would be for grants. Subcommittee members suggested that if the program was
extremely successful and grant funding was exhausted in the future, a similar approach could be offered
for loans.
Subcommittee members asked if the City Manager and City Attorney had reviewed the draft. EDS
Relihan replied that they will review the draft once it has been approved by the subcommittee.
Subcommittee members said they thought the draft was suitably developed and that it is ready for
review by the City Manager and City Attorney.
Subcommittee members clarified that the work would be done by the grantee, and then the City would
provide reimbursement for the work. The grantee would coordinate the work, and upon completion of
the project, the grantee would present receipts for reimbursement.
Subcommittee members suggested that the application process section specify that City staff will
inspect existing conditions as part of the application process, and that the work will be inspected upon
completion to verify that it has been competed as initially proposed. Subcommittee members suggested
the following language: “Once the repairs and improvements are complete, the applicant is responsible
for submitting reimbursement documentation including all paid invoices.” The intent is to have proof that
the invoices have been paid to eliminate the possibility that someone who had worked on the project
was not paid and subsequently pursues a claim with the City. The inspection would then verify that the
work is indeed complete.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
November 16, 2018
2
Subcommittee members asked whether the grant applications should be submitted by tenants or
property owners. EDS Relihan noted that in prior discussions, subcommittee members were amenable
to either the tenant or property owner applying for the grant. The ultimate goal is to create improvements
that will benefit the surrounding area, so if a property owner would not otherwise make the
improvements, it could still be worthwhile to provide the grant so that the other properties on the street
can benefit.
Subcommittee members suggested that a loan program could be a consideration in instances where a
property owner wants to make improvements to attract a tenant, and could repay the loan once a tenant
is secured. The program can be crafted based on who responds to the initial offering.
EDS Relihan reviewed the scoring sheet included in the application. He noted that it has been kept
general so it can apply to a range of businesses and situations. CDD Gardiner noted the scoring sheet
can be useful in justifying to applicants why an application may or may not have been approved.
Subcommittee members suggested adding a category of how the project provides broad economic
benefit to the business district – a “multiplier effect.” It could help differentiate between a project that
would only provide limited benefit to a single property, compared to one that will have an impact beyond
the property itself.
EDS Relihan asked if letters of support should be a consideration. Subcommittee members agreed with
the need to document support, and suggested it be characterized as “demonstrated support from
neighboring tenants, property owners and customers” rather than just a letter. The concern with relying
on letters alone is that form letters might be submitted that might not be truly representative of local
support.
Subcommittee members inquired whether there would be projects that could be considered detrimental
or harmful to the surroundings. CDD Gardiner replied that the Planning Commission had recently
reviewed an application to modify the façade of a downtown storefront, and the Commission was
concerned that the project would be detrimental because it would strip architectural detail and character
from the building.
Subcommittee members suggested that the criteria of whether the application is complete should not
be a scale, but rather yes or no. However with further discussion, there were suggestions that there
may be a difference between a “bare bones” application and one that is very thorough, with items such
as renderings. CDD Gardiner noted this could allow constructive feedback in that an applicant could
improve their score if they provide additional documentation to make their case.
Subcommittee members suggested that the grant program be prepared to be offered in early 2019. It
can be introduced to the City Council as a work item upon review by the City Manager and City Attorney.
Latest Trends in Our Business Districts
EDS Relihan reviewed a presentation that had originally been provided to the Downtown Business
Improvement District by a firm that paints murals on a commercial basis. He noted that the City cannot
specify particular vendors, but that the vendor had approached the City and asked to have their
marketing material forwarded to the BIDs.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
November 16, 2018
3
Subcommittee members expressed concern that there be a perception that the murals offered by the
vendors were being endorsed by the City, particularly given that the City has a subcommittee focused
on public art.
Subcommittee members suggested there are some good locations where such murals could be
effective, and noted that there is consideration of adding art to the Beautification Commission.
