HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2019.05.06City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final-revised
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, May 6, 2019
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A
Approval of the Closed Session Agendaa.
Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the Public May Address the Council on
any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time
b.
Adjournment into Closed Sessionc.
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
d.
Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the
non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7.
Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and
hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is
optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in
light of the number of anticipated speakers.
All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation Honoring Burlingame High School and San Mateo High School Combined
Concert Choirs and Chamber Singers
a.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/6/2019
May 6, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final-revised
Proclamation Honoring Burlingame High School Iron Panthers Robotics Teamb.
Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) Presentationc.
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 April 15, 2019a.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Procurement of Five Public Safety Interceptor
Vehicles
b.
Staff Report
Resolution
Summary of Bids
Attachments:
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
c.
Staff Report
Ordinance
April 15, 2019 Staff Report
Attachments:
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 Improvements to the Solid Waste
Management Facilities of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority
d.
Staff Report
Resolution
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/6/2019
May 6, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final-revised
Adoption of Resolutions Initiating Proceedings to Renew the Levy and Collection of
Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project for
Fiscal Year 2019-20
e.
Staff Report
Resolution Initiating Proceedings for Levy & Collection
Resolution Approving Annual Report for FY 2019-20
Updated Engineer's Report for FY 2019-20
Resolution Declaring Intention to Levy & Collect Assessments
Staff Report - April 2, 2012
Staff Report - May 21, 2012
Attachments:
Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Library Board of Trusteesf.
Staff ReportAttachments:
Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending March 31, 2019g.
Staff Report
Portfolio Holdings
CERBT Quarterly Statement
PARS Monthly Statement
Attachments:
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Burlingame Master
Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2019-20
a.
Staff Report
Resolution
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
Attachments:
Public Hearing and Adoption of Broadway Area Business Improvement Assessments for
Fiscal Year 2019-20
b.
Staff Report
BID Expenditures
Resolution
Assessment Roll
Attachments:
Introduction of an Ordinance Prohibiting Retaliation for Smoking Complaintsc.
Staff Report
Proposed Ordinance
Attachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/6/2019
May 6, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final-revised
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
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)
a.
Staff Report
Resolution
Sixth Contract Amendment City Attorney
Salary Schedules
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Governing Appeal Procedures for Massage Establishments and
Practitioners
b.
Staff Report
Resolution
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:
Vice Mayor Beach's Committee Reportb.
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
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
Budget Study Session - Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:30 p.m.
Regular City Council Meeting - Monday, May 20, 2019
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/6/2019
May 6, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final-revised
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 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/6/2019
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19
Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on April 15, 2019
STUDY SESSION (6:00 P.M.)
a. DISCUSSION OF 877 BURLWAY PROPOSAL
A study session was held in Conference Room A discussing the 877 Burlway proposal.
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 Jazz Mara.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
The closed session concerning the annual evaluation of the City Attorney (Government Code Section 54957)
was held after adjournment of the regular meeting.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Colson reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19
Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
2
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. Councilmember Brownrigg pulled item 8h. Vice Mayor Beach recused herself from item
8b due to financial interest.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8f, and 8g; seconded by
Councilmember Keighran. The motion was adopted unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. (The vote on item 8b
was 4-0-1 as Vice Mayor Beach recused herself due to a financial interest.)
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 1, 2019
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes for April 1, 2019.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH MCIMETRO
ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES CORP. D/B/A/ VERIZON ACCESS TRANSMISSION
SERVICES FOR INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND CONDUIT AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 36-2019.
Vice Mayor Beach recused herself from this item due to a financial interest.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO P.C.
INC., FOR THE POLICE STATION EMERGENCY GENERATOR PROJECT, CITY
PROJECT NO. 84640, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 37-2019.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ORDERING AND CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2019
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 38-2019.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SHORELAND SUBDIVISION
WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BY STOLOSKI AND GONZALES INC., CITY
PROJECT NO. 83521
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19
Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
3
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 39-2019.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CAROLAN-ROLLINS EASEMENT
SANITARY SEWER MAIN RELOCATION PROJECT BY CRATUS INC., CITY PROJECT
NO. 84850
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 40-2019.
g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS
COMMUNITIES TO TAKE THE IDLE FREE PLEDGE
Sustainability Coordinator Pappajohn requested Council adopt Resolution Number 41-2019.
h. APPROVAL OF A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL AS AUTISM AWARENESS
MONTH
Councilmember Brownrigg requested Council approve a proclamation recognizing April as Autism
Awareness Month.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated this item was suggested by Burlingame resident Swathi Chettapally. He
asked that Swathi and Uli Chettapally come forward and speak on this item.
Mr. Chettapally stated that their 25-year old daughter has autism and functions at a 6-year old level. He
explained that autism is a developmental disorder that can impair social, communication, and behavioral
skills. He stated that there are more than 1.5 million people in the United States that have autism. He noted
that the California Department of Developmental Services reports that diagnoses have risen from 3,262 in
1989 to over 80,000 today.
Mr. Chettapally stated that one of the biggest challenges is that individuals with autism over 22 years old are
aged out of the school system. Therefore, after school it is often left to the parents to find day-care
programs, housing, and employment for their children.
Mr. Chettapally stated that he appreciated the Council recognizing April as Autism Awareness Month.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the need for the community to be respectful of those with autism and
to intervene if unethical behavior towards them is observed.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to recognize April as Autism Awareness Month; seconded by
Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19
Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
4
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. 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
Mayor Colson opened this item by stating that on Wednesday the City will host a discussion called
“Burlingame Talks Shop.” She noted that commercial recreation would be among the topics at the event and
therefore wanted the Council to have a chance to discuss it prior to the event.
Planning Manager Hurin explained that Burlingame Avenue has traditionally been focused on retail,
restaurant, and service uses. However, he noted that given the evolving nature of all of those uses, in
particular retail, many business and shopping districts are finding a need to introduce additional new uses in
order to remain vibrant and competitive. He stated that some communities found that active commercial
recreation uses can be an appropriate addition to their business and shopping districts. He explained that
communities have found that commercial recreation can generate regular “foot traffic,” which benefits
neighboring retailers, restaurants, and services.
Planning Manager Hurin explained that commercial recreation was initially discussed by the City’s
Economic Development Subcommittee last year. He stated that in November 2018, the City Council gave
staff direction to proceed with preparation of amendments to the land use restrictions allowing commercial
recreation as a Conditional Use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (“BAC”) District.
Planning Manager Hurin explained that the proposed ordinance includes amendments to the City’s existing
BAC District regulations to allow commercial recreation as a Conditional Use. He noted that the proposed
ordinance also includes 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. He stated that this exemption is consistent with the exemption given
to retail, personal service, and food establishments.
Planning Manager Hurin stated that the proposed amendment establishes criteria for approval of commercial
recreation conditional uses including:
• Requiring active visible uses such as retail, waiting/reception, or lounge areas associated with the
business along the business frontage abutting the sidewalk. The active area must measure at least 15
feet in depth; and
• Maintaining a clear view into the business by not allowing storefront windows or doors to be
obscured.
Planning Manager Hurin explained that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments and
expressed support.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19
Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
5
Councilmember Brownrigg asked for a definition of commercial recreation. Planning Manager Hurin stated
that commercial recreation includes fitness and athletic uses such as gyms, art and dance studios, and activity
play centers for children. He noted that there is a broad range of uses.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if commercial recreation was distinct from spas. Planning Manager Hurin
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked how staff came up with the requirement for a depth of 15 feet of active area.
Planning Manager Hurin stated that staff reviewed different floor plans and felt that 15 feet was a
comfortable zone to establish a retail presence.
Councilmember Keighran questioned if 15 feet was enough. She noted that she liked the idea of having
retail in the front. She asked how signage regulations differ on Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue.
Planning Manager Hurin stated that he believes the regulations are the same. He explained that he would get
back to Council but thought the regulation allowed for a maximum of five signs totaling 60 square feet.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that commercial recreation currently exists on off-shoots of Burlingame Avenue
such as Basecamp and Barry’s Bootcamp. She explained that as much as she would like to believe that
people would walk or ride their bike to these facilities, realistically many will be driving. She asked about
the parking impact from commercial recreation facilities. She asked if it was mostly in the early morning
and weekends. She asked how the Council should be thinking about this in terms of Burlingame Avenue.
Planning Manager Hurin explained that based on the City’s experience, the impact is greatest in the
mornings. He noted that staff is hearing that people are combining their trips to these facilities with other
errands in the area.
Councilmember Ortiz asked how parking and foot traffic have worked after the addition of the pilates studio
on Broadway. Planning Manager Hurin stated that staff doesn’t have any data related to foot traffic and
hasn’t received any traffic/parking complaints.
Mayor Colson asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer
read the title.
Councilmember Keighran 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.
Row House representative Jazz Mara discussed his company’s desire to put their rowing studio on
Burlingame Avenue.
Mayor Colson asked how many square feet Row House would need. Mr. Mara replied that it would need
2000 square feet.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19
Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
6
Mayor Colson asked about Row House’s operating hours. Mr. Mara stated that most people attend their 6:00
a.m. class and that the studio closes at 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Colson asked how many people can enroll in a class. Mr. Mara stated that their classes accommodate
25 people.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if Row House was a chain. Mr. Mara replied in the affirmative and
discussed other Bay Area locations that Row House will be located in.
Mayor Colson closed the public hearing.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that the Economic Development Subcommittee held several discussions
concerning what experts believe is the future of retail. She explained that the goal of these discussions is to
keep the downtown vibrant, thriving, and high foot traffic. She stated that from these discussions, the
general advice the City received was that it needs to be more flexible and consider alternate uses.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she agreed that the City needed to broaden its horizons and look at a
variety of uses for the downtown area. However, she thought that a vote on the proposed ordinance was
premature. She stated that the Council should wait until after the Burlingame Talks Shop event, in order to
obtain feedback from retail owners, the public, landowners, and developers.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she liked the idea of requiring retail in the front of commercial
recreation locations. She voiced concern about the signage allowances as she wanted to ensure that
Burlingame Avenue remained charming. City Attorney Kane stated that the City can review signage
requirements for the downtown area.
Councilmember Ortiz discussed the dramatic change in retail and stated that many of the vacant storefronts
were the result of online shopping. He noted that he believed this trend would continue and that the City
should consider alternative uses. He stated that he thought the proposed ordinance was a great first step.
Councilmember Brownrigg thanked Mayor Colson for setting up the Burlingame Talks Shop event. He
discussed the closure of the book shop on Burlingame Avenue and stated that the shop couldn’t afford the
rental increase. He noted that the rent was increased to the market rate. He explained that there are two
ways to resolve vacant store fronts: expand the allowed uses or decrease the rent. He voiced concern that he
was unsure if changing retail is creating vacant lots or if the landowners’ rental increases are creating vacant
lots. He explained that he would like the City to collect data on the rental prices in the community so that the
Council would have a better understanding of the problem.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the importance of preventing “dead storefronts” where there is no
visual interest. He suggested that if the City allows commercial recreation, that these studios have a line of
sight from the street into the fitness area. He added that he approved of the parking exemption for street
level commercial recreation studios.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19
Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
7
Mayor Colson asked if the City’s Economic Development Specialist Cleese Relihan was collecting data on
the vacant store fronts. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He explained that information about the
rental prices for the vacant store fronts is available but that it is difficult to get a fixed number.
Mayor Colson asked staff to obtain the general market summary reports that are released by different
companies.
Councilmember Keighran asked if she was correct that the City could ask how much retailers were paying in
rent but that the retailers weren’t required to tell the City. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Colson stated that there are often NDAs around property leases.
Mayor Colson asked about basement retail and whether commercial recreation could be put in those spaces.
CDD Gardiner stated that staff will be reviewing basement spaces after Burlingame Talks Shop. He added
that he believed the City currently allowed personal trainers in those areas but not commercial recreation.
Vice Mayor Beach agreed with Councilmember Keighran that the Council should obtain feedback from
Burlingame Talks Shop prior to voting on the proposed ordinance. She noted that there may be amendments
to the proposed ordinance based on the feedback they receive.
Councilmember Ortiz concurred with Vice Mayor Beach.
City Manager Goldman reviewed the Council’s discussion on the proposed ordinance’s requirement for 15
feet of retail at the front of the store. She stated that prior to bringing the proposed ordinance back for
introduction, the Council should discuss what the appropriate amount of retail is for commercial recreation.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that his concern wasn’t about the 15 feet depth but about the width
requirement for retail. He explained that he didn’t want to see retail stretch across the entire storefront. He
stated that he wanted foot traffic to have line of sight from the street into the fitness area.
Councilmember Keighran thought the depth requirement should be something that the Council discusses
during Burlingame Talks Shop and at the Economic Development Subcommittee.
Planning Manager Hurin stated that some of the fitness studios prefer not to have the public view their
clients’ workouts. He referenced Barry’s Bootcamp and how the workout area is entirely enclosed.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that less than 15 feet depth of retail would be too small. However, he noted that
the Council should wait for feedback from the merchants.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed requiring the tenant to have a percentage of their space be retail versus
the 15 feet in front of the studio.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19
Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
8
Mayor Colson stated that she liked Councilmember Brownrigg’s suggestion of basing retail on a percentage
of the space.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that it should be worded so that a portion of the retail needs to be in the front.
Mayor Colson stated that the consensus she was hearing is that there should be retail in the front and the
depth could be discussed at the Economic Development Subcommittee meeting. City Manager Goldman
stated that based on the Economic Development Subcommittee meeting schedule, the earliest the proposed
ordinance would come back to Council is May 20, 2019.
b. PUBLIC HEARING TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 15.15 OF
THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH MANAGEMENT OF
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS DURING BUILDING DEMOLITION PROJECTS
DPW Murtuza stated that the City is a member of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
Association (“BASMAA”). He explained that over the past year, staff has collaborated with the other
members to develop a unified and consistent approach to comply with the Water Board regulations regarding
the PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) Building Demolition Program.
Environmental Regulatory Compliance Coordinator Jennifer Lee gave a presentation on how the City will be
managing PCBs during building demolition.
Ms. Lee began by explaining that PCBs are oils to which chlorine has been added to keep them from
breaking down in industrial applications. She noted that because PCBs are stable at high temperatures,
beginning in the 1920s, PCBs were used for numerous industrial processes. However, after the harmful
effects of PCBs were realized, Congress banned the manufacture of PCBs in 1979.
Ms. Lee stated that PCBs are a problem in the San Francisco Bay because PCBS are toxic, persist in the
environment, and accumulate in the tissues of fish, wildlife, and humans. She noted that PCBs have been
found to cause cancer.
Ms. Lee explained that much of the PCB pollution in the Bay happened decades ago, before the potential
health and environmental effects of PCBs were widely known. However, although PCBs have been banned
for 40 years, small amounts of PCBS still enter the Bay.
Ms. Lee discussed what is being done to improve water quality in the San Francisco Bay including:
• Industry and military are cleaning “hot spot” sites
• Dredgers are testing San Francisco Bay for sediments and properly disposing of materials with high
levels of PCBs
• Municipalities are reducing PCBs in stormwater runoff by: identifying source properties for
abatement; developing green infrastructure; and developing programs to manage PCBs in building
materials during demolition.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19
Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
9
Ms. Lee discussed the regulation of water quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. She explained that under
BASMAA, San Mateo County shares the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit with Alameda, Contra
Costa, and Santa Clara counties. She stated that because all of these counties share a permit, they all have
the same requirements that must be met.
Mayor Colson asked if Marin County was part of this regional group. Ms. Lee replied in the affirmative but
stated that under this process, there are two phases. Phase 1 counties, including San Mateo County, have
several separate storm drain systems because of their larger cities, and Phase 2 counties have fewer separate
storm drain systems.
Ms. Lee explained that the municipal permit requires that the City develop a protocol to manage PCBs-
containing material during demolition by June 30, 2019. The protocol must include:
1. A method for identifying applicable buildings prior to their demolition;
2. A method for ensuring PCBs do not enter the storm drains when applicable buildings are demolished;
and
3. The necessary authority to implement the program.
Ms. Lee reviewed a few key terms that are included in the proposed ordinance including:
1. Applicable Structures – structures built or remodeled between 1950 and 1980, except wood framed
structures and single family residential structures regardless of the age of the building.
2. Buildings – structures with a roof and walls standing more or less permanently in one place.
Buildings are intended for human habitation or occupancy.
3. Demolition –the wrecking, razing, or tearing down of any structure.
4. Priority Building Materials – caulk, thermal or fiberglass insulation, adhesive mastics, and rubber
window gaskets.
Ms. Lee reviewed the process for administering the PCBs in the Building Demolition Program. She
explained that it would start with an individual applying for a building permit. If the individual’s application
includes demolition, the individual would need to complete the PCBs assessment form.
Councilmember Keighran asked who would do the assessment. Ms. Lee stated that the individual would
need to hire a third-party contractor.
Councilmember Keighran asked how long the testing takes. Ms. Lee stated that it varies based on the size of
the building.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that if the building is wood-frame, then the individual would not need to
get a PCBs assessment. Ms. Lee replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Lee discussed the public outreach the City conducted. She stated that the City notified property owners,
contractors, and industry groups that would be potentially affected by this ordinance. She explained that the
City hosted a workshop concerning the requirements and the process on April 6, 2019.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19
Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
10
Mayor Colson asked how many people attended the April 6, 2019 meeting. Ms. Lee replied that two
individuals attended.
Mayor Colson wondered if the low turnout was because individuals didn’t know about the PCBs requirement
or because the City doesn’t have many applicable buildings. She asked how many buildings would need a
PCBs assessment. Ms. Lee stated that she had identified approximately 11 buildings.
Mayor Colson asked if the City reached out to the 11 property owners. Ms. Lee replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Lee stated that moving forward, staff will notify applicants regarding the new requirements as early as
possible. She explained that all materials are available online at
www.burlingame.org/stormwaterdevelopment.
Mayor Colson asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer
read the title.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by
Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Mayor Colson asked the City Clerk to notice the proposed ordinance at least five days before the Council
considers adoption.