Subcommittee members suggested involving the Parks and Recreation Director and the arts committee
in the discussions.
Subcommittee members also noted that private property owners might be interested in undertaking
mural projects on their own, and they may be interested in having a list of potential vendors to consider.
Subcommittee members suggested that to be proactive, there could be an effort to identify potential
locations for murals, such as large blank walls in the business districts. The public art committee (or
Beautification Commission as the case may be) could possibly identify a handful of locations that would
be suitable for murals, and then contact the property owners with the suggestion.
EDS Relihan next mentioned that there continues to be fitness businesses expressing interest in
locating on Burlingame Avenue. CDD Gardiner noted that there is an item on the upcoming City Council
agenda authorizing staff to prepare a proposal for allowing Commercial Recreation within the
Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) district. It would be a relatively straightforward ordinance text
amendment provided it is focused on just the Commercial Recreation use.
Subcommittee members also asked how daycare could be accommodated in other parts of town. CDD
Gardiner suggested there be a review of where daycare is currently allowed, and why it is not allowed
in some locations. Subcommittee members noted that Gymboree is entering the daycare market and is
looking for locations, and that there is a real need in the community for such services. Potential locations
were identified in the Inner Bayshore area, but the zoning does not allow daycare. Subcommittee
members suggested that employment locations such as Inner Bayshore could be appropriate for
daycare given the proximity of employment and the convenience to employees in the area. Daycare
could be a suitable ground floor use on side streets, in the manner of Peninsula Family Services in
Downtown San Mateo. Subcommittee members suggested that downtown would be a good location for
daycare since it is where people are already living and working, and that the comings and goings of the
parents could add vibrancy to an area. In locations where there is interest in having an active use on
the ground floor, daycare could be appropriate as an alternate to retail.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Suggested future agenda items include brainstorming EDS goals and projects for 2019, reviewing 2018
EDS minutes, and reviewing past EDS projects still in progress.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:48 a.m.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
November 16, 2018
4
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin Gardiner
Community Development Director
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee
MINUTES
Conference Room A
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California
Friday, December 21, 2018 – 9:00 a.m.
1
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Mayor Colson and Council Member Beach
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan, Community
Development Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner, City Manager Lisa Goldman (CM)
Members of the Public Present: None
READ AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER MEETING
Meeting Minutes approved.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Updated Facade Improvement Program Draft:
EDS Relihan introduced the item. He noted that the grant application document has been updated to
reflect input received from the subcommittee previously.
Subcommittee members suggested the following edits and modifications:
Specifically designate Broadway in the pilot program.
Change reference “vacant and currently filled” to “leased” to prioritize improvements that benefit
tenants. The reference to befitting property values should be removed.
There should be a stated opening and closing date for applications, rather than reviewing on a
first-come, first-serve basis.
State that funding availability be set aside for up to $50,000 for the program. This would provide
a safeguard if submittals were not worthy. Also clarify that individual grants are up to $10,000,
which would suggest that smaller grants would also be considered.
Strike “city will provide assistance to the applicant if possible” as it could be misinterpreted as a
commitment by City staff beyond what is reasonable.
Clarify that permitting fees need to be reflected in budgets.
Remove the reference of the score from 0 to 18 on the scoring sheet, since it is confusing.
Allow for energy-efficiency upgrades such as installation of LED lights. This could be reflected
in the goals and objectives.
Subcommittee members noted that the document mentions needing detailed cost estimates with the
application, but then instructs the grantee to obtain bids. Suggestion was to allow the grant amount to
be a round number, not a precise amount, but then be supported by documentation for reimbursement.
The documentation would need to indicate where the costs comes from. If the work exceeds the grant
amount, the additional cost would be the responsibility of the grantee; if the work is less than the grant
amount, the reimbursement will be only for the documented expenses.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
December 21, 2018
2
The subcommittee discussed how much detail should be in the application form. The consensus was
to keep the application form concise and direct, but offer a more detailed “how to” list of st eps for
applicants not as familiar with permitting or building projects.
For the landlord consent form, subcommittee members asked if something that is the responsibility of
the tenant would still need landlord consent. In some instances it can be difficult to get in touch with
landlords who are out of town. In lieu of a landlord signature, a tenant could show a provision in his/her
lease agreement referencing ability to do the work.
The subcommittee agreed that EDS Relihan will makes the edits to the document as directed, have it
reviewed by the City Attorney, and then have one more review by the subcommittee. At that point, EDS
Relihan can provide outreach to the Broadway BID, with instruction to let the BID members know the
evaluation will be a public process and BID members can weigh in accordingly. EDS Relihan can meet
with the BID president and merchants, letting them know what is being proposed and that it will be
reviewed by the City Council. If the program is approved by the City Council, EDS Relihan could then
come to a BID meeting to roll it out.
CM Goldman clarified that the timing depends on staff workloads, particularly the City Attorney given
current assignments.
Brainstorming 2019 Goals and Objectives
EDS Relihan introduced the item. Subcommittee members suggested the following goals and objectives
for 2019:
Local minimum wage policies.
Zoning in the Bayfront area, including daycare opportunities.
Entertainment opportunities for downtown and Topgolf.
Strategies to attract co-working spaces to generate activity downtown and revisit idea of first
floor use to encourage development for co-working spaces.
“Shop Local” campaign.
Retail Summit – proposed date April 17th, Wednesday, 6:30 pm.
Housing above car dealerships concept.
Façade Improvement Pilot Program finalization and implementation.
Subcommittee members suggested the list can be prioritized with the next Economic Development
Subcommittee. Prioritization could consider “low-hanging fruit” and staffing availability. The priorities
would then be reported out to the City Council.
Subcommittee members also indicated interest in transportation as it relates to economic development.
However the consensus was that the topic is beyond the scope of the Economic Development
Subcommittee, and that it should involve the Public Works Department.
Subcommittee members also noted that the subcommittee meetings where members of the public were
invited have been very helpful.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
December 21, 2018
3
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
EDS Relihan noted that at the beginning of each year he typically invites the General Managers of the
hotels to attend an Economic Development Subcommittee meeting and provide feedback on economic
matters affecting the hotels.
Meetings in the future will be scheduled on the second Wednesday of the month from 8:00-9:30 am.
The next meeting will be on January 9, 2019.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:28 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin Gardiner
Community Development Director
1
Memorandum
AGENDA NO: 11a
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
To: City Council
Date: May 20, 2019
From: Mayor Donna Colson
Subject: Committee Report
May 6, 2019
Burlingame Hills Economic and Service Delivery Kick-Off Meeting
• Number of people and homes
• 433 parcels in Burlingame Hills (8 vacant)
• Maybe 1,100 people
Pockets of Burlingame that are unincorporated
• How do we deliver services
• How do we make them more efficient
• Want to analyze and see what the data is to understand how this would all work and how it
would compare to the City of Burlingame
Focus on Consultant Richard Berkson to find out what he needs to analyze the data.
• Started with five-years, but we do need the information on the infrastructure and determine
how much longer than five for especially the streets and sewer repairs.
• Looking at variety of options and pros and cons of each and then quantify each and look at
the revenues - need to work out sharing of things like property taxes. If annexation were to
occur then, there would need to be study on impacts - general funds, fire-fund - SMC For
unincorporated area there is pre-prop 13 property tax that goes into that fund and it funds
the services for contract with Cal Fire. None of this goes to CCFD and the revenues go to
County - to support fire, even though the City does not get funding for this (funds stay at
the County).
• There will be a draft report and analytics to guide the decision making situation.
Who is driving this
• Supervisor Pine is driving to get this analysis done and it is similar to the work that
LAFCO does and so want to incorporate. Have created a partnership.