10. STAFF REPORTS
There were no staff reports.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCMENTS
a. MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Brownrigg asked staff to agendize a discussion of the regulation to require that all guns be
locked up or have trigger guards. Councilmember Ortiz and Vice Mayor Beach agreed and therefore this
item will be agendized.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19
Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
11
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Colson adjourned meeting at 8:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8b
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Procurement of Five Public Safety
Vehicles for the Police Department
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the procurement
of five public safety vehicles for a total of $226,195.
BACKGROUND
The Fleet Division is part of the Public Works Department and provides vehicle maintenance
services for City-owned vehicles and equipment. The Fleet Division maintains approximately 115
vehicles and 137 pieces of equipment for various City departments, including Police, Public Works,
Parks & Recreation, Library, City Attorney/Code Enforcement, and Community Development. The
Fleet Division also provides vehicle maintenance services to the Town of Hillsborough Public Works
Department. The services to the Town of Hillsborough consist of providing preventative
maintenance to 35 vehicles and seven pieces of equipment. As part of providing fleet maintenance
services, the Division is responsible for maintaining a sustainable Vehicle Replacement Program
to ensure all City vehicles/equipment are in good working condition for staff to conduct City
business and effectively deliver services to the community.
On September 8, 2018, the City Council approved the procurement of five Ford Police Interceptor
Utility Vehicles via Resolution No. 111-2018. Unfortunately, when staff contacted the Ford Motor
Company to place the order, staff was informed that the order bank closed earlier than originally
projected. As a result, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 133-2018 on October 15, 2018 to
cancel the procurement of the five public safety vehicles. Production on the Ford Motor Company’s
Interceptor Utility Vehicle has started once again, and staff is requesting that the City Council
approve the procurement.
DISCUSSION
The Fleet Division will purchase five Ford Police Interceptor Utility Vehicles that will replace the
current Ford Crowne Victorias, which have reached the end of their scheduled useful life. The Ford
Police Interceptor Utility Vehicle was recently selected as one of the Police Department patrol
replacement vehicles. Staff has been pleased with the performance of this vehicle and has had no
maintenance problems with the vehicle. The Hybrid Interceptor is in its first year of production as a
Resolution Approving the Procurement of Five Public Safety Vehicles May 6, 2019
2
pursuit vehicle. The Police Department feels comfortable purchasing one hybrid to test its
functionality as a permanent replacement to the standard non-hybrid vehicles in an effort to reduce
the Department’s carbon footprint. As with all first year production vehicles, there are likely to be
unforeseen complications in the build quality. In order to minimize this impact, they are opting to
purchase one hybrid as a test vehicle. The other four vehicles will be standard, non-hybrid vehicles.
Staff solicited bids for the procurement of the five Ford Interceptor Utility Vehicles to local
dealerships in Burlingame and within the Bay Area. The local dealerships declined to submit bids
as they do not sell the requested vehicle.
Staff has been able to secure the lowest responsible bid from National Auto Fleet Group in the total
amount of $226,195 through Sourcewell (formerly known as the National Joint Powers Alliance or
NJPA). Burlingame has been a member of Sourcewell since 2008. Sourcewell’s procurement is
leveraged nationally by cities and public agencies, and it satisfies the City’s competitive bid
requirements. These cooperative contract purchasing opportunities present both a time and
monetary savings for their users by consolidating numerous individually prepared solicitations to
one cooperatively shared process.
Staff requests that the City Council approve the procurement of five public safety vehicles for a
total amount of $226,195 from National Auto Fleet Group.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds for the purchase of these replacement vehicles were approved as part of the FY 2018-19
mid-year budget appropriations by the City Council.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Summary of Bids
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING
THE PROCUREMENT OF FIVE PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLES FOR THE CITY’S FLEET
SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PROCUREMENT
WHEREAS, the Fleet Division of the Public Works Department is responsible for vehicle
maintenance services of the City’s fleet and for managing the Vehicle Replacement Program in a
sustainable and effective manner to ensure the City’s fleet is in good operating condition; and
WHEREAS, the Fleet Division has identified five public safety vehicles for replacement;
and
WHEREAS, staff has been able to secure the lowest responsible bids for the procurement
of five public safety vehicles through the Sourcewell contract from the National Auto Fleet Group
as follows:
- One Hybrid Ford Police Interceptor at the bid price of $48,754; and
- Four Standard Ford Police Interceptors at the bid price of $177,441.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that the lowest responsible
bids are approved and adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or her designee is authorized to
execute the aforementioned procurement.
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 6th 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: 8c
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director – (650) 558-7230
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: 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
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND
CHAPTER 15.15 REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF PCBs DURING BUILDING
DEMOLITION PROJECTS UNDER THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE
BACKGROUND
PCBs are highly toxic industrial compounds and pose serious health risks to humans, even in
small amounts. Although PCBs were banned from manufacture in the United States in 1979,
PCBs are slow to break down and can persist in the environment at dangerous levels. PCBs have
been observed in elevated levels in certain fish in the San Francisco Bay (Bay), which contributes
to health risks to people who frequently eat contaminated fish. To make the fish safer to eat,
sources of PCBs entering the Bay need to be identified and controlled. Urban stormwater runoff,
airborne releases, and soil erosion are all pathways for PCBs to enter the Bay. Accordingly, the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), which regulates water
quality in the San Francisco Bay, is requiring that Bay Area municipalities develop and implement
a protocol for managing materials with PCBs in applicable structures at the time such structures
undergo demolition so that PCBs do not enter the storm drain system. Applicable structures
include commercial, public, institutional, and industrial structures constructed or remodeled from
January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1980 with building materials that contain PCB concentrations
of 50 parts per million (ppm) or greater. Single-family residential buildings and wood frame
structures are exempt. Local agencies are required to develop the protocols for PCBs by June
30, 2019 and include each of the following components, at a minimum:
1. Authority to ensure that PCBs do not enter the municipal storm drain systems from PCB-
Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 of the BMC May 6, 2019
Regarding Management of PCBs During Building Demolition Projects
2
containing materials in applicable structures at the time such structures undergo
demolition;
2. Method for identifying applicable structures prior to their demolition; and
3. Method(s) for ensuring PCBs are not discharged to the storm drain from demolition of
applicable structures.
DISCUSSION
The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and discussed the proposed ordinance
at its regular meeting of April 15, 2019. No changes were requested, and the ordinance was
scheduled for adoption. The proposed ordinance is presented to the City Council for adoption at
its regular meeting of May 6, 2019.
FISCAL IMPACT
Because single-family residential buildings and wood frame structures are exempt, it is anticipated
that the majority of demolition projects will not involve applicable structures. Staff will review
applications of applicable structures and certify the results. It is estimated that an average of two
hours of staff time will be required to review and approve these applications, which can be
absorbed in the current budget.
Exhibits:
• Ordinance
• April 15, 2019 Staff Report
1
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND
CHAPTER 15.15 REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF PCBs DURING BUILDING
DEMOLITION PROJECTS UNDER THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows:
Section 1. Factual Background and Findings.
WHEREAS, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are highly toxic industrial compounds and
pose serious health risks to humans; and
WHEREAS, PCBs were domestically manufactured from 1929 until manufacturing was
banned in the United States in 1979 but are slow to break down and can persist in the environment
at dangerous levels; and
WHEREAS, PCBs have been detected in elevated levels in fish and sediment in the San
Francisco Bay (Bay) making fish unsafe to eat; and,
WHEREAS, PCBs in caulk and other building materials that were used in building
construction and remodeling projects between 1950 and 1980 have been found to have
particularly high PCB concentrations; and,
WHEREAS, during demolition these building materials may be released to the
environment and transported to receiving waters by stormwater runoff; and
WHEREAS, stormwater runoff into storm drain systems is considered a significant
pathway for PCBs into the Bay; and,
WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, which
regulates water quality in the Bay, adopted on November 19, 2015 the reissued Municipal
Regional Permit (MRP), a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit that regulates
discharges of stormwater runoff from municipal storm drain systems; and
WHEREAS, the MRP requires permittees, including the City of Burlingame, to develop
and implement a protocol for managing materials with PCBs in applicable structures; and
WHEREAS, applicable structures to be screened for the presence of PCBs in priority
building materials include commercial, public, institutional, and industrial structures constructed
or remodeled from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1980; and
WHEREAS, single-family residential buildings and wood framed structures are exempt
2
from the screening for the presence of PCBs in priority building materials; and
WHEREAS, the MRP requires that this protocol be developed by June 30, 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 2. Chapter 15.15. – ‘Management of PCBs During Building Demolition Projects’ of
the Burlingame Municipal Code shall be added to read as follows:
15.15.010 Purpose.
(a) The provisions of this chapter shall be construed to accomplish the following
purposes:
(1) Require permit applicants (Applicants) for projects that include the
complete demolition of an Applicable Structure to conduct a PCBs in
Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment and submit information
documenting the results of the screening. Such documentation to include
(1) the results of a determination whether the building proposed for
demolition is high priority for PCBs-containing building materials based on
the structure age, use, and construction, and (2) the concentration of
PCBs in each Priority Building Material present and, (3) for each Priority
Building Material present with a PCBs concentration equal to or greater
than 50 ppm, the approximate amount (linear feet or square feet) of that
material in the building.
(2) Inform Applicants with PCBs present in one or more of the Priority Building
Materials (based on the above screening assessment) that they must
comply with all related applicable federal and state laws. This may include
reporting to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water
Board), and/or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC). Additional sampling for and abatement of PCBs may be required.
(3) Meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act, the California
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the Municipal Regional
Stormwater Permit Order No. R2-2015-0049.
(b) The requirements of this ordinance do not replace or supplant the
requirements of California or Federal law, including but not limited to the Toxic
Substances Control Act, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 761,
and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22.
15.15.020 Definitions.
The following terms shall have the meanings when used in this chapter:
(a) “Applicable Structure” means buildings constructed or remodeled from
January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1980. Wood framed buildings and single-
3
family residential buildings are not applicable structures regardless of the age
of the building.
(b) “Applicant” means a person applying for a building permit as required by
Chapter 25.20 Permits and Licenses, or a demolition permit as required by
Chapter 18.07.065.
(c) “Building” means a structure with a roof and walls standing more or less
permanently in one place. Buildings are intended for human habitation or
occupancy.
(d) “Demolition” means the wrecking, razing, or tearing down of any structure.
This definition is intended to be consistent with the demolition activities
undertaken by contractors with a C-21 Building Moving/Demolition
Contractor’s License.
(e) “DTSC” means the State of California Department of Toxic Substances
Control.
(f) “EPA” means The United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(g) “PCBs” means polychlorinated biphenyls.
(h) “PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment” means the two-
step process used to 1) determine whether the building proposed for
demolition is high priority for PCBs- containing building materials based on
the structure age, use, and construction; and if so 2) determine the
concentrations (if any) of PCBs in Priority Building Materials revealed through
existing information or representative sampling and chemical analysis of the
Priority Building Materials in the building. Directions for this process are
provided in the PCBs in the Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment
Applicant Package.
(i) “PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment Applicant
Package” (“Applicant Package”) means a document package that includes
an overview of the screening process, Applicant instructions, a process flow
chart, a screening assessment form, and the Protocol for Evaluating Priority
PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition (BASMAA 2018,
prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association,
August 2018).
(j) “Priority Building Materials” means the following:
(1) Caulking: e.g., around windows and doors, at structure/walkway
interfaces, and in expansion joints;
(2) Thermal/Fiberglass Insulation: e.g., around HVAC systems, heaters,
boilers, heated transfer piping, and inside walls or crawl spaces;
(3) Adhesive/Mastic: e.g., below carpet and floor tiles, under roofing
materials, and under flashing; and
(4) Rubber Window Gaskets: e.g., used in lieu of caulking to seal around
windows in steel-framed buildings.
(k) “Public Works Director” means the Public Works Director or authorized
4
designee.
(l) “Regional Water Board” means the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, San Francisco Bay Region.
(m) “Remodel” means to make significant finish and/or structural changes that
increase utility and appeal through complete replacement and/or expansion.
A removed area reflects fundamental changes that include multiple
alterations. These alterations may include some or all of the following:
replacement of a major component (cabinet(s), bathtub, or bathroom tile),
relocation of plumbing/gas fixtures/appliances, significant structural
alterations (relocating walls, and/or the addition of square footage).
15.15.030 Applicability.
This chapter applies to Applicants for buildings constructed or remodeled from
January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1980.
15.15.040 Exemptions.
Single-family residential and wood frame structures are exempt.
15.15.050 PCBs in priority building materials screening assessment.
Every Applicant shall conduct a PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening
Assessment, a two-step process used to:
(a) determine whether the building proposed for demolition is high priority for
PCBs containing building materials based on the structure age, use, and
construction (i.e., whether the building is an Applicable Structure); and if
so
(b) demonstrate the presence or absence and concentration of PCBs in
Priority Building Materials through existing information or representative
sampling and chemical analysis of the Priority Building Materials in the
building.
Applicants shall follow the directions provided in the PCBs in Priority Building
Materials Screening Assessment Applicant Package (Applicant Package), which
includes an overview of the process, Applicant instructions, a process flow chart,
a screening assessment form, and the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-
Containing Materials before Building Demolition. Per the Applicant Package, for
certain types of buildings built within a specified date range, the Applicant must
conduct further assessment to determine whether or not PCBs are present at
concentrations ≥ 50 ppm. This determination is made via existing data on specific
product formulations (if available), or more likely, via conducting representative
sampling of the priority building materials and analyzing the samples for PCBs at
a certified analytical laboratory. Any representative sampling and analysis must be
conducted in accordance with the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing
Materials before Building Demolition. The Applicant Package provides additional
details.
5
15.15.060 Agency notification, abatement, and disposal for identified
PCBs.
When the PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment identifies one
or more Priority Building Materials with PCBs, the Applicant must comply with all
related applicable federal and state laws, including potential notification of the
appropriate regulatory agencies, including EPA, the Regional Water Board, and/or
the DTSC. Agency contacts are provided in the Applicant Package. Additional
sampling for and abatement of PCBs may be required.
Depending on the approach for sampling and removing building materials
containing PCBs, the Applicant may need to notify or seek advance approval from
EPA before building demolition. Even in circumstances where advance notification
to or approval from EPA is not required before the demolition activity, the disposal
of PCBs waste is regulated under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Additionally, the disposal of PCBs waste is subject to California Code of
Regulations (CCR) Title 22 Section 66262. Additional information is provided in
the Applicant Package.
15.15.070 Compliance with California and federal PCBs laws and
regulations.
Applicants must comply with all f ederal and California laws and regulations,
including but not limited to health, safety, and environmental laws and regulations,
that relate to management and cleanup of any and all PCBs, including but not
limited to PCBs in Priority Building Materials, other PCBs-contaminated materials,
PCBs-contaminated liquids, and PCBs waste.
15.15.080 Information submission and applicant certification.
(a) The Applicant shall conduct a PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening
Assessment and submit the associated information and results as part of the
building permit application, including the following (see Applicant Package for
more details):
(1) Owner and project information, including location, year building was
built, description of building construction type, and anticipated
demolition date.
(2) Determination of whether the building proposed for demolition is high
priority for PCBs-containing building materials based on the structure
age, use, and construction.
(3) If high priority for PCBs-containing building materials based on the
structure age, use, and construction, the concentration of PCBs in
each Priority Building Material present. If PCBs concentrations are
determined via representative sampling and analysis, include a
contractor’s report documenting the assessment which includes the
6
completed QA/QC checklist from the Protocol for Evaluating Priority
PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition and the
analytical laboratory reports.
(4) For each Priority Building Material present with a PCBs concentration
equal to or greater than 50 ppm, the approximate amount (linear feet
or square feet) of that material in the building (see Applicant Package
for more details).
(5) Applicant’s certification of the accuracy of the information submitted.
(b) The Public Works Director may specify a format for the submission of the
information.
15.15.090 Recordkeeping.
Those Applicants conducting a building demolition project must maintain
documentation of the results of the PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening
Assessment for a minimum of five years after submittal.
15.15.100 Obligation to notify City of Burlingame of changes.
The Applicant shall submit written notifications documenting any changes in the
information submitted in compliance with this chapter.
The Applicant shall submit the revised information to the City of Burlingame when
changes in project conditions affect the information submitted with the permit
application.
15.15.110 Liability.
The Applicant is responsible for safely and legally complying with the requirements
of this chapter. Neither the issuance of a permit under the requirements of Chapter
25.20 Permits and Licenses or Chapter 18.07.065, nor the compliance with the
requirements of this chapter or with any condition imposed by the issuing authority,
shall relieve any person from responsibility for damage to persons or property
resulting there from, or as otherwise imposed by law, nor impose any liability upon
the City of Burlingame for damages to persons or property.
15.15.120 Enforcement.
Failure to submit the information required in this chapter or submittal of false
information will result in denial of the building permit.
15.15.130 Fees.
In addition to the fees required under the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule,
all Applicants subject to this chapter shall deposit funds with the City of
Burlingame, pay a fee sufficient to reimburse City of Burlingame costs for staff time
or consultant staff as applicable required to implement this chapter.
7
Section 3. The Public Works Department is directed to take necessary actions to implement
this ordinance.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in
accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and
circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30)
days after its final passage.
________________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of April,
2019, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of May,
2019, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9b
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 15, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director – (650) 558-7230
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 of the
Burlingame Municipal Code to Establish Management of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls During Building Demolition Projects
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a Public Hearing to introduce the attached
ordinance amending Chapter 15.15 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) to establish a
program to manage Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) during building demolition projects by:
1. Requesting the City Clerk read the title of the attached ordinance.
2. By motion, waiving further reading and introducing the proposed ordinance.
3. Conducting a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
4. Discussing the proposed ordinance and determining whether to bring it back for second reading
and adoption.
5. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its
proposed adoption.
BACKGROUND
PCBs are highly toxic industrial compounds that pose serious health risks to humans, even in small
amounts. Although PCBs were banned from manufacture in the United States in 1979, they are
slow to break down and can persist in the environment at dangerous levels. PCBs have been
observed in elevated levels in certain fish in the San Francisco Bay, which contributes to health
risks to people who frequently eat contaminated fish. To make the fish safer to eat, sources of
PCBs entering the Bay need to be identified and controlled. Urban stormwater runoff, airborne
releases, and soil erosion are all pathways for PCBs to enter the Bay. Accordingly, the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), which regulates water quality
in the San Francisco Bay, is requiring that Bay Area municipalities develop and implement a
protocol for managing materials with PCBs in applicable structures at the time such structures
undergo demolition so that PCBs do not enter the storm drain system. Applicable structures include
commercial, public, institutional, and industrial structures constructed or remodeled from January
1, 1950 to December 31, 1980 with building materials that contain PCB concentrations of 50 parts
per million (ppm) or greater. Single-family residential buildings and wood frame structures are
Introduction of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 to the Burlingame Municipal Code April 15, 2019
for the Management of PCBs During Building Demolition Projects
2
exempt. Local agencies are required to develop the protocols for PCBs by June 30, 2019 and
include each of the following components, at a minimum:
1. Authority to ensure that PCBs do not enter the municipal storm drain systems from PCB-
containing materials in applicable structures at the time such structures undergo demolition;
2. Method for identifying applicable structures prior to their demolition; and
3. Method(s) for ensuring PCBs are not discharged to the storm drain from demolition of applicable
structures.
DISCUSSION
The City of Burlingame is a member of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
Association (BASMAA). As such, staff has been collaborating with BASMAA agencies over the last
year to develop a unified and consistent approach to comply with the Water Board regulations with
regards to the PCBs Building Demolition Program. The BASMAA includes all the cities in Alameda,
Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties. The PCBs Building Demolition Program will
focus on requiring sampling, prior to demolition, for these four building materials: caulks and
sealants, thermal/fiberglass insulation and other insulating materials, adhesive/mastic, and rubber
window seals/gaskets. These materials were identified from scientific research on known PCB-
containing building materials and their concentrations.
Sampling will be a requirement for applicable structures, including commercial, public, institutional,
and industrial structures constructed or remodeled between January 1, 1950 and December 31,
1980. Single-family homes and wood-frame structures will be exempt. If PCBs are found to be
greater than or equal to 50 ppm in any of the building materials, applicants will be required to follow
all applicable federal and state requirements for notification and abatement prior to demolition,
similar to abatement requirements for asbestos. This may include reporting to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and/or the Water Board.
Process for Implementing the Ordinance:
Building permit applicant submits an application for a project that involves demolition.
City of Burlingame staff will notify building permit applicant about the requirements of this
ordinance including submittal of the PCBs Screening Assessment Form.
Applicant will complete the PCBs Screening Assessment Form, and determine whether or not
the building is an applicable structure. If there are no applicable structures, applicant will only
need to complete the initial screening questions and certify their response. (Note: It is
anticipated that the majority of demolition projects have non-applicable structures.)
If the building is an applicable structure, the applicant must conduct further assessment to
determine whether or not PCBs are present at concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm.
This determination is made through existing data on specific product formulations (if available),
or more likely, by conducting representative sampling of building materials and having the
samples analyzed for PCBs at a certified analytical laboratory.
If the sampling result identifies one or more building materials with elevated PCBs, the applicant
must comply with all applicable federal and state laws, including notification of regulatory
agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Water Board,
Introduction of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 to the Burlingame Municipal Code April 15, 2019
for the Management of PCBs During Building Demolition Projects
3
and/or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Additional sampling and
abatement of PCBs may be required. Depending on the approach for sampling and removing
building materials containing PCBs, the applicant may need to notify or seek advance approval
from USEPA before building demolition. Even in circumstances where advance notification to
or approval from USEPA is not required before the demolition activity, the disposal of PCB
waste is regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act and is subject to the California Code
of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66262.
The focus of this regulation is to protect water quality by preventing PCBs from entering stormwater
runoff. The regulation does not:
Ask for municipal oversight or enforcement of human health protection standards;
Ask for municipal oversight of PCB abatement or remediation of materials or lands
contaminated by PCBs; or
Establish remediation standards.
In order to educate the public and the construction community about the upcoming requirements
for PCB abatement, staff held a public workshop on April 6, 2019 at the Main Library. Staff
conducted extensive targeted notification to prospective builders, contractors, and applicants
through the City’s eNews and direct mailing regarding the workshop. Additionally, staff plans to
make the outreach and education materials available through the City website.
FISCAL IMPACT
Because single-family residential buildings and wood frame structures are exempt, it is anticipated
that the majority of demolition projects will not involve applicable structures. Staff will review
applications of applicable structures and certify the results. It is estimated that an average of two
hours of staff time will be required to review and approve these applications, which can be absorbed
in the current budget.
Exhibits:
Proposed Ordinance
PCBs Demolition Program Applicant Package
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8d
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222
Subject: 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 Improvements
to the Solid Waste Management Facilities of the South Bayside Waste
Management Authority
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the issuance of up
to $64 million of Solid Waste Enterprise Bonds to refinance outstanding Series 2009A bonds of the
South Bayside Waste Management Authority and to finance certain improvements to the Authority-
owned Solid Waste Facilities of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority.
BACKGROUND
In August 2009, the SBWMA issued $53,500,000 tax-exempt Solid Waste Enterprise Revenue
Bonds, Series 2009A to fund improvements to the Shoreway Environmental Center. Currently,
$44,685,000 of the 2009A Bonds remains outstanding.
The 2009A Bonds were issued during a high interest rate period, and currently SBWMA is paying
interest on the 2009A Bonds ranging from 5% to 6.25%. Given the current level of tax-exempt
interest rates, a refunding of the 2009A Bonds produces strong present value savings as current
borrowing rates, inclusive of transaction expenses, are significantly lower than when the 2009A
Bonds were originally issued. Tax law stipulates that the 2009A Bonds must be refunded on a
“current” basis (on or after 90 days before the September 1, 2019 call date). As such, the first
possible date that the 2009A Bonds can be refunded is June 1, 2019. If refunded on June 1, 2019
as proposed, the outstanding 2009A Bonds would be redeemed with the proceeds of the proposed
2019 Refunding Bonds at their first optional redemption date, September 1, 2019.
DISCUSSION
Based on current market interest rates, a refunding of the 2009A Bonds is estimated to generate
approximately $10 million in present value savings. In addition, accessing the capital markets to
execute this refunding transaction creates a one-time, unique opportunity for SBWMA to raise
additional new money proceeds for needed capital projects.
SBWMA Bond Refinancing and Capital Bond Financing May 6, 2019
2
The SBWMA Board approved a Bond Refunding Work Plan on September 27, 2018. Table 1
below illustrates the subsequent equipment and financing project review milestones, culminating
in the SBWMA Board’s approval of the Plan of Finance Approach, as presented at its March 28,
2019 Board Meeting.
Table 1
2019 Bond Issuance Milestones
Date/Meeting Action Item / Approval
September 27, 2018: Board Meeting • Approval – Bond Refunding Work Plan
October 3 & 10, 2018: Zero Landfill
Committee Meeting
• Presentation and Discussion – Organics to Energy (O2E)
Project and AB1383
November 2, 2018 • Municipal Advisor RFQ Issued
November 5, 2018: Finance Committee
Meeting
• Discussion – Capital Improvement Projects
November 15, 2018: Board Meeting • Approval – Organics to Energy Pilot Project
• Approval – Executive Director to Execute Contract for
Municipal Advisor Services
January 4, 2019 • Contracted with KNN Public Finance to serve as Municipal
Advisor.
January 10: Finance Committee
Meeting
• Discussion – Capital Funding Plan
• Presentation – MRF Equipment Upgrades
January 24: Board Meeting • Presentation – Financing Objectives and Alternatives
February 14: Finance Committee
Meeting
• Discussion – Plan of Finance
• Study Session – MRF Equipment Upgrades
February 28: Zero Landfill Committee
Meeting
• Study Session – MRF Equipment Upgrades
February 28: BOD Meeting • Presentation – Financing Alternatives
• Presentation – MRF Processing Equipment Upgrades
• Favorable Straw Pole on Capital Improvements, Bond
Refunding and New Money Issuance
• Approval – Bond & Disclosure Counsel and Underwriter
Appointment
March 28: Board Meeting • Approval – Plan of Finance Approach
April 10 • Model staff report and resolution approving the issuance
of 2019 Bonds to Member Agencies
April 11: Finance Committee (pending) • Presentation - overview of financing documentation and
issuance parameters
April 25: Board Meeting (pending) • Adopt resolution recommending approval of the 2019
Bonds to Member Agencies
During the early planning stages for the 2009 bond refinancing, capital upgrades to the SBWMA’s
facilities in San Carlos were being proposed to address changes and provide cost-effective
efficiencies in the processing of recyclable materials at the Materials Recovery Facility. In addition,
capital funds would be needed for the future implementation of the Organics-to-Energy Project.
Both projects are described in this staff report.
SBWMA Bond Refinancing and Capital Bond Financing May 6, 2019
3
Rather than plan for a separate revenue bond financing for these capital needs, the Board approved
a 2019 Bond issuance that would include proceeds in addition to the anticipated savings from the
2009 bond refinancing. Therefore, the proposed bonds would be issued to (i) refund the SBWMA’s
Solid Waste Enterprise Revenue Bonds (Shoreway Environmental Center), Series 2009A (the
“2019 Refunding Bonds”) and (ii) pay the cost of certain improvements to the SBWMA’s solid waste
management facilities (the “2019 Revenue Bonds” and, together with the 2019 Refunding Bonds,
the “2019 Bonds”). The 2019 Bonds will also fund a deposit to the Reserve Account and pay costs
of issuance on the 2019 Bonds. The refunding savings of approximately $10 million, plus the new
money capital of approximately $10 million, will fund priority capital projects of the SBWMA with
minimal impact to the SBWMA’s current annual debt service payment obligations.
Overall, the objective of the issuance of the 2019 Bonds is to maintain an aggregate average annual
debt service payment near SBWMA’s current annual obligation on the 2009A Bonds ($4.1M
annually). The final maturity of the combined issuance will be extended by six years (from
September 1, 2036 to September 1, 2042) to allow for the additional new money capital. This
issuance approach is supported by the SBWMA Finance Committee and SBWMA Board. See
Exhibit A – Bond Plan of Finance Slides.
SBWMA Capital Projects to be Financed with the 2019 Bonds
Table 2: Capital Projects and Source of Funds
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) Equipment Upgrades ($15.6M). The proposed equipment
upgrades, consisting of Phase I and Phase II, provide strong operational enhancements that will
financially benefit the SBWMA for the next 12 years. The Phase I Upgrades include three projects:
1) Optical Sort of Small Fiber ($4.3M); 2) Robotic Sorting of Residue/QC System ($1.6M); and 3)
Enhanced Glass Cleanup System ($684K) – providing financial, commodity market, and
operational enhancements. With contingencies, Phase I requires a budget of nearly $7.4 million.
The Phase II Upgrades consist of six-optical sorters to be installed to partially replace sort labor,
and significantly upgrade the facility’s paper commodity product, and recover additional
BOD Action Project Agency Cost Payback (w/interest)
2019 MRF Sort System Upgrades $15.6M 6.3 years
2021 O2E Full-Scale Project $10.0M Cost Neutral
Capital Projects Estimated Costs $25.6M
Agency Source of Funds Amount Status
Capital Reserve $5.5M Mid-Year 18/19 Budget projected balance
Bond Refunding Savings $10.0M Pending refunding of 2009A Bonds
New Money Issuance $10.0M Pending issuance with 2019 Refunding Bonds
Total Estimated Funds $25.5M
Capital Projects and Source of Funds
SBWMA Bond Refinancing and Capital Bond Financing May 6, 2019
4
recyclables. Phase I Upgrades are designed to be installed prior to Phase II ($8.2 million), so that
the improvements in commodity quality can be assessed in the final design of Phase II Upgrades.
The financial benefit over the 12-year useful life of the equipment is estimated to be $29.6M,
resulting in an estimated net financial benefit of $14.1 million (including equipment interest
expense). See Table 3 below. Again, the financial benefit is achieved through increased
commodity capture (new revenue) and reduced labor expense. New revenue will be increased by
improving commodity material sorting efficiency and accuracy, resulting in higher grade material
that can be marketed at its maximum value. Manual sort labor expense will also be reduced by
installing high efficiency optical and robotics sorting systems. In addition, the equipment will
increase the plant’s throughput of materials, achieve increased fire risk mitigation, and reduce the
amount of paper to be landfilled. Table 3 indicates the most recent projection of revenue and cost-
avoidance benefits for the project over the equipment’s 12 year useful life. A detailed description
of the MRF Equipment Upgrades, associated benefits, and third-party justification can be found in
Exhibit B – February 2019 BOD Presentation on MRF Processing Equipment Upgrades.
Table 3: MRF Estimated Financial Benefit
Organics-to-Energy – Full-Scale Project At its November 2018 Board Meeting, the Board
approved the Organics-to-Energy (O2E) Pilot Project and recommended funding the full scale O2E
project ($10.0 million) after the O2E pilot project’s proof-of-concept is (presumably) achieved. The
O2E Full Scale Project is estimated to be cost-neutral: reduced transportation and tip fee costs
are expected to be offset by Shoreway processing and equipment costs. Project benefits include
an estimated 25-30% reduction in landfill waste (to achieve compliance with SB 1383); significant
greenhouse gas emissions reduction as a result of reduced transportation; and reduced
commercial organics processing costs.
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2019 Bonds will be structured to achieve minimal annual rate payer impact over the current tip
fee rates. Current annual debt service on the 2009A Bonds is approximately $4.1 million. The
2019 Bonds will be structured such that annual debt service payments will not exceed $4.3 million,
and the maturity will be extended six years (to September 1, 2042).
Capital Improvement Cost 15,579,944$
Revenue Benefit *23,112,044$
Cost Avoidance Benefit 6,529,164$
Estimated Revenue & Cost Benefit (through 12 year useful life)29,641,209$
Cumulative Financial Benefit 14,061,265$
MRF Enhancement Cumulative Financial Benefit Summary
SBWMA Bond Refinancing and Capital Bond Financing May 6, 2019
5
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Exhibit A – Bond Plan of Finance Presentation to the SBWMA Board
• Exhibit B – Presentation on MRF Processing Equipment Upgrades
• Exhibit C – Capital Project Schedule
RESOLUTION NO. ___
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $64 MILLION OF SOLID WASTE
ENTERPRISE BONDS TO REFINANCE OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE SOUTH
BAYSIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND TO FINANCE CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES OF THE
SOUTH BAYSIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is one of twelve equity members of the South
Bayside Waste Management Authority (herein referred to as the “Authority”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has proposed the issuance of solid waste enterprise revenue
bonds in one or more series to (i) refund the Authority’s Solid Waste Enterprise Revenue Bonds
(Shoreway Environmental Center), Series 2009A, currently outstanding in the principal amount
of $44,685,000; (ii) pay the cost of certain improvements to the Authority’s solid waste
management facilities, located in the City of San Carlos; (iii) fund a deposit to the reserve
account; and (iv) pay costs of issuance of the bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The City Council of the City of Burlingame approves the issuance by the Authority
of solid waste enterprise revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $64,000,000.
___________________________
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 at the 6th of May, 2019,
and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________
City Clerk
1300 Clay Street, Suite 1000, Oakland, CA 94612phone 510-839-8200 fax 510-208-8282A Limited Liability CompanySouth BaysideWaste Management AuthorityOverview of the 2019 Bonds: Refunding of Series 2009A Bonds and Financing Capital ImprovementsExhibit A
1.002.003.004.005.006.007.00Revenue Bond Index*10-year TreasuryRevenue Bond Index at Series 2009A Pricing (8/20/2009)Percent (%)Market Rates Continue to Support a Refunding of the Series 2009A Bonds South Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 1*The Bond Buyer Revenue Bond Index consists of 25 various revenue bonds that mature in 30 years. The average rating is roughly equivalent to Moody’s “A1” and S&P’s “A+”. Source: Bond Buyer Index: Bond Buyer. 10-year Treasury Yield Curve: The Department of the Treasury.Maximum (10-Year Historical) 5.78% 3.91%Minimum (10-Year Historical) 2.98% 1.40%2009A Issuance (8/20/2009) 5.62% 3.42%January Board Meeting 4.67% 2.74%February Board Meeting 4.71% 2.66%Current (3/28/2019) 4.26% 2.39%Revenue Bond Index*10-Tear U.S. Treasury
Overview of the 2019 Bonds South Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 2Plan of Finance Objective: Execute Bond Refunding and Raise $20M New Money Proceeds through Savings and Additional DebtRefunds outstanding 2009A Bonds to achieve debt service savingsIssues additional “new money” bonds in addition to redeploying savings for capitalExtends term of refunding bonds to achieve a short-term “window” to structure new money debt service with shorter average life restrictionsMaintains annual payments approximately equal to $4.1MM butextends bond term another six years to September 1, 2042 (from September 1, 2036)
Key Assumptions for the 2019 BondsSouth Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 3Offering Type: Fixed rate, public issuanceSecurity Type: Solid Waste Enterprise Revenue Bonds (consistent with Series 2009A Bonds) Ratings: A1 (Moody’s) / A+ (S&P); 2019 Bonds transaction ratings to be confirmedInterest Rates: Current rates as of April 4, 2019 plus 0.25% interest rate cushionClosing Date: June 26, 2019Call Date: September 1, 2029 (10-year par call)Final Maturity: September 1, 2042 (extended from September 1, 2036)Issuance Expenses: COI of $300,000 and UW Discount of $3.50 per bond Debt Service Reserve Fund (DSRF): Contribution of cash DSRF associated with the Series 2009A Bonds at current amount New cash DSRF sized for the 2019 Bonds
2019 Bonds Sources and Uses of Funds*South Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 4*Assumes current Authority credit ratings and market conditions as of 4/4/2019, plus 25 bps. Preliminary and subject to change based on tax-exempt interest rate movements.1Estimated Cost of Issuance includes fees for bond counsel, disclosure counsel, rating, municipal advisor, trustee printing, etc. Cost of issuance also includes bond rounding. Series 2019A: RefundingSeries 2019B: New MoneySeries 2019:Total Sources:Bond Proceeds:Par Amount 36,505,000$ 18,850,000$ 55,355,000$ Premium 5,792,867 2,717,778 8,510,644Total Bond Proceeds 42,297,867 21,567,778 63,865,6442009A Bonds Funds on Hand 6,567,395 - 6,567,395Total Sources 48,865,262$ 21,567,778$ 70,433,040$ Uses:Project Fund Deposit - 20,000,000 20,000,000Refunding Escrow 45,796,867 - 45,796,867Debt Service Reserve Fund 2,731,846 1,410,637 4,142,483Cost of Issuance1195,964 100,714 296,678Underwriter's Discount 140,584 56,427 197,011Total Uses 48,865,262$ 21,567,778$ 70,433,040$
1,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0004,000,0004,500,0002020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042Annual Debt Service Payments2009A Debt Service2019 Bonds Debt ServiceDebt Service Schedules: Status Quo (2009A Bonds) and 2019 BondsSouth Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 5$ Annual Debt ServiceBond Year
Detailed Debt Service SchedulesSouth Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 6*Assumes current Authority credit ratings and market conditions as of 4/1/2019, plus 25 bps. Preliminary and subject to change based on tax-exempt interest rate movements.September 1, Principal Interest Total Debt Service September 1, Principal Interest Total Debt ServiceDebt Service Difference from Status Quo2020 1,570,000 2,554,750 4,124,750 2020 875,000 3,267,483 4,142,48317,7332021 1,650,000 2,472,325 4,122,325 2021 1,415,000 2,724,000 4,139,00016,6752022 1,735,000 2,385,700 4,120,700 2022 1,485,000 2,653,250 4,138,25017,5502023 1,830,000 2,294,613 4,124,613 2023 1,560,000 2,579,000 4,139,00014,3882024 1,925,000 2,198,538 4,123,538 2024 1,640,000 2,501,000 4,141,00017,4632025 2,025,000 2,097,475 4,122,475 2025 1,720,000 2,419,000 4,139,00016,5252026 2,150,000 1,970,913 4,120,913 2026 1,805,000 2,333,000 4,138,00017,0882027 2,285,000 1,836,538 4,121,538 2027 1,895,000 2,242,750 4,137,75016,2132028 2,430,000 1,693,725 4,123,725 2028 1,990,000 2,148,000 4,138,00014,2752029 2,580,000 1,541,850 4,121,850 2029 2,090,000 2,048,500 4,138,50016,6502030 2,740,000 1,380,600 4,120,600 2030 2,195,000 1,944,000 4,139,00018,4002031 2,905,000 1,216,200 4,121,200 2031 2,305,000 1,834,250 4,139,25018,0502032 3,080,000 1,041,900 4,121,900 2032 2,420,000 1,719,000 4,139,00017,1002033 3,265,000 857,100 4,122,100 2033 2,540,000 1,598,000 4,138,00015,9002034 3,460,000 661,200 4,121,200 2034 2,670,000 1,471,000 4,141,00019,8002035 3,670,000 453,600 4,123,600 2035 2,800,000 1,337,500 4,137,50013,9002036 3,890,000 233,400 4,123,400 2036 2,940,000 1,197,500 4,137,50014,1002037 3,090,000 1,050,500 4,140,5004,140,5002038 3,245,000 896,000 4,141,0004,141,0002039 3,405,000 733,750 4,138,7504,138,7502040 3,575,000 563,500 4,138,5004,138,5002041 3,755,000 384,750 4,139,7504,139,7502042 3,940,000 197,000 4,137,0004,137,00043,190,000 26,890,425 70,080,425 55,355,000 39,842,733 95,197,73325,117,308Status Quo (Series 2009A Bonds)2019 Bonds*
Financing Results versus the Status Quo*South Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 7*Assumes current Authority credit ratings and market conditions as of 4/1/2019, plus 25 bps. Preliminary and subject to change based on tax-exempt interest rate movements.1Assuming a refunding of only the 2009 Series A Bonds, estimated Net PV Savings would be $10,794,614 or 24.16% savings of Refunded Bonds. The lower Net PV Savings values reflects structuring refinements to incorporate the new money issuance and required short-term amortization given average life restrictions.Status Quo:Series 2009A Bonds2019 Bonds: Refunding$20MM CapitalPar Amount of Refunded Bonds: -- $44,685,000 -- 14.307%Net PV Savings1: -- $6,393,095 Total Obligations and Debt Service Payments:Total Capital Proceeds Raised:--$20,000,000 Estimated Par Amount Outstanding after 2019 Bond Issuance$44,685,000 $55,355,000 Total Debt Service: $70,080,425 $95,197,733 Difference from the Status Quo: $25,117,308 Average Annual Debt Service: $4,122,378 $4,139,032 Difference from the Status Quo: $16,654 Final Debt Term: 9/1/2036 9/1/2042Refunding Present Value Savings:Percentage Savings of Refunded Bonds1:
Important Next Steps and Financing ApprovalsSouth Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 8Targeted Date/Meeting Action Item / ApprovalApril 11SBWMA Finance CommitteeReceive overview of financing documentation and issuance parametersApril 5Model staff report and resolution approving the issuance of 2019 Bonds to Member AgenciesApril 25SBWMA Board MeetingAdopt resolution recommending approval of 2019 Bonds to Member AgenciesAdopt Reimbursement ResolutionWeek of May 6Member Agency MeetingsAdopt resolution to approve the issuance of 2019 BondsWeek of May 13Member Agency MeetingsAdopt resolution to approve the issuance of 2019 BondsMay 13City of San Carlos MeetingHold public hearing as host City and for TEFRA*Approve JPA financing as host CityAdopt TEFRA* approvalAdopt resolution to approve the issuance of 2019 BondsMay 23SBWMA Board MeetingAdopt resolution authorizing the issuance of 2019 Bonds (subject to not-to-exceed parameters) and approving financing documents (resolution, bond indenture, official statement, purchase contract)* A public hearing required by the IRS to be held before the Board can approve the issuance by SBWMA of tax-exempt private activity debt.
Financing Timeline South Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 9Targeted Date Action ItemJanuary 2019Assemble financing team (SBWMA, KNN, Bond/Disclosure Counsel, Underwriter, and other parties)February 2019 – May 2019SBWMA Board engagements on Plan of Finance approachDevelop legal and disclosure documents necessary for issuanceWeek of May 13Rating Agency meetingsWeek of May 27Receive Bond credit ratingsPost Preliminary Official StatementMarket 2019 Bonds Week of June 10Price 2019 BondsWeek of June 24Close 2019 Bonds
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM 10B - p1
10B
STAFF REPORT
To: SBWMA Board Members
From: Hilary Gans, Senior Contracts & Operations Manager
Date: February 28, 2019 Board of Directors Meeting
Subject: Presentation on MRF Processing Equipment Upgrades
Recommendation:
This staff report is for discussion purposes only and no formal action is requested of the Board of Directors.
Summary
In the wake of the commodity market challenges and the need to improve fiber commodity quality to ensure
market outlets, SBWMA and SBR staff have analyzed many options to improve material quality. Automation of
MRF sorting has emerged as a key strategy towards this goal. The Bond Refunding process provides a unique
window to access capital for these future capital projects.
MRF Phase I - Sort System Upgrade
Cost: $7.3M (firm quote)
Equip. Useful Life: 12 Years; ROI Payback: 7.6-year payback (see attachment A)
Net Agency Benefit: 4.4 years
Designs have been completed and a quote for Phase I MRF Upgrade has been obtained from BHS. The Phase I
Upgrades includes three projects with financial, commodity market, and operational enhancements that benefits
the agency for the next decade. Phase I Upgrades are designed to be installed prior to Phase II so that the
improvements in commodity quality can be assessed in the final design of Phase II Upgrades.
1.Optical Sort of Small Fiber ($4.2M)
Description – BHS optical sort systems are used at Shoreway for high-speed separation of containers.
This same optical sorting technology will be applied to sorting contamination out of mixed paper to
capture more commodity revenues.
Benefits – Optical sorting will capture cardboard and containers that can be sold at a $1.3M/year in
additional revenues (these materials are currently lost to mixed paper), 2) mixed paper will be cleaned up
to High-Grade paper that sells at a $70 per ton premium (see attachment B).
2.Robotic Sorting of Residue/QC System ($1.6M)
Description - BHS manufactures a robotic sorting system (Max-AI AQC) that utilize advanced recognition
and AI technology to identify and sort a wide variety of materials. Applying this robotic system to the MRF
residue will result in a reduction in sort labor expense and the capture of more recyclable materials that
are currently “lost” to residue/disposal. Additionally, this recognition system will be installed at the end of
Exhibit B
SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B - p2
all fiber sort lines to identify, record, and report the fiber composition and quality so that the Phase II
optical sort system will meet the fiber commodity quality standard for high grade paper.
Benefits - Robotic sort and quality control system benefits include: 1) reduced sorting expense of
$204K/year, increase capture of recyclables currently lost to residue, 3) data collection for used in design
of Phase II fiber sort, and 4) ability to issue fiber-quality reports to buyers.
3. Enhanced Glass Cleanup System ($684,158)
Description - The MRF glass commodity is created by breaking all the glass fed into the sorting system
and then sifting fine material/glass out of the stream of recyclables. Currently this glass mix is
contaminated with shredded paper, batteries, and small metals and plastic contaminates. The glass
clean-up system will remove contaminates through a combination of magnets, screening and air. A key
aspect of the project is to remove batteries and to reduce exposure to fires caused by batteries.
Benefits – 1) Reduced fire risk by removing batteries early in the sort line, 2) improved glass commodity
sale price of $4/ton, 3) other commodity revenue from metals and CRV recovery, 4) operational
improvement from removal of shredded paper that is plugging the system causing plant stoppages.
MRF Phase II – Sort System Upgrades
Cost: $8.2 M (firm quote)
Equip. Useful Life: 12 Years; ROI Payback: 5-year payback (see attachment A)
Net Benefit: 7 years
Description: In response to the China mixed paper import ban, the recycling industry is transitioning to highspeed
optical sorting technology to remove contamination and meet new paper quality standards. Six-optical sorters will
be installed inplace of sort labor to upgrade mixed paper to High-Grade paper and recover additional recyclables.
Benefits: 1) High-Grade paper sells at a $70 per ton premium over mixed paper (see attachment B - letters from
SBR and Potential Industries) providing the SBWMA $1.5M/year in additional revenues, 2) commodities currently
lost to mixed paper will be sold at a premium, 3) reductions in sort labor will save $487K/year.
Organics to Energy – Full-Scale Project ($10M, Cost Neutral)
Description: In November 2018 the Board approved the O2E Pilot project and recommended funding the Full
Scale O2E Project after proof-of-concept is achieved. Equipment design and layout has confirmed the cost of the
project at ~$10M. Board consideration of the O2E Full Scales is anticipated in 2021.
Benefits: 1) 25-30% reduction in waste to landfill, 2) significant GHG emissions reduction, 3) reduced commercial
collection organics costs (estimated at over $2M per year).
Attachments:
Attachment A: MRF Processing Equipment Upgrades Financials
Attachment B: Letters from SBR and Potential in support of MRF Upgrades to improve commodity revenues
SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT A – p1
Attachment A - MRF Processing Equipment Upgrades Financials
SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT A – p2
SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT B – p1
Attachment B – Letters from SBR & Potential Industries
SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT B – p2
SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT B – p3
SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT B – p4
SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT B – p5
_________________________________________________ SBWMA BOD PACKET 03/28/2019____________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM: 5A ATTACHMENT C - p1Exhibit C
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8e
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of Resolutions Initiating Proceedings to Renew the Levy and
Collection of Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape
Improvement Project for Fiscal Year 2019-20
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions to initiate proceedings to
renew the levy and collection of assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape
Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1 for fiscal year 2019-20 as follows:
a. Initiate proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments for fiscal year 2019-20;
b. Approve the Annual Engineer’s Report for fiscal year 2019-20; and
c. Declare the intention to levy and collect assessments 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. The Public Hearing will be held on May 20, 2019.
Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue May 6, 2019
Streetscape Improvement Project for Fiscal Year 2019-20
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 Initiating Proceedings for Levy & Collections
• Resolution Approving Annual Report for FY 2019-20
• Resolution Declaring Intention to Levy & Collect Assessments
• Updated Engineer’s Report for FY 2019-20
• Staff Report – April 2, 2012
• Staff Report – May 21, 2012
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,
CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF
ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 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 Engineer’s Report is updated annually (“Annual Report”) to reflect any
changes that may have occurred to property configuration in the Assessment District.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Annual Report: The Council orders staff to prepare and file with the Clerk the Annual
Report concerning the levy and collection of assessments within the Assessment District
for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020.
2. New Improvements or Changes to Existing Improvements: There are no changes to
existing improvements nor are there any items being added to the list of improvements
previously approved at the formation of the Assessment District.
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 6th day of May,
2019 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE DOWNTOWN
BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2019-20
The City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Burlingame (the “City”) finds as follows:
WHEREAS, the Council previously completed its proceedings in accordance with and
pursuant to 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 Council has, by previous resolution, ordered staff to prepare and file the
Annual Report concerning the levy and collection of assessments within the Assessment District;
and
WHEREAS, staff has prepared and filed such Annual Report with the Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Annual Report.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Approval of Report: The Council approves the Annual Report concerning the levy of
assessments as submitted for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2019 and ending June
30, 2020.
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 6th 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
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 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, there have been no changes to the previous Annual Report concerning the
levy and collection of assessments within the Assessment District.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Intention: The Council declares its intention to levy and collect assessments within the
Assessment District to pay the costs of the Improvements for the fiscal year commencing
July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. The Council finds that the public’s best interest
requires such action.
2. Improvements: The Improvements include, but are not limited to: streetscape items such
as sidewalks, street and pedestrian lighting, trees and landscaping, seating, signage,
kiosks, gateway treatments, site furnishings, and other parking improvements,
appurtenant facilities, and soft costs.
3. Assessment District Boundaries: The boundaries of the Assessment District are as
shown by the assessment diagram filed in the office of the City Clerk, which is incorporated
by this reference.
4. Annual Report: Reference is made to the Annual Report, on file with the Clerk, for a full
and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the Assessment District
and the zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels
of land within the Assessment District.
5. Notice of Public Hearing: The Council declares its intention to conduct a Public Hearing
concerning the levy of assessments in accordance with Section 22629 of the Act. All
objections to the assessment, if any, will be considered by the Council. The Public Hearing
will be held on Monday, May 20, 2019 at 7:00 pm or as soon thereafter as is feasible in
the Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. The Council
orders the Clerk to publish notice of this resolution in accordance with Section 22626 of
the Act.
6. Increase of Assessment: The maximum assessment is not proposed to increase from
the previous year above that was previously approved by the property owners (as
“increased assessment” is defined in Section 54954.6 of the Government Code).
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 6th day of May,
2019 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8f
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Library Board of Trustees
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill two vacancies on the Library
Board. The pending vacancies are due to the expiring terms of Board members Andrew Blanco
and Lisa Rosenthal. Both Board members have informed the City Librarian that they do not intend
to reapply. The recommended deadline is Friday, May 24, 2019. This will allow applicants an
opportunity to attend the May 21, 2019 Library Board meeting.
BACKGROUND
The City’s current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring
reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the two-
year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8g
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222
Subject: Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending March 31, 2019
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and approve the City’s investment report for the
quarter ended March 31, 2019.
BACKGROUND
This report represents the City’s investment portfolio as of March 31, 2019. The report includes all
invested City funds with the exception of bond proceeds, the City’s account with the California
Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), which is used to pre-fund the City’s retiree
medical obligations, and the §115 trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services
(PARS) Pension Rate Stabilization Program. All other investments are covered by and in
compliance with the City’s adopted Statement of Investment Policy.
DISCUSSION
The City’s investments are guided by the Statement of Investment Policy (the “Policy”), which is
reviewed and approved by the Council annually. The Policy was last approved by the City Council
on June 18, 2018. The Policy directs that investment objectives, in order by priority, are safety,
liquidity, and return. This conservative approach ensures assets are available for use while also
allowing the City to earn additional resources on idle funds. The City utilizes a core portfolio of
investments managed by the City’s investment advisor, PFM Asset Management (PFM), and also
maintains funds invested in the State’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the California
Asset Management Program (CAMP) to achieve its investment goals.
CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS
Political and policy developments dominated the markets during the first quarter, including the
longest federal government shutdown to date; the Federal Reserve (Fed) changing their stance on
the future of rate increases; and the ongoing wranglings that have thus far characterized the U.S.
/China trade war. Continued global growth concerns also weighed heavily on investor psyche. On
the positive side, all three major U.S. equity indices rebounded strongly from their fourth quarter
declines and made up much of their losses. The S&P 500 returned 13.6% in the first quarter, the
Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019
2
strongest start to a year in over 20 years, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 11.8%,
and the Nasdaq gained 16.8%.
Overall, the U.S. economy is still growing, albeit at a relatively slow rate, supported by a robust
labor market, near-record lows in unemployment, increases in the average hourly earnings, and
strong consumer confidence, all of which has bolstered healthy consumer spending levels.
In sharp contrast to the theme of slow, steady rate increases that defined the Federal Reserve’s
policy throughout 2017 and 2018, the Fed changed its stance during the f irst quarter, effectively
putting future rate hikes “on hold” for the time being. In its post-meeting statement on March 20th,
the Fed indicated that it “forecasts the Fed Funds Rate to remain at current levels through 2019.”
Recent core inflation measures have been just below the targeted 2%, and investors are now
pricing in a 39% chance of a cut to the Fed Funds Rate by the end of 2019*.
Real gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.S. for the fourth quarter of 2018 slowed to an
annualized rate of 2.2%. This indicator came on the heels of strong readings for the second and
third quarters of 2018, which marked the best six-month stretch of growth since 2014. These high
GDP readings earlier in 2018 are largely attributed to the tax cut that significantly increased
personal consumption.
The U.S. labor market faltered slightly in the first quarter but finished strong. In January, the
economy added 312,000 jobs, bringing the 12-month moving average to 213,000. By contrast, the
economy added just 33,000 jobs in February. However, labor statistics tend to be more meaningful
when viewed as a moving average of several months, and the March data reverted closer to recent
averages, as the economy added 196,000 new jobs during March, and the unemployment rate held
steady at just 3.8%. Also encouraging, wage growth, which had remained stubbornly low
throughout most of this economic recovery, has finally begun to trend upward, increasing by a 3.4%
annual pace in February, its highest reading since 2009. March’s reading came in just slightly lower
at 3.2%, but was still viewed positively.
As investors weighed the possibility of an end to rate increases (and even a possible rate cut) by
the Federal Reserve, coupled with concerns over slowing economic growth in the U.S. and abroad,
yields on all but the shortest U.S. Treasury maturities declined during the quarter. At quarter-end,
the yield curve remained inverted between 1- and 5- year maturities. Also of note, the yield curve
briefly inverted between 3-month and 10-year maturities during March. This particular inversion is
a closely watched recession indicator and has preceded every recession since the 1960s (with just
one false positive), with an average lead time of 19 months. Despite this warning sign, other
measures of market and economic conditions – such as jobless claims and manufacturing activity
– do not portend a recession in the near term.
______________________
*Based on Federal Funds Futures readings as of April 18, 2019.
Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019
3
Yield Curve History
Source: Bloomberg
The City’s cash, excluding bond proceeds, is pooled for investment purposes. As of March 31,
2019, invested funds totaled $181,082,031.45. These investments are assets of the City of
Burlingame, and include the General Fund, the enterprise funds (such as Water, Sewer, and Solid
Waste), as well as various non-major funds. Note that the City’s account with the California
Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), which is used to pre-fund the City’s retiree
medical obligations, is not included in the City’s managed portfolio. Similarly, funds held within the
City’s §115 Trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Pension Rate
Stabilization Program are not part of the City’s investment portfolio.
City’s Investments
Market Value as of March 31, 2019
Main Investment Portfolio $115,770,703.31
Main Investment Portfolio - Cash Balance in Custody Account $172,503.85
CAMP Balance $35,572,229.88
LAIF Balance $29,566,594.41
$181,082,031.45
PFM has recently shifted its duration strategy for the City’s main investment portfolio. When interest
rates were increasing throughout most of 2017 and 2018, PFM’s strategy was to slightly shorten
the portfolio’s duration relative to that of the benchmark in order to protect against the negative
impacts of rising interest rates. Now that the Fed has effectively put future rate hikes on pause for
Maturity 3/31/19 12/31/18 Change
3-Mo. 2.38% 2.35% +0.03%
6-Mo. 2.38% 2.48% -0.10%
1-Yr. 2.39% 2.60% -0.21%
2-Yr. 2.26% 2.49% -0.23%
3-Yr. 2.20% 2.46% -0.26%
5-Yr. 2.23% 2.51% -0.28%
10-Yr. 2.41% 2.68% -0.27%
30-Yr. 2.81% 3.01% -0.20%
Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019
4
the time being, PFM has shifted to a neutral duration stance relative to the benchmark, allowing for
a 1 – 2% variance. At the end of the quarter, the main portfolio’s duration was 2.55 years, in line
with the benchmark’s duration of 2.56 years. Factoring in liquid investments, such as LAIF and
CAMP, the effective duration of the City’s aggregate investments was 1.63 years.
The City continues to benefit from a strategy of broad diversification. On the heels of the fourth
quarter’s market volatility, wide credit spreads (the difference between yields on corporate and U.S.
Treasury notes) created attractive buying opportunities. Additionally, the positively sloped
corporate yield curve offered incremental income on longer-dated corporate notes. In total, PFM
recommended the purchase of $4.2 million of high-quality corporate notes during the quarter. In
one instance, PFM recommended the purchase of a AA-rated Pfizer, Inc. corporate note at a yield
of 2.63%, which represented an attractive yield pick-up of 45 basis points (0.45%) over comparable-
maturity U.S. Treasury notes.
With federal agency spreads (the difference between yields on federal agency and U.S. Treasury
notes) near historic lows, U.S. Treasury obligations generally continue to be the preferred outlet for
government exposure. However, occasionally, newly-issued federal agency obligations will come
to the market at attractive levels. For example, in early January, PFM recommended the purchase
of a newly-issued FNMA note with three years to maturity at a yield of 2.65%. This purchase
enabled the City to take advantage of one of the widest spread levels (12 basis points or 0.12%)
observed in a year for that maturity.
Please see below for a summary of transactions for the quarter ended March 31, 2019:
Trade Date Settlement
Date Transaction CUSIP Issuer Term
(Mths) Yield Principal
1/3/2019 1/8/2019 Purchase 89236TFQ3 Toyota Motor
Corp. Note 24 3.08% 375,000
1/3/2019 1/8/2019 Sale 94974BFQ8 Wells Fargo &
Co. Notes <1 2.99% 375,000
1/7/2019 1/9/2019 Purchase 3137EAEN5 FHLMC Notes 54 2.58% 2,085,000
1/7/2019 1/9/2019 Sale 3137EAEE5 FHLMC Notes 12 2.59% 1,000,000
1/7/2019 1/9/2019 Sale 912828UV0 US Treasury
Notes 15 2.60% 1,000,000
1/9/2019 1/11/2019 Purchase 3135G0U92 FNMA Notes 36 2.65% 945,000
1/9/2019 1/11/2019 Sale 912828P87 US Treasury
Notes 26 2.59% 975,000
1/15/2019 1/15/2019 Maturity 94974BFQ8 Wells Fargo &
Co. Notes - - 1,395,000
1/15/2019 1/15/2019 Purchase 17275RBJ0
Cisco
Systems
Notes
32 2.84% 1,425,000
1/30/19 1/31/19 Purchase 3130A0F70 FHLB Notes 58 2.72% 1,400,000
Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019
5
Trade Date Settlement
Date Transaction CUSIP Issuer Term
(Mths) Yield Principal
1/30/19 1/31/19 Purchase 912828U57 US Treasury
Notes 58 2.57% 1,515,000
1/30/19 1/31/19 Sale 46625HHL7 JP Morgan
Notes 3 2.64% 1,000,000
1/30/19 1/31/19 Sale 91159HHH6 US Bank
Notes 2 2.61% 1,760,000
2/8/2019 2/12/2019 Purchase 912828Q29 US Treasury
Notes 50 2.44% 2,175,000
2/8/2019 2/12/2019 Purchase 912828S92 US Treasury
Notes 54 2.44% 2,100,000
2/8/2019 2/12/2019 Sale 3130ACE26 FHLB Notes 20 2.51% 625,000
2/8/2019 2/12/2019 Sale 3135G0T60 FNMA Notes 18 2.50% 1,515,000
2/8/2019 2/12/2019 Sale 3137EAEJ4 FHLMC Notes 20 2.51% 1,670,000
2/8/2019 2/12/2019 Sale 912828ND8 US Treasury
Notes 15 2.52% 200,000
2/27/2019 2/28/2019 Purchase 55379WZT6 MUFG Bank
CD 24 3.04% 930,000
2/26/2019 2/28/2019 Sale 06539RGM3 MUFG Bank
CD 7 2.66% 930,000
3/6/2019 3/8/2019 Purchase 912828WE6 US Treasury
Notes 56 2.52% 2,225,000
3/6/2019 3/8/2019 Sale 3137EAEK1 FHLMC Notes 20 2.58% 1,000,000
3/6/2019 3/8/2019 Sale 912828A83 US Treasury
Notes 22 2.56% 840,000
3/6/2019 3/8/2019 Sale 912828M98 US Treasury
Notes 21 2.56% 140,000
3/6/2019 3/8/2019 Sale 912828N48 US Treasury
Notes 22 2.55% 150,000
3/25/19 3/26/19 Purchase 3135G0T94 FNMA Notes 46 2.25% 1,500,000
3/25/19 3/26/19 Purchase 912828V80 US Treasury
Notes 58 2.23% 1,050,000
3/25/19 3/26/19 Purchase 912828X47 US Treasury
Notes 37 2.20% 1,050,000
3/25/19 3/27/19 Purchase 717081ES8 Pfizer Inc.
Notes 60 2.63% 1,500,000
While the path of future Fed rate decisions is less clear than in recent years (with many investors
expecting a rate cut rather than a rate hike as the next move), PFM recommends neutral duration
Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019
6
positioning and a continued strategy of broad diversification across the high-quality sectors
permitted by California Government Code and the City’s Statement of Investment Policy.
PFM continues to monitor the markets and recommend relative-value trades as appropriate in order
to safely enhance the City’s portfolio earnings. However, the priority will always be to maintain the
safety and liquidity of the City’s investments.
As noted in the following pie charts, the City’s investment portfolio, as of March 31, 2019, was
heavily weighted towards the State Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), the AAAm-rated CAMP
Fund, and high-quality (AA+ rated) federal agency and U.S. Treasury securities to maintain the
focus on safety and liquidity.
* The “BBB+” category comprises securities rated in the category of A or better by Moody’s and/or Fitch, which meets the credit rating
criteria established in the City’s Statement of Investment Policy.
** The NR (Aaa) category comprises asset-backed securities that are not rated by S&P but are rated Aaa by Moody’s.
Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019
7
As of March 31, 2019, 36% of the City’s funds were invested in very short-term liquid investments,
19% of the funds were invested with maturities between one day and two years, and 45% of the
investment portfolio had a maturity ranging from two to five years. This distribution gives the City
the necessary liquidity to meet operational and emergency cash needs while maximizing returns
on funds not needed in the immediate future. The City’s aggregate investments maintain an
effective duration of 1.63 years and currently generate annual income of 2.45% before investment
expenses. The City’s funds are invested in high credit quality investments and continue to meet the
City’s goals of safety, liquidity, and yield/return.
As of March 31, 2019, the yield to maturity at cost on the main portfolio of securities was 2.38%.
Including additional investments such as LAIF and CAMP, the average yield to maturity** on the
City’s aggregate investments was 2.45%. During the quarter, the main portfolio generated
amortized cost basis earnings (which includes interest earnings and realized gains and losses) of
$511,072.
City's Investments
Statistical Information
Market Value $181,082,031.45
Effective Duration 1.63 Years
Average Credit Quality* AA
Yield to Maturity** 2.45%
* Ratings by Standard & Poor’s. Average excludes ‘Not Rated’ securities.
** Yield to maturity at cost.
Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019
8
The chart below compares the yield of the City’s managed portfolio to the yields on the 2-year U.S.
Treasury note, LAIF, and the San Mateo County Pool. As of March 31, 2019, the gross yield on the
City’s managed portfolio was 2.38%; net of PFM’s investment advisory fees, the yield on the City’s
managed portfolio was 2.30%.
On the following page is a summary of Burlingame’s cash and investment holdings held by each
fund as of March 31, 2019, which includes invested funds, debt service reserves, amounts held in
overnight (liquid) accounts, the City’s main checking account, and other operating funds:
Cash holdings in the General Fund increased by nearly $4.6 million in the third quarter of the 2018-
19 fiscal year, despite a $2.7 million midyear transfer out to the Capital Projects Fund to initiate
Phase 1 of the Community Center Project at Washington Park. Although there were no major
property tax receipts in the quarter (these are received in December and April), quarterly sales
taxes of $3.9 million, other property taxes of $2.0 million, and an ERAF Refund of $2.2 million were
received during the quarter.
In addition to the midyear capital projects funding from the General Fund, a $2.9 million drawdown
of Storm Drain Bond Proceeds (held in the debt service fund) also helped offset regular spending
in the Capital Projects Fund. The decrease in the Water Fund reflects not only debt service
payments due in the quarter, but a high level of progress payments on capital projects: of the
$782,000 spent on water capital projects, $620,000 was for the Shoreland Subdivision Water Main
Improvement project (South Rollins Road, Phase 2). Conversely, payments for capital
imrovements of the sanitary sewer system were relatively subdued for the quarter.
2.41% 2.55%
%% 2.38%
2.26%
Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019
9
As for performance of the City’s trust funds, which adhere to different strategies than reflected in
the City’s Investment Policy for its main portfolio, the most recent statements are attached to this
staff report. Because the City’s funding of its retiree medical obligations is relatively low (<20%),
the City’s trust account is invested in the most aggressive (Strategy 1) portfolio available with the
California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Fund. The net return for the portfolio for the
year ended March 31st was 3.84%. The PARS §115 trust account for funding the City’s pension
liabilities was more recently established (October 2017), and the March 2019 statement attached
reflects a 4.94% return for the past year.
CONCLUSION
All City funds are invested in accordance with the approved Statement of Investment Policy with
an emphasis on safety, liquidity, and return (in that order). The City’s investment strategy of
balancing the investment portfolio between short-term investments (to meet cash flow needs) and
longer-term maturities (to realize a higher rate of return) is appropriate, given current market
conditions.
Due to the ease of access of the City’s funds in liquid accounts such as LAIF and CAMP, the City
has more than sufficient funds available to meet its liquidity (expenditure) requirements for the next
six months.
Staff and the City’s investment advisor will continue to closely monitor the City’s investments to
ensure the mitigation of risk and ability to meet the City’s investment goals while being able to
respond to changes in market conditions.
As of 03/31/19 As of 12/31/18 Change $
General Fund 29,792,398$ 25,201,062$ 4,591,336$
Capital Project Funds 60,258,108 57,318,451 2,939,657
Internal Service Funds 19,390,243 19,999,768 (609,525)
Water Fund 17,565,128 17,894,026 (328,899)
Sewer Fund 20,239,273 18,859,507 1,379,767
Solid Waste Fund 4,732,143 4,681,611 50,532
Parking Fund 9,779,415 9,581,059 198,356
Building Fund 11,139,607 10,895,961 243,645
Landfill Fund 1,713,928 1,640,452 73,476
Debt Service Fund 11,456,769 14,331,679 (2,874,911)
Subtotal, Operating Funds 186,067,011 180,403,576 5,663,435
Other Funds 12,892,454 11,858,749 1,033,705
Total Cash and Investments 198,959,465$ 192,262,325$ 6,697,140$
Cash and Investments by Fund
Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019
10
FISCAL IMPACT
Quarterly reporting of the City’s Investment Portfolio will not result in any direct impact on City
resources.
Exhibits:
• Portfolio Holdings as of March 31, 2019
• CERBT Quarterly Statement for March 31, 2019
• PARS Monthly Statement for March 31, 2019
For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
U.S. Treasury Bond / Note
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 02/29/2016 1.125% 02/28/2021
933,997.64 944,543.02 934.24 936,608.79 10/04/1710/03/17AaaAA+ 955,000.00 912828P87 1.71
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 02/28/2014 2.000% 02/28/2021
1,118,584.13 1,140,690.75 1,956.52 1,163,803.71 05/06/1605/03/16AaaAA+ 1,125,000.00 912828B90 1.26
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 05/31/2016 1.375% 05/31/2021
608,254.10 614,475.03 2,857.28 610,215.63 07/10/1707/07/17AaaAA+ 620,000.00 912828R77 1.80
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 07/31/2014 2.250% 07/31/2021
524,733.30 537,687.96 1,957.87 550,819.34 10/05/1610/03/16AaaAA+ 525,000.00 912828WY2 1.20
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09/02/2014 2.000% 08/31/2021
1,455,786.62 1,466,976.97 2,547.83 1,468,776.95 12/05/1612/01/16AaaAA+ 1,465,000.00 912828D72 1.94
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 10/31/2014 2.000% 10/31/2021
998,561.97 1,009,088.04 8,439.78 1,012,105.66 04/05/1704/03/17AaaAA+ 1,005,000.00 912828F96 1.84
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022
989,922.00 994,230.63 51.23 991,796.88 12/07/1712/06/17AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 912828W89 2.07
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022
1,138,410.30 1,118,815.63 58.91 1,112,265.63 08/03/1808/01/18AaaAA+ 1,150,000.00 912828W89 2.82
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022
2,167,929.18 2,135,303.96 112.19 2,125,412.11 09/06/1809/04/18AaaAA+ 2,190,000.00 912828W89 2.75
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022
2,672,789.40 2,676,356.51 138.32 2,666,988.28 01/04/1801/03/18AaaAA+ 2,700,000.00 912828W89 2.18
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 05/01/2017 1.875% 04/30/2022
1,038,679.95 1,039,882.20 8,266.57 1,039,828.13 03/26/1903/25/19AaaAA+ 1,050,000.00 912828X47 2.20
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 07/31/2017 1.875% 07/31/2022
1,210,787.55 1,219,927.70 3,806.98 1,217,870.12 11/03/1711/01/17AaaAA+ 1,225,000.00 9128282P4 2.00
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 07/31/2015 2.000% 07/31/2022
2,431,625.00 2,471,401.36 8,121.55 2,481,103.52 09/01/1708/31/17AaaAA+ 2,450,000.00 912828XQ8 1.73
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022
1,475,508.00 1,449,862.73 71.72 1,438,769.53 06/06/1806/04/18AaaAA+ 1,500,000.00 912828L57 2.76
Page 1
For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
U.S. Treasury Bond / Note
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022
1,657,487.32 1,671,361.90 80.57 1,666,175.39 11/09/1711/08/17AaaAA+ 1,685,000.00 912828L57 1.99
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022
2,213,262.00 2,219,681.43 107.58 2,208,779.30 12/05/1712/04/17AaaAA+ 2,250,000.00 912828L57 2.15
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 02/01/2016 1.750% 01/31/2023
1,964,296.00 1,914,781.76 5,801.10 1,904,531.25 10/04/1810/02/18AaaAA+ 2,000,000.00 912828P38 2.93
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 02/29/2016 1.500% 02/28/2023
1,838,025.00 1,803,340.85 2,465.22 1,787,895.70 07/05/1807/02/18AaaAA+ 1,890,000.00 912828P79 2.74
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 02/29/2016 1.500% 02/28/2023
2,625,750.00 2,570,626.26 3,521.74 2,542,113.28 04/30/1804/30/18AaaAA+ 2,700,000.00 912828P79 2.80
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 03/31/2016 1.500% 03/31/2023
2,113,658.48 2,097,336.71 89.14 2,094,881.84 02/12/1902/08/19AaaAA+ 2,175,000.00 912828Q29 2.44
US TREASURY N/B NOTES
DTD 05/02/2016 1.625% 04/30/2023
1,839,790.16 1,803,644.98 12,861.74 1,789,792.77 07/05/1807/02/18AaaAA+ 1,885,000.00 912828R28 2.75
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 08/01/2016 1.250% 07/31/2023
2,014,359.90 1,997,889.47 4,350.83 1,994,917.97 02/12/1902/08/19AaaAA+ 2,100,000.00 912828S92 2.44
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 11/15/2013 2.750% 11/15/2023
2,273,585.10 2,247,225.26 23,156.60 2,247,510.74 03/08/1903/06/19AaaAA+ 2,225,000.00 912828WE6 2.52
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 11/30/2016 2.125% 11/30/2023
1,506,773.55 1,485,572.02 10,790.21 1,484,581.64 01/31/1901/30/19AaaAA+ 1,515,000.00 912828U57 2.57
US TREASURY N/B NOTES
DTD 01/31/2017 2.250% 01/31/2024
1,049,918.10 1,050,940.89 3,915.75 1,050,943.36 03/26/1903/25/19AaaAA+ 1,050,000.00 912828V80 2.23
106,461.47 39,862,474.75 39,681,644.02 2.33 39,588,487.52 40,435,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Supra-National Agency Bond / Note
INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV
NOTE
DTD 09/19/2017 1.561% 09/12/2020
1,845,996.68 1,867,792.67 1,540.62 1,865,512.00 09/19/1709/12/17AaaAAA 1,870,000.00 45905UP32 1.64
Page 2
For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Supra-National Agency Bond / Note
INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
DTD 11/08/2013 2.125% 11/09/2020
1,860,909.93 1,879,158.47 15,674.24 1,887,333.22 10/10/1710/02/17AaaAAA 1,870,000.00 4581X0CD8 1.81
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION
NOTE
DTD 01/25/2018 2.250% 01/25/2021
793,155.60 793,565.63 3,279.38 792,662.70 01/25/1801/18/18AaaAAA 795,000.00 45950KCM0 2.35
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION
NOTE
DTD 03/16/2018 2.635% 03/09/2021
1,549,679.15 1,549,230.25 2,495.93 1,548,837.50 03/16/1803/09/18AaaAAA 1,550,000.00 45950VLQ7 2.66
INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
NOTE
DTD 04/19/2018 2.625% 04/19/2021
899,430.25 893,637.65 10,572.19 893,031.00 04/19/1804/12/18AaaAAA 895,000.00 4581X0DB1 2.70
INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV
NOTE
DTD 07/25/2018 2.750% 07/23/2021
1,221,699.49 1,207,793.66 6,285.28 1,207,168.60 07/25/1807/18/18AaaAAA 1,210,000.00 459058GH0 2.83
39,847.64 8,170,871.10 8,191,178.33 2.24 8,194,545.02 8,190,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Federal Agency Collateralized Mortgage Obligation
FNA 2018-M5 A2
DTD 04/01/2018 3.560% 09/25/2021
512,783.84 513,754.07 1,502.32 516,473.39 04/30/1804/11/18AaaAA+ 506,400.56 3136B1XP4 2.27
1,502.32 512,783.84 513,754.07 2.27 516,473.39 506,400.56 Security Type Sub-Total
Federal Agency Bond / Note
FREDDIE MAC NOTES
DTD 02/16/2018 2.375% 02/16/2021
600,580.20 596,587.38 1,781.25 595,518.00 08/23/1808/22/18AaaAA+ 600,000.00 3137EAEL9 2.69
FNMA NOTES
DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021
229,252.84 234,610.69 359.03 234,196.07 08/19/1608/17/16AaaAA+ 235,000.00 3135G0N82 1.32
FNMA NOTES
DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021
746,291.16 763,499.41 1,168.75 761,901.75 08/19/1608/17/16AaaAA+ 765,000.00 3135G0N82 1.33
Page 3
For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Federal Agency Bond / Note
FNMA NOTES
DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021
1,536,481.80 1,570,297.21 2,406.25 1,565,361.00 09/02/1609/01/16AaaAA+ 1,575,000.00 3135G0N82 1.38
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022
1,572,705.16 1,591,291.48 7,572.78 1,595,128.15 06/29/1706/27/17AaaAA+ 1,585,000.00 3135G0S38 1.85
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022
2,480,607.50 2,501,535.23 11,944.44 2,502,650.00 02/13/1702/10/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3135G0S38 1.98
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 01/11/2019 2.625% 01/11/2022
953,553.20 944,368.35 5,512.50 944,319.60 01/11/1901/09/19AaaAA+ 945,000.00 3135G0U92 2.65
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022
1,587,370.68 1,604,855.34 14,712.50 1,604,759.25 06/29/1706/27/17AaaAA+ 1,605,000.00 3135G0T45 1.88
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022
2,472,540.00 2,490,721.50 22,916.67 2,485,150.00 05/09/1705/08/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3135G0T45 2.00
FANNIE MAE AGENCY NOTES
DTD 10/06/2017 2.000% 10/05/2022
2,610,151.95 2,560,528.44 25,764.44 2,542,195.30 04/30/1804/30/18AaaAA+ 2,635,000.00 3135G0T78 2.85
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 01/23/2018 2.375% 01/19/2023
1,504,039.50 1,507,026.27 7,125.00 1,507,050.00 03/26/1903/25/19AaaAA+ 1,500,000.00 3135G0T94 2.25
FREDDIE MAC NOTES
DTD 06/11/2018 2.750% 06/19/2023
2,121,368.66 2,098,932.87 16,245.63 2,099,636.70 01/09/1901/07/19AaaAA+ 2,085,000.00 3137EAEN5 2.58
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 09/14/2018 2.875% 09/12/2023
3,633,080.65 3,543,361.86 5,386.63 3,542,829.00 12/06/1812/03/18AaaAA+ 3,550,000.00 3135G0U43 2.92
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS NOTES
DTD 12/09/2013 3.375% 12/08/2023
1,463,676.20 1,439,933.95 14,831.25 1,441,263.45 01/31/1901/30/19AaaAA+ 1,400,000.00 3130A0F70 2.72
137,727.12 23,511,699.50 23,447,549.98 2.31 23,421,958.27 23,480,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Corporate Note
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON NT
(CALLABLE)
DTD 09/11/2014 2.300% 09/11/2019
1,782,326.07 1,785,657.34 2,280.83 1,793,353.80 10/16/1410/10/14A1A 1,785,000.00 06406HCW7 2.20
Page 4
For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Corporate Note
AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT (CALLABLE)
NOTE
DTD 03/03/2017 2.200% 03/03/2020
1,293,965.40 1,304,146.90 2,224.44 1,311,765.00 09/07/1709/05/17A2A- 1,300,000.00 0258M0EE5 1.83
JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP NOTES
DTD 06/22/2017 1.950% 06/22/2020
218,287.30 219,944.27 1,179.75 219,865.80 06/22/1706/19/17A2A 220,000.00 24422ETS8 1.97
JP MORGAN CHASE & CO CORP NT
(CALLABLE)
DTD 06/23/2015 2.750% 06/23/2020
965,497.94 974,204.19 7,224.10 994,432.50 08/22/1608/17/16A2A- 965,000.00 46625HLW8 1.92
WAL-MART STORES INC CORP NOTE
DTD 10/20/2017 1.900% 12/15/2020
1,834,008.60 1,848,519.13 10,349.72 1,847,317.50 10/20/1710/11/17Aa2AA 1,850,000.00 931142EA7 1.95
TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP CORP
NOTES
DTD 01/08/2019 3.050% 01/08/2021
378,390.75 374,800.35 2,636.98 374,775.00 01/08/1901/03/19Aa3AA- 375,000.00 89236TFQ3 3.08
WELLS FARGO CORP NOTES
DTD 03/04/2016 2.500% 03/04/2021
960,321.68 975,162.41 1,809.38 988,343.35 08/22/1608/17/16A2A- 965,000.00 949746RS2 1.94
TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP NOTES
DTD 04/13/2018 2.950% 04/13/2021
931,284.45 924,745.70 12,734.17 924,630.00 04/13/1804/10/18Aa3AA- 925,000.00 89236TEU5 2.96
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP
(CALLABLE)
DTD 02/19/2016 2.500% 04/15/2021
1,995,140.00 2,019,524.90 23,055.56 2,034,600.00 09/07/1709/05/17A1A 2,000,000.00 06406FAA1 2.00
BANK OF AMERICA CORP NOTE
DTD 04/19/2016 2.625% 04/19/2021
917,707.36 924,113.71 10,867.50 926,826.40 11/03/1711/01/17A2A- 920,000.00 06051GFW4 2.40
MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES
DTD 04/21/2016 2.500% 04/21/2021
914,016.32 921,448.67 10,222.22 922,392.00 11/06/1711/02/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 61746BEA0 2.42
GOLDMAN SACHS GRP INC CORP NT
(CALLABLE)
DTD 04/25/2016 2.625% 04/25/2021
916,239.96 922,768.74 10,465.00 924,636.80 11/06/1711/02/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 38141GVU5 2.47
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST (CALLABLE)
NOTE
DTD 05/10/2016 2.050% 05/10/2021
1,479,564.00 1,499,047.13 12,043.75 1,497,810.00 05/16/1605/12/16A2A- 1,500,000.00 05531FAV5 2.08
Page 5
For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Corporate Note
CISCO SYSTEMS INC CORP (CALLABLE)
NOTES
DTD 09/20/2016 1.850% 09/20/2021
1,398,211.43 1,391,124.29 805.52 1,388,349.00 01/16/1901/14/19A1AA- 1,425,000.00 17275RBJ0 2.85
CITIGROUP INC CORP (CALLABLE) NOTE
DTD 12/08/2016 2.900% 12/08/2021
919,756.20 924,211.89 8,374.56 926,283.60 11/22/1711/20/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 172967LC3 2.72
IBM CORP BONDS
DTD 01/27/2017 2.500% 01/27/2022
1,982,630.00 2,007,982.92 8,888.89 2,013,700.00 02/09/1702/06/17A1A 2,000,000.00 459200JQ5 2.35
WALT DISNEY COMPANY/THE CORP NOTES
DTD 11/30/2012 2.350% 12/01/2022
1,063,123.40 1,048,248.17 8,420.83 1,041,503.00 04/05/1804/03/18A2A 1,075,000.00 25468PCW4 3.07
HOME DEPOT INC CORP NOTES
DTD 04/05/2013 2.700% 04/01/2023
1,080,307.28 1,058,466.98 14,512.50 1,054,682.50 04/05/1804/03/18A2A 1,075,000.00 437076AZ5 3.11
PFIZER INC
DTD 03/11/2019 2.950% 03/15/2024
1,518,645.00 1,522,437.92 2,458.33 1,522,485.00 03/27/1903/25/19A1AA 1,500,000.00 717081ES8 2.63
150,554.03 22,549,423.14 22,646,555.61 2.37 22,707,751.25 22,640,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Certificate of Deposit
SUMITOMO MITSUI BANK NY CD
DTD 05/04/2017 2.050% 05/03/2019
1,699,223.10 1,700,000.00 14,230.42 1,700,000.00 05/04/1705/03/17P-1A-1 1,700,000.00 86563YVN0 2.05
SKANDINAVISKA ENSKILDA BANKEN NY CD
DTD 08/04/2017 1.840% 08/02/2019
1,795,267.80 1,799,881.40 5,336.00 1,799,298.00 08/04/1708/03/17P-1A-1 1,800,000.00 83050FXT3 1.85
CREDIT SUISSE NEW YORK CERT DEPOS
DTD 02/08/2018 2.670% 02/07/2020
1,031,163.90 1,030,000.00 31,549.76 1,030,000.00 02/08/1802/07/18P-1A-1 1,030,000.00 22549LFR1 2.67
NORDEA BANK AB NY CD
DTD 02/22/2018 2.720% 02/20/2020
1,503,325.50 1,500,000.00 4,646.67 1,500,000.00 02/22/1802/20/18P-1A-1+ 1,500,000.00 65590ASN7 2.72
UBS AG STAMFORD CT LT CD
DTD 03/06/2018 2.900% 03/02/2020
1,504,831.50 1,500,000.00 3,383.33 1,500,000.00 03/06/1803/02/18P-1A-1 1,500,000.00 90275DHG8 2.93
CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY FLT CERT DEPOS
DTD 04/10/2018 3.253% 04/10/2020
901,917.00 900,000.00 6,586.31 900,000.00 04/10/1804/06/18A1A+ 900,000.00 22532XHT8 2.85
Page 6
For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Certificate of Deposit
CANADIAN IMP BK COMM NY FLT CERT
DEPOS
DTD 04/10/2018 3.183% 04/10/2020
902,258.10 900,000.00 6,444.56 900,000.00 04/10/1804/06/18Aa2A+ 900,000.00 13606BVF0 2.78
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA HOUSTON CD
DTD 06/07/2018 3.080% 06/05/2020
1,711,900.00 1,699,612.71 16,871.56 1,699,354.00 06/07/1806/05/18Aa2A+ 1,700,000.00 06417GU22 3.10
WESTPAC BANKING CORP NY CD
DTD 08/07/2017 2.050% 08/03/2020
1,605,941.47 1,615,000.00 4,966.13 1,615,000.00 08/07/1708/03/17Aa3AA- 1,615,000.00 96121T4A3 2.05
BANK OF MONTREAL CHICAGO CERT DEPOS
DTD 08/03/2018 3.190% 08/03/2020
1,808,550.00 1,800,000.00 38,439.50 1,800,000.00 08/03/1808/01/18Aa2A+ 1,800,000.00 06370REU9 3.23
SWEDBANK (NEW YORK) CERT DEPOS
DTD 11/17/2017 2.270% 11/16/2020
1,845,451.08 1,860,000.00 15,950.53 1,860,000.00 11/17/1711/16/17Aa2AA- 1,860,000.00 87019U6D6 2.30
MUFG BANK LTD/NY CERT DEPOS
DTD 02/28/2019 2.970% 02/26/2021
936,972.21 930,000.00 2,455.20 930,000.00 02/28/1902/27/19A1A 930,000.00 55379WZT6 2.99
150,859.97 17,246,801.66 17,234,494.11 2.59 17,233,652.00 17,235,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Asset-Backed Security
NAROT 2017-C A3
DTD 12/13/2017 2.120% 04/15/2022
338,199.63 339,965.10 320.36 339,942.51 12/13/1712/06/17AaaNR 340,000.00 65478HAD0 2.13
HART 2018-A A3
DTD 04/18/2018 2.790% 07/15/2022
330,825.00 329,961.07 409.20 329,950.30 04/18/1804/10/18AaaAAA 330,000.00 44891KAD7 2.80
TAOT 2018-B A3
DTD 05/16/2018 2.960% 09/15/2022
916,745.65 909,989.14 1,197.16 909,986.44 05/16/1805/09/18AaaAAA 910,000.00 89238TAD5 2.96
MBART 2018-1 A3
DTD 07/25/2018 3.030% 01/15/2023
644,893.70 639,979.31 861.87 639,975.42 07/25/1807/17/18AaaAAA 640,000.00 58772RAD6 3.03
ALLYA 2018-3 A3
DTD 06/27/2018 3.000% 01/15/2023
1,080,830.80 1,074,938.57 1,433.33 1,074,926.47 06/27/1806/19/18AaaAAA 1,075,000.00 02007JAC1 3.09
NAROT 2018-B A3
DTD 07/25/2018 3.060% 03/15/2023
605,154.54 599,983.60 816.00 599,980.56 07/25/1807/17/18AaaAAA 600,000.00 65479GAD1 3.06
Page 7
For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
5,037.92 3,916,649.32 3,894,816.79 2.94 3,894,761.70 3,895,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
116,381,400.56 115,557,629.15 2.38 591,990.47 115,609,992.91 115,770,703.31 Managed Account Sub-Total
$116,381,400.56 $115,557,629.15 $591,990.47 $115,609,992.91 $115,770,703.31 2.38%
$116,362,693.78
$591,990.47
Total Investments
Accrued Interest
Securities Sub-Total
Page 8
$9,230,755,044.
California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT)
CERBT Strategy 1
March 31, 2019
Objective
The objective of the CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio is to seek returns that
reflect the broad investment performance of the financial markets
through capital appreciation and investment income. There is no
guarantee that the portfolio will achieve its investment objective.
Strategy
The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio is invested in various asset classes in
percentages approved by the CalPERS Board. The specific percentages
of portfolio assets allocated to each asset class are shown under
“Composition.” Generally, equities are intended to help build the value of
the employer’s portfolio over the long term while bonds are intended to
help provide income and stability of principal. Also, strategies invested in
a higher percentage of equities seek higher investment returns (but
assume more risk) compared with strategies invested in a higher
percentage of bonds.
Compared with CERBT Strategy 2 and Strategy 3, this portfolio consists
of a higher percentage of equities than bonds and other assets.
Historically, equities have displayed greater price volatility and therefore
this portfolio may experience greater fluctuation of value. Employers that
seek higher investment returns, and are able to accept greater risk and
tolerate more fluctuation in returns, may wish to consider this portfolio.
CalPERS Board may change the list of approved asset classes, in
composition as well as targeted allocation percentages and ranges at
any time.
Assets Under Management
As of the specified reporting month-end, the aggregate total of assets
under management for all CERBT Strategies was
Composition
Asset Class Allocations and Benchmarks
The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio consists of the following asset classes and
corresponding benchmarks:
Portfolio Benchmark
The CERBT Strategy 1 benchmark is a composite of underlying asset class
market indices, each assigned the target weight for the asset class it
represents.
Target vs. Actual Asset Class Allocations
The following chart shows policy target allocations compared with actual asset
allocations as of the specified reporting month-end. CalPERS may overweight
or underweight an allocation to a particular asset class based on market,
economic, or CalPERS policy considerations.
1 Allocations approved by the Board at the May 2018 Investment Committee meeting
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Global Equity Fixed Income TIPS REITs Commodities Cash
Target Actual
Asset Class Target
Allocation1
Target
Range Benchmark
Global Equity 59%± 5%MSCI All Country World Index IMI (net)
Fixed Income 25%±5%Bloomberg Barclays Long Liability
Index
Treasury Inflation-
Protected Securities
("TIPS")
5%± 3%Bloomberg Barclays US TIPS Index
Real Estate Investment
Trusts ("REITs")8%± 5%FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed
Liquid Index (net)
Commodities 3%± 3%S&P GSCI Total Return Index
Cash -+2%91 Day Treasury Bill
1 Month 3 Months Fiscal YTD 1 Year 3 Years*5 Years*10 Years*Since Inception*
(June 1, 2007)
Gross Return1,3 1.79%10.19%2.87%3.93%8.01%5.38%10.94%4.74%
Net Return2,3 1.79%10.16%2.81%3.84%7.92%5.29%10.85%4.67%
Benchmark returns 1.79%10.13%2.61%3.63%7.50%4.95%10.57%4.29%
Standard Deviation4 ----7.14%7.71%10.43%12.65%
Performance quoted represents past performance, which is no guarantee of future results that may be achieved by the fund.
* Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.
1 Gross performance figures are provided net of SSGA operating expenses.
2 Net Performance figures deduct all expenses to the fund, including investment management, administrative and recordkeeping fees.
3 See the Expense section of this document.
4 Standard Deviation is from gross return.
CERBT Strategy 1 Performance as of March 31, 2019
1 Since June 2018 SSGA has managed passively all CERBT asset classes. Previously Fixed Income, TIPS and Commodity asset classes were internally managed.
California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT)
CERBT Strategy 1
March 31, 2019
General Information
Information Accessibility
The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio consists of assets managed internally
by CalPERS and/or external advisors. Since it is not a mutual fund, a
prospectus is not available nor is information available from a
newspaper source. This summary is designed to provide descriptive
information. CalPERS provides a quarterly statement of the employer’s
account and other information about the CERBT. For total market
value, detailed asset allocation, investment policy and current
performance information, including performance to the most recent
month-end, please visit our website at: www.calpers.ca.gov.
Portfolio Manager Information
The CalPERS Investment Committee and Board of Administration
directs the investment strategy and investments of the CERBT. State
Street Global Advisors (SSGA) manages all asset classes for CERBT,
which includes: Global Equity, Fixed Income, Real Estate Investment
Trusts, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, and Commodities.1
Custodian and Record Keeper
State Street Bank serves as custodian for the CERBT. Northeast
Retirement Services serves as record keeper.
Expenses
CERBT is a self-funded trust in which participating employers pay for all
administrative and investment expenses. Expenses reduce the gross
investment return by the fee amount. The larger the fee, the greater the
reduction of investment return. Currently, CERBT expenses are 0.10%
which consist of administrative expenses borne by CalPERS to
administer and oversee the Trust assets, investment management and
administrative fees paid to SSGA to manage all asset classes, and
recordkeeping fees paid to Northeast Retirement Services to administer
individual employer accounts. The expenses described herein are
reflected in the net asset value per share. CERBT’s actual expenses
may differ from the amount currently being accrued due to factors such
as changes in average fund assets or market conditions. The expense
accrual rate may change without notice in order to reflect changes in
average portfolio assets or in expense amounts. The CalPERS Board
annually reviews the operating expenses and changes may be made as
appropriate. Even if the portfolio loses money during a period, the fee is
still charged.
What Employers Own
Each employer choosing CERBT Strategy 1 owns a percentage of this
portfolio, which invests in pooled asset classes managed by CalPERS
and/or external advisors. Employers do not have direct ownership of the
securities in the portfolio.
Price
The value of the portfolio changes daily, based upon the market value of the
underlying securities. Just as prices of individual securities fluctuate, the
portfolio’s value also changes with market conditions.
Principal Risks of the Portfolio
The CalPERS CERBT Fund provides California government employers with
a trust through which they may prefund retiree medical costs and other post-
employment benefits. CERBT is not, however, a defined benefit plan. There
is no guarantee that the portfolio will achieve its investment objectives nor
provide sufficient funding to meet these employer obligations. Further,
CalPERS will not make up the difference between the employer's CERBT
assets and the actual cost of Other Post Employment Benefits provided to
employer's plan members.
An investment in the portfolio is not a bank deposit, and it is not insured nor
guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),
CalPERS, the State of California or any other government agency.
There are risks associated with investing, including possible loss of
principal. The portfolio’s risk depends in part on the portfolio’s asset class
allocations and the selection, weighting and risks of the underlying
investments. For more information about investment risks, please see the
document entitled “CERBT Principal Investment Risks” located at www.calpers.ca.gov.
Fund Performance
Performance data shown on page 1 represents past performance and is no
guarantee of future results. The investment return and principal value of an
investment will fluctuate so that an employer’s units, when redeemed, may
be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be
higher or lower than historical performance data shown. For current
performance information, please visit www.calpers.ca.gov and follow the
links to California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust.
CERBT Strategy Risk Levels
CalPERS offers employers the choice of one of three investment strategies. Risk levels among strategies vary, depending upon the target asset class
allocations. Generally, equities carry more risk than fixed income securities.
Asset Class Target Allocations Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3
Global Equity 59%40%22%
Fixed Income 25%43%49%
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities 5%5%16%
Real Estate Investment Trusts 8%8%8%
Commodities 3%4%5%
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PARS Post-Employment Benefits Trust 3/1/2019 to 3/31/2019
Carol Augustine
Finance Director
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Rd., 1st Floor
Burlingame, CA 94010
Source 3/1/2019 Contributions Earnings Expenses Distributions Transfers 3/31/2019
PENSION 1002 $8,355,103.18 $0.00 $95,542.87 $1,740.65 $0.00 $0.00 $8,448,905.40
Totals $8,355,103.18 $0.00 $95,542.87 $1,740.65 $0.00 $0.00 $8,448,905.40
Source
PENSION
Source
PENSION
Source 1-Month 3-Months 1-Year 3-Years 5-Years 10-Years
PENSION 1.14%8.23%4.94%---10/3/2017
Information as provided by US Bank, Trustee for PARS; Not FDIC Insured; No Bank Guarantee; May Lose Value
Headquarters - 4350 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 800.540.6369 Fax 949.250.1250 www.pars.org
Account balances are inclusive of Trust Administration, Trustee and Investment Management fees
Annualized Return
Investment Return: Annualized rate of return is the return on an investment over a period other than one year multiplied or divided to give a comparable one-year return.
Past performance does not guarantee future results. Performance returns may not reflect the deduction of applicable fees, which could reduce returns. Information is deemed reliable but may be subject to change.
Investment Return
Account Report for the Period
Beginning Balance as
of
Investment Selection
Account Summary
Moderate HighMark PLUS
Ending
Balance as of
The dual goals of the Moderate Strategy are growth of principal and income. It is expected that dividend and interest income will comprise a
significant portion of total return, although growth through capital appreciation is equally important. The portfolio will be allocated between
equity and fixed income investments.
Plan's Inception Date
Investment Objective
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9a
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222
Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of
Burlingame Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2019-20
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Hold a public hearing in connection with updates to the City’s Master Fee Schedule, and
2) Adopt a resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2019-20.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has traditionally approved a Master Fee Schedule as part of the budget process.
Fee adjustments are not automatic; they require an annual review and approval by the City Council.
An annual review and update ensures that fees reflect current costs to provide services, allows the
addition of fees when applicable for new City services, and provides for the elimination of fees for
discontinued services.
California law gives cities the ability to impose fees for governmental services when an individual’s
use of the City service is voluntary, and the fee charged is reasonable to the level of service and
the cost of providing the service. Last year, the City adopted a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy that
established guidelines for the amount of cost recovery that is appropriate for the various services
for which a fee is charged. Staff recommendations for fees were developed in accordance with
these guidelines. The proposed fees were reviewed by the Council on April 1, 2019. In compliance
with California Government Code § 66016, the Council established a public hearing for May 6,
2019; notice of the public hearing was duly provided; and the proposed Master Fee Schedule
for fiscal year 2019-20 was posted to the City’s web page at:
https://www.burlingame.org/Proposed%20FY2019-20%20Master%20Fee%20Schedule.pdf.
DISCUSSION
Although most fees will be effective July 1, pursuant to State law, certain fees associated with
development projects (to be charged by the Community Development Department, as well as the
Engineering Division of the Public Works Department), cannot become effective until 60 days after
adoption of the adjusted fees as delineated in the attached Master Fee Schedule. These fees will
be effective July 8, 2019.
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2019-20 May 6, 2019
2
FISCAL IMPACT
Changes to the City’s Master Fee schedule should result in some additional revenue in the new
fiscal year. However, the actual amounts are difficult to calculate because the use of some services
is voluntary, and the volume/demand of each activity varies.
Exhibits:
• A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame to Amend the Master Fee Schedule
for City Services
• City of Burlingame Proposed Master Fee Schedule
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE
2019-20 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame regularly reviews the fees that the City charges
persons or entities for the use of City facilities, or the provision of City services; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the cost of such services and facilities is borne by the
users of said services and facilities in a fair and equitable manner, the City periodically adjusts the
fees for services and facility use to ensure that the fees charged reflect the actual costs to the City
and the City’s taxpayers in providing those services and facilities; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, the City engaged the services of Wohlford Consulting to conduct an
update of the City’s Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) and a comprehensive review of the City’s
schedule of fees to ensure that the fees charged by the City to the users of City services and
facilities do not exceed the actual costs of providing the services or facilities; and
WHEREAS, these studies have informed the annual review of the City fee schedule,
resulting in numerous adjustments to ensure that the City recovers the full cost of providing
services and facilities while at the same time not exceeding the cost of providing those services
and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to keep some fees below the level of full cost
recovery to make the related services more readily available to citizens; and
WHEREAS, notice of the City’s proposed fee schedule and of the May 6, 2019 public
hearing in connection therewith, has been duly provided pursuant to the provisions of State law;
and
WHEREAS, certain fees to be charged by the Planning and Building Divisions of the
Community Development Department and the development fees to be charged by the Fire
Department and the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department cannot become
effective until sixty (60) days after adoption of this Resolution, pursuant to Government Code
section 66017; and
WHEREAS, all other adjusted fees as delineated in the Master Fee Schedule shall
become effective July 1, 2019; and
WHEREAS, despite every effort to ensure that all City fees for services are contained in
the 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule, there may be some existing fees provided for in the Municipal
Code, administrative procedures, or elsewhere that have been omitted from the Master Fee
Schedule and nothing in this resolution or Council action is intended to repeal those fees nor is
this resolution or Council action intended to affect in any way any taxes or assessments of any
kind.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. All of the facts and assertions recited above, in the staff report, and in supporting
documentation are true and correct, and the Council relies upon them in adopting the Master Fee
Schedule.
2. The City Council approves the 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule, attached and
incorporated as if fully set forth.
3. The 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule shall become effective on July 1, 2019, except for
development related fees pursuant to Government Code section 66017, which cannot become
effective until sixty (60) days after adoption of this Resolution.
____________________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meagan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held
on the 6th day of May, 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
___________________________________
Meagan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
City of Burlingame
Master Fee Schedule
EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1, 2019
Updated fees charged in connection with the filing, accepting, reviewing,
approving or issuance of an application, permit or entitlement will be effective on
July 5, 2019.
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
CITY-WIDE FEES
Page 1
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Returned Check Resolution No. 31-2003 $30.00 No Change
Copying of Routine Document
(Copies of sizes other than 8- ½"
by 11" or 8 - ½" by 14" or 11" by
17 or color copies will be charged
at cost)
To be paid in advance
Gov’t Code § 6253(b) $0.25 per page No Change
Copies of Reports/Statements
filed pursuant to Political Reform
Act
Gov’t Code § 81008 $0.10 per page No Change
Audio tape copies (except for
Police)
If blank tape supplied
If no tape supplied
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
$18.00 per tape
$18.00 per tape
plus purchase
costs of tape
No Change
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 2
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
BUILDING PERMIT FEES BASED ON TOTAL VALUATION
$1.00 to $500.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $37.00 No Change
$501.00 to $2,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $37.00 for the
first $500.00
plus $5.28 for
each additional
$100.00 or
fraction thereof
up to and
including
$2,000.00
No Change
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $116.00 for the
first $2,000.00
plus $22.15 for
each additional
$1,000.00 or
fraction thereof
up to and
including
$25,000.00
No Change
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $625.00 for the
first $25,000.00
plus $16.30 for
each additional
$1,000.00 or
fraction thereof
up to and
including
$50,000.00
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 3
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
$50,001.00 to
$100,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,032.00 for
the first
$50,000.00 plus
$11.07 for each
additional
$1,000.00 or
fraction thereof
up to and
including
$100,000.00
No Change
$100,001.00 to
$500,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,585.00 for
the first
$100,000.00
plus $9.40 for
each additional
$1,000.00 or
fraction thereof
up to and
including
$500,000.00
No Change
$500,001.00 to
$1,000,000.00
Resolution No 27-2011 $5,345.00 for
the first
$500,000.00
plus $8.57 for
each additional
$1,000.00 or
fraction thereof
up to and
including
$1,000,000.00
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 4
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
More than $1,000,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $9,630.00 for
the first
$1,000,000.00
plus $5.80 for
each additional
$1,000.00 or
fraction thereof
No Change
OTHER BUILDING PERMIT FEES
Building inspections
outside normal business
hours
Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per
hour (minimum
charge of 2
hours)
$248.00 per
hour (minimum
charge of 2
hours
Re-inspection fees
(minimum – one hour)
Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per
hour
$248.00 per
hour
Energy Upgrade California
Basic Package
Advanced Package
Resolution No. 27-2011
$238.00
$476.00
No Change
No Change
General fire inspections
for new building and
tenant remodels limited
to building permits of
commercial or multi-
family residential
Resolution No. 27-2011 Determined by
CCFD – pass-
through costs
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 5
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
PLAN REVIEW FEES
Basic Fee – Building
Division
Resolution No. 104-2002 65% of Building
Permit Fee
No Change
Energy Plan Check Fee
(where applicable;
includes review of Green
Points Checklist)
Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25%
of Building
Permit Fee
No Change
Disabled Access Plan
Check Fee (where
applicable)
Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 35%
of Building
Permit Fee
No Change
Review of Request for
Alternate Materials and
Methods
Resolution No. 27-2011 $293.00 per
hour
$303.00 per
hour
Review of Unreasonable
Hardship Request
Resolution No. 27-2011 $293.00 per
hour
$303.00 per
hour
Planning Department Plan
Check Fee (where
applicable)
Minimum fee of $80.00
Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25%
of Building
Permit Fee
No Change
Plan Revisions for
Planning Department
Resolution No. 27-2011 $293.00 per
hour
$303.00 per
hour
Plan Revisions
Subsequent to Permit
Issuance
Resolution No. 27-2011 $293.00 per
hour plus cost of
any additional
review
$303.00 per
hour plus cost of
any additional
review
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 6
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Engineering Division Plan
Review (where
applicable)
Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25%
of Building
Permit Fee
No Change
Imaging Fee Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 5% of
Building Permit
Fee with
minimum fee of
$5.00
No Change
Arborist Review Resolution No. 33-2008 $238.00 $246.00
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
*These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections
or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees
charged by public utility companies.
For issuance of each
plumbing permit
Resolution No. 27-2011 $46.00 No Change
**The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee:
New Residential Building -
including all plumbing
fixtures, connections and
gas outlets for new single-
and multi-family buildings
Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.13 per square
foot of habitable
area
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 7
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Fixtures and vents
For each plumbing fixture
or trap (including water
and waste piping and
backflow prevention)
Resolution No. 27-2011 $20.00 No Change
Sewer and interceptors
For each building sewer
For each industrial waste
pretreatment interceptor
(except kitchen-type
grease traps)
Resolution No 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
$71.00
$60.00
No Change
No Change
Water Piping and Water
Heaters
For installation alteration
or repair of water piping
or water-treatment
equipment
For each water heater
including vent
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
$60.00
No Change
No Change
Gas Piping Systems
For each gas piping
system of one to five
outlets
For each additional outlet
over five
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 33-2008
$39.00
$8.00
No Change
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 8
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Irrigation Systems and
Backflow Prevention
Devices
Irrigation systems
including backflow
device(s)
Other backflow
prevention devices:
2 inches (50.8 mm)
and smaller
Over 2 inches (50.8
mm)
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
$60.00
$60.00
No Change
No Change
No Change
Swimming Pools
For each swimming pool
or spa, all plumbing:
Public pool
Public spa
Private pool
Private spa
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
$242.00
$182.00
$242.00
$182.00
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Miscellaneous
For each appliance or
fixture for which no fee is
listed
Resolution No. 27-2011
$39.00
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 9
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Inspections outside
normal business hours
Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per
hour (minimum
charge of 2
hours)
$248.00 per
hour (minimum
charge of 2
hours)
Re-inspection fees
(minimum – one hour)
Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per
hour
$248.00 per
hour
Inspections for which no
fee is specifically
indicated
(minimum charge is one-
half hour)
Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per
hour
$248.00 per
hour
Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of
plumbing permit
fee with
minimum fee of
$5.00
No Change
Plan review (where
applicable)
Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25%
of plumbing
permit fee
No Change
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
*These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections
or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees
charged by public utility companies
Basic Permit Issuance Fee
For issuance of each
mechanical permit**
Resolution No. 27-2011
$46.00 No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 10
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
**The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee:
New Residential Building
including all mechanical
work including
appliances, exhaust fans,
ducts, and flues
Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.11 per square
foot of habitable
area
No Change
Furnaces
To and including 100
MBTU
Over 100 MBTU
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
$60.00
No Change
No Change
Boilers, compressors,
absorption systems
To and including 100
MBTU or 3HP
Over 100 MBTU or 3 HP
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
$60.00
No Change
No Change
Air Conditioners Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 No Change
Air Handlers
To 10,000 CFM including
ducting
Over 10,000 CFM
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
$39.00 each
$60.00 each
No Change
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 11
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Ventilation and Exhaust
Each ventilation fan
attached to a single duct
Each hood including ducts
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
$20.00 each
$31.00 each
No Change
No Change
Miscellaneous
For each appliance or
piece of equipment not
specifically listed above
Resolution No. 27-2011
$31.00 each
No Change
Inspections outside
normal business hours
Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per
hour (minimum
charge of 2
hours)
$248.00 per
hour (minimum
charge of 2
hours)
Re-inspection fees
(minimum charge is one
hour)
Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per
hour
$248.00 per
hour
Inspections for which no
fee is specifically
indicated
(minimum charge is one-
half hour)
Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per
hour
$248.00 per
hour
Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of
mechanical
permit fee with
minimum fee of
$5.00
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 12
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Plan review (where
applicable)
Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25%
of mechanical
permit fee
No Change
ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
*These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections
or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees
charged by public utility companies
**The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee:
For issuance of each
electrical permit**
Resolution No. 27-2011 $46.00 No Change
New Residential Building -
including all wiring and
electrical devices in or on
each building, including
service
Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.11 per square
foot of habitable
area
No Change
SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE
Swimming Pools
Public swimming pools
and spas including all
wiring and electrical
equipment
Private pools for single-
family residences
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
$240.00
$185.00
No Change
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 13
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Temporary Power
Temporary service pole
including all attached
receptacles
Temporary power pole
and wiring for
construction sites,
Christmas tree lots, etc.
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
$60.00
No Change
No Change
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Receptacle, switch and
light outlets
First 20 units
Each additional
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 32-2009
$59.00
$4.00
No Change
No Change
Residential Appliances
For fixed residential
appliances including cook
tops, ovens, air
conditioning, garbage
disposals, and similar
devices not exceeding 1
HP in rating
(For other types of air
conditioners or other
motor-driven appliances
having larger ratings, see
Power Apparatus below)
Resolution No. 32-2009
$10.00 each
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 14
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Nonresidential Appliances
Self-contained factory-
wired non-residential
appliances not exceeding
1 HP, KW, or kVA in rating
including medical and
dental devices; food,
beverage and ice cream
cabinets; illuminated
showcases; drinking
fountains; vending
machines; laundry
machines; etc.
(For other types of
devices having larger
electrical ratings,
see Power Apparatus
below)
Resolution No. 32-2009
$10.00 each
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 15
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Power Apparatus
For motors, generators,
air conditioners and heat
pumps and commercial
cooking devices as follows
(ratings in horsepower,
kilowatts, kilovolt-
amperes, or kilovolt-
amperes-reactive):
Up to 10
Over 10 to and including
100
Over 100
Notes:
For equipment or
appliances having more
than one motor,
transformer, heater, etc.,
the sum of the combined
ratings may be used.
These fees include all
switches, circuit breakers,
contractors, thermostats,
relays, and other related
control equipment.
Resolution No 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
$31.00
$60.00
$120.00
No Change
No Change
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 16
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Photo voltaic systems
Residential systems
Permit
Plan Check
Commercial Systems
Permit
Plan Check
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
No Charge
No Charge
$385.00
$293.00 per
hour
No Change
No Change
No Change
$303.00 per
hour
Busways
For trolleys and plug-in
type busways
Resolution No. 27-2011
$31.00 for each
100 feet (30,500
mm) or fraction
thereof
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 17
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Signs, Outline Lighting
and Marquees Permits
Signs, outline lighting, or
marquees supplied from
one circuit
For additional branch
circuits within the same
sign, outline lighting, or
marquee
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 32-2009
$60.00 each
$20.00 each
No Change
No Change
Services
600 volts or less and not
over 200 amperes in
rating
600 volts or less, over 200
amperes to 1,000
amperes
Over 600 volts or over
1,000 amperes
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No 27-2011
$60.00 each
$91.00 each
$121.00 each
No Change
No Change
No Change
Miscellaneous
For apparatus, conduits,
and conductors for which
a permit is required but
for which no fee is set
forth
Resolution No. 27-2011
$39.00
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
Page 18
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Inspections outside
normal business hours
Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per
hour
(minimum
charge of 2
hours)
$248.00 per
hour
(minimum
charge of 2
hours)
Re-inspection fees
(minimum charge is one
hour)
Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per
hour
$248.00 per
hour
Inspections for which no
fee is specifically
indicated
(minimum charge is one-
half hour)
Resolution No 27-2011 $240.00 per
hour
$248.00 per
hour
Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of
electrical permit
fee with
minimum fee of
$5.00
No Change
Plan review (where
applicable)
Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25%
of electrical
permit fee
No Change
GENERAL FEES
Building Moving Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 18.07.030)
$361.00 $373.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
CITY CLERK & ELECTIONS
Page 19
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Video recording of City
Council meeting or other
proceeding that has been
video recorded — to be
paid in advance of
copying recording
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
$88.00 per VHS
tape plus photo
service charge
$88.00 per DVD
plus photo
service charge
No Change
Audiotape of City Council
meeting or other City
proceeding that has been
taped — to be paid in
advance of copying tape
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
$17.00 per tape if
tape is supplied
by requestor
$17.00 per tape if
tape is not
supplied plus
purchase cost of
tape
No Change
No Change
All Certifications Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 each No Change
Filing of Nomination
Papers
Burlingame Municipal
Code section 2.20.020
(Ordinance No. 1703
(2003)
$25.00 per
candidate
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
Page 20
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
Minor (no excavation involved) $230.00 $238.00
Sewer Lateral Test Resolution No. 32-
2009
$423.00 $438.00
Sewer Lateral Replacement
(with Sidewalk Add No. 5)
Resolution No. 32-
2009
$423.00 $438.00
Water Service Connection (with
Sidewalk Add No. 5)
Resolution No. 32-
2009
$553.00 $572.00
Fire System Connection (with
Sidewalk Add No. 5)
Resolution No. 32-
2009
$191.00 $198.00
Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200
S.F. (Includes Curb Drain)
Resolution No. 32-
2009
Sections
12.10.030/12.08.020/
12.04.030
$398.00 plus
$0.36 for each
square foot over
200 *
*Fee waived for
owner who
undertake stand-
alone sidewalk
trip hazard
repairs (Section
12.12.070)
$412.00 plus
$1.00 for each
square foot
over 200 *
*Fee waived for
owners who
undertake
stand-alone
sidewalk trip
hazard repairs
(Section
12.12.070)
Sidewalk Closure/Pedestrian
Protection
Resolution No. 32-
2009
$397.00 $411.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
Page 21
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Traffic Control Resolution No. 33-
2008
$324.00 $335.00
Block Party (includes up to 6
barricades)
Resolution No. 27-
2006
$54.00 plus $5.00
for each add’l
barricade over 6
$56.00 plus
$5.00 for each
add’l barricade
over 6
Commercial Areas and
Construction Purposes (i.e.
Dumpsters/Containers)
Moving Only Purposes
(Residential Areas)
$206.00 plus
$10.00 space per
day or meter
rates
$33.00
processing fee
plus $10.00 per
space per day
$213.00 plus
$10.00 space
per day or
meter rates
$34.00
processing fee
plus $10.00 per
space per day
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
Page 22
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
GENERAL FEES
Demolition Permit (in addition
to any Building Department-
issued Demolition or
Construction Permit)
Includes sewer, water and
sidewalk replacement
Add fire line
Add curb drain
Add sidewalk closure
Add PG&E
Resolution No. 32-
2009
Resolution No. 32-
2009
Resolution No. 32-
2009
Resolution No. 32-
2009
Resolution No. 32-
2009
$1,518.00
$81.00
$217.00
$217.00
$217.00
$1,571.00
$84.00
$225.00
$225.00
$225.00
Address Change Resolution No. 32-
2009
$316.00 $327.00
Single Trip -Transportation Fee
(Fixed rate set by Caltrans)
Senate Bill SB 372 $16.00 No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
Page 23
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Leaf Blower Testing Certification
Fee
Ord. No. 1871 (2012) $32.00 for up to
5 leaf blowers
$5.00 for
certification
decal if certified
by manufacturer
$33.00 for up to
5 leaf blowers
$5.00 for
certification
decal if certified
by
manufacturer
Creek Enclosures Resolution No. 32-
2009
Section 18.24.020
$2,943.00 $3,046.00
Abandonment of Public Utility
Easement
$4,826.00 $4,995.00
Hauling Permit Section 13.60.080 $236.00
application fee
plus 1 cent per
ton per mile
$244.00
application fee
plus 1 cent per
ton per mile
Inspection/Investigation Fee Section 12.10.070 $230.00 per hour $238.00 per
hour
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
Page 24
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
Subsurface Shoring Systems that
encroach into the public right-
of-way
• Per 10’-20’ deep tieback
• Per >20’ deep tieback
• For permanent area used
(i.e. shoring wall)
$2,000.00 each
$1,000.00 each
50% of appraised
land value per
square foot (sf)
multiplied by the
area (sf) of
encroachment
No Change
Permanent structures, such as
retaining walls, fences
Resolution No. 32-
2009
Section 12.10.020
$2,561.00 $2,651.00
Non-permanent installations,
such as tables, chairs, planters
Resolution No. 32-
2009
Section 12.10.020
$1,600.00 No Change
DEPOSITS OR BONDS FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WORK
Openings in Public Right-of-Way
(not in sidewalk or street)
Resolution No. 33-
2007
$1,000.00
Minimum (in
easement area)
$10.00/sf in
sidewalk
$1,000.00
Minimum (in
easement area)
$10.00/sf for
area excavated
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
Page 25
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Openings in Public Right-of-Way
in sidewalk (not in street)
Resolution No. 33-
2007
$10.00 per
square foot in
sidewalk area,
$1,000.00
minimum
$25.00 per
square foot in
sidewalk area,
$1,000.00
minimum
Street Roadway Opening (AC
Pavement Restoration)
Resolution No. 33-
2007
Section 12.10.025
$10.00 per
square foot in
paved area,
$2,500.00
minimum
including curb
replacement
No Change
Water Main Modification
(refundable bond)
Resolution No. 33-
2007
$10,000.00 per
connection
No Change
Sewer Main & Storm Drain
Modification (refundable bond)
Resolution No. 33-
2007
$10,000.00 per
connection
No Change
SUBDIVISION MAPS
Lot Line Adjustment Resolution No. 32-
2009 (Section
26.24.090)
$2,584.00 $2,674.00
(application fee)
+ actual City
consultant costs
Lot Combination Resolution No. 32-
2009
Section 26.24.090
$2,584.00 $2,674.00
(application fee)
+ actual City
consultant costs
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
Page 26
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Subdivision Map
Resolution No. 32-
2009 Sections
26.24.090/ 26.16.151
$3,836.00 plus
deposit, plus
$234.00 for each
additional lot in
excess of 5 lots;
plus actual City
consultant costs
$3,970.00 plus
deposit, plus
$242.00 for
each additional
lot in excess of
5 lots; plus
actual City
consultant costs
Condominium Map Resolution No. 32-
2009 Sections
26.24.090/ 26.16.151
$3,119.00, plus
$587.00 for each
additional unit
over 4 units, plus
actual City
consultant costs
$3,228.00, plus
$608.00 for
each additional
unit over 4
units, plus
actual City
consultant costs
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
** The fees represent the labor cost to inspect and security deposit
Type 1 Project: Single family
dwellings with 1st or 2nd floor
additions on a 10,000 sf lot or
smaller
$177.00 plus
$1,500.00
security deposit
$183.00 plus
$1,500.00
security deposit
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
Page 27
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Type 2 Project: Multi-family
dwellings or commercial
additions (excluding tenant
improvements) that are on a
10,000 sf lot or smaller
$353.00 plus
$3,000.00
security deposit
$365.00 plus
$3,000.00
security deposit
Type 3 Project: Any project
10,000 sf up to an acre lot
$707.00 plus
$5,000.00
security deposit
$732.00 plus
$5,000.00
security deposit
Type 4 Project: Any project
greater than one acre in size
$1,414.00 plus
$10,000 security
deposit
$1,463.00 plus
$10,000
security deposit
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEWS
Single Family Dwelling
(Addition)
$459.00 $475.00
Single Family Dwelling (New) $917.00 $949.00
Multi-family $1,834.00 $1,898.00
Commercial/Industrial $1,834.00 $1,898.00
Environmental Review $1,477.00 $1,529.00
Traffic and Parking Studies $3,485.00 $3,607.00
GRADING PERMIT
1 – 100 cubic yards $1,238.00 $1,281.00
101 – 1,000 cubic yards $1,869.00 $1,934.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
Page 28
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
1,001 – 10,000 cubic yards $2,185.00 $2,261.00
Over 10,000 cubic yards $2,973.00 $3,077.00
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Stormwater Inspection for
Industrial/Commercial Facilities
$135.00 per hour $140.00 per
hour
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
FINANCE
Page 29
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Duplicate business license Section 6.04.120 $10.00 No Change
Application for first business
license
Section 6.04.170 $35.00 No Change
Submittal of surety bond for
transient occupancy after
expiration of bond
Resolution No. 27-2006 $150.00 for every
15 days bond is
late
No Change
Special business license for
long-term parking
Section 6.08.085 5% of gross
receipts
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Page 30
The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) is governed by the Fire Board, and as such, its fees are
enacted via a process that is separate from that of the City of Burlingame. The following fees have been
approved, to be effective as of July 1, 2019.
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
CARE FACILITIES INSPECTION
Pre-inspection of licensed
community care facility
Health & Safety Code §
13235
$160.00 per hour
$146.00 per hour
Residential Care Facility for
Elderly serving 6 or fewer
persons – fire inspection
enforcement
Health & Safety Code §
1569.84
No Charge No Change
Residential Care Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $309.00 $301.00
Large Family Day Care Resolution No. 33-2008 $161.00 $163.00
Skilled Nursing Facility Resolution No. 33-2008 $570.00 $577.00
Hospital/Institution Resolution No. 33-2008 $2,208.00 $2,230.00
RE-INSPECTIONS
Second re-inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $146.00 per
inspection
$114.00 per
inspection
Third and subsequent
re-inspections
Resolution No. 33-2008 $350.00 per
inspection
$207.00 per
inspection
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Page 31
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
CONSTRUCTION FEES
General Fire & Life Safety
Services
• Consultation &
Research
• Pre-application
meetings & Design
Review
• Property Survey
• General Construction
Inspections
• Processing,
Scheduling, and
Record Keeping
12% of Building
Permit fees for
Commercial and
Multi-Family
Residential
No Change
Building or Planning Plan
Check
Resolution No. 33-2008 $166.00 per hour $157.00 per hour
Expedite Building or
Planning Check Fees
(2 hour minimum)
Resolution No. 33-2008 $332.00 per hour $314.00 per hour
Consultation and Planning Resolution No. 33-2008 $189.00 per hour $229.00 per hour
Alternate Means of
Protection Review
Resolution No. 33-2008 $189.00 per hour $229.00 per hour
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Page 32
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Fire Alarm Systems
Permit for Monitoring
System
Permit for Manual System
Permit for Automatic System
Permit for Combination
System
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
$173.00
$173.00
$310.00
$446.00
$176.00
$176.00
$313.00
$452.00
Multi-Residential or
Commercial Fire Alarm
Remodel or Repair (Device
relocation/adjustment)
$105.00 $107.00
Fixed Fire Extinguishing
System Permit
Resolution No. 33-2008 $241.00 $245.00
Standpipe System Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $310.00 $313.00
Storage Tank (above or
below ground) Permit
Resolution No. 33-2008 $173.00 $176.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Page 33
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
One or two Family Dwelling
Fire Sprinkler System (NFPA
13D)
Resolution No. 33-2008 $446.00 - flat fee
including 2
inspections
(additional
inspections will
be charged at the
hourly rate of the
staff who actually
perform each
inspection)
$452.00 - flat fee
including 2
inspections
(additional
inspections will
be charged at the
hourly rate of the
staff who actually
perform each
inspection)
Fire Pump Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $173.00 $176.00
Multi-Residential or
Commercial Fire Sprinkler
System (NFPA 13 or 13R)
Permit – Single Story (incl.
T.I.)
Permit - Multi-story
Resolution No. 33-2008 $719.00 flat fee
including 2
inspections
(additional
inspections will
be charged at the
hourly rate of the
staff who actually
perform each
inspection)
$727.00 flat fee
including 2
inspections
(additional
inspections will
be charged at the
hourly rate of the
staff who actually
perform each
inspection)
Multi-Residential or
Commercial Fire sprinkler
Remodel & Repair (Sprinkler
Head relocation/adjustment
only)
Resolution No. 33-2008 $173.00 $107.00
Fire Service Line Inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $173.00 $176.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Page 34
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Emergency Responder Radio
Coverage System Permit
§510, CFC
Title 24 Part 9
$370.00 $335.00
MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND PERMITS
Labor Rate for Mechanic
Services
$110.00
No Change
Vegetation Management
Inspection
Resolution No. 33-2008 $173.00 plus 50%
of contractor’s
fee
$108.00 plus 50%
of contractor’s
fee
Change of Use Inspection
(usually triggered by new
business license)
Resolution No. 33-2008 $105.00 $108.00
Accounts referred to
Collection Agencies
+47% of original
invoice
No Change
Photographs from
investigations
Resolution No. 61-2004 Cost of
reproduction
No Change
Fire Incident Reports (not
including photographs)
Resolution No. 33-2008 $10.00 No Change
Work without a construction
permit
Resolution No. 33-2008 Up to 10 times
the permit fees
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Page 35
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Emergency Response Costs
for Driving under the
Influence (Billing upon
conviction)
Govt. Code §53150-58 Costs according
to Personnel
Schedule below
plus apparatus
cost of $91.00
per hour as set
by State
No Change
False Alarms Resolution No. 33-2007 $315.00 for 3 to
5
$630.00 for 6 or
more
$441.00 for 3 to 5
$630.00 for 6 or
more
Hazardous Materials Clean-
up/Response
Resolution No. 33-2008 Costs according
to Personnel
Schedule below
plus apparatus
costs of $91.00
per hour as set
by State
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Page 36
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
STANDBY SERVICE
Firefighter
Fire Captain
Battalion Chief
Engine Company
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
$87.00 per hour
(minimum of 3
hours)
$141.00 per hour
(minimum of 3
hours)
$170.00 per hour
(minimum of 3
hours)
$315.00 per hour
(minimum of 3
hours) plus
apparatus costs
of $91.00 per
hour as set by
State
$88.00 per hour
(minimum of 3
hours)
$103.00 per hour
(minimum of 3
hours)
$117.00 per hour
(minimum