One important part is - who is driving the costs and how do you balance these and mitigate the
impact. Example - to the extent that Burlingame Hills have higher costs for management, then
there could be a ZONE created that would create a higher funding or there could be assessments
Colson Committee Report May 20, 2019
2
made to individual homeowners who pay to have these capital costs. Minimize impacts on existing
city residents and the general fund.
City of Hillsborough provides some water to some 6-12 homes so that would have to be
considered.
Questions for Public Works and Fire
• Conditions of streets, pipes and also the fire situation
• Sheriff’s Department - What they can provide and calls for service and who responds and
agreements for aid
• Register of voters to see who votes? (Not sure why this is important)
• Ask for RHNA and permitting information from past
• Sphere of influence report and look at the annexation history
• Will list pros and cons and the mitigations - tax sharing, etc.
If there were a consensus that annexation were the way forward and then city would need to do
zoning and land use, then if LAFCO approves, if 25% plus one registered voters or can protest as
property owners. Then would to the ballot, this is an economic and service analysis.
May 7, 2019
McKinley Founders Day Reception
SolMateo Event at Barry’s Bootcamp
Presentation from Historical Society on the Burlingame Post Office
• Great presentation by Jennifer Pfaff and Cathy Baylock on the history of the USPO and it’s
employees!
May 8, 2019
City Council Budget Study Session
May 9, 2019
Bike to Work Day - Spend AM with colleagues speaking with bikers at CalTrain station - also a
fun time.
May 10, 2019
Kent Awards Recognizing outstanding leadership!
• Our own Greg Land presided over the meeting and BIS won two awards for excellent
programs - cross over teaching for students with IEP was recognized as top program.
May 13, 2019
Peninsula Clean Energy Executive and Finance Committee Meeting
EXECUTIVE MEETING
• Granted Baa2 investment rating - which will help on our PPA negotiations and cost of
capital
Colson Committee Report May 20, 2019
3
• Burlingame is the only city that has formally moved forward to adopt the reach codes!
Well done Burlingame Community Development team and this will prove important for
the Rollins Road conversation.
• Working to develop a joint CCA Cost-Sharing Agreement with PCE, MBCP, EBCE,
SJCE, SVCE - to work on Resource Adequacy purchasing. Received 5 proposals and
selected ACES. PCE is serving as the lead for the five CCAs. We are executing the
contract and each CCA is $130,000 and we will need to bring this to the PCE board since
we are paying full three-year contract.
• Load Stabilization Proposal - Covers about 20 customers right now that are our largest.
Customers must meet minimum Eco plus consumption thresholds and the lowest level of
discount is at a high level and then there are tiers. Excluding planned renewable generation
- the max solar they could apply would not knock them out of applying for a discount.
Many benefits to all of our client base. Eco100 does not get any discount on the 1 cent
addition, but the base rate does get the discount.
• Finance - Implemented one rate change on May 1. Assume one rate change on 1/1/20
reflecting our current expectation of PB&E rates and PCIA changes.
• Budget - Have to make an adjustment on the budget to account for changes in the cost of
electricity.
FINANCE MEETING
• Updated information on how we are going to present data to BOD.
• Review of financial statements and audit process.
• Discussion regarding how we are going to rebid contracts for both accounting and audit
services.
May 14, 2019
• Chamber Meeting - Provided update on budget, housing, and Burlingame Talks Shop
efforts at ED Committee.
• Downtown Parking Meeting Mitigation study for Village at Burlingame Project
May 15, 2019
C/CAG SMC Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee
• Update on equity issues for Water and Energy resources - mainly work that PCE is doing
around EV and also PLA for new construction.
• Ideas of how to make sure we do not duplicate efforts and programs such as (refrigerator
disposal as example).
• Reach Codes - Model codes and working with PCE to provide $10,000 incentives for each
city to at least learn and consider this upgrade to the Code. Avoid $50,000 total cost to
implement because PCE is taking the lead on this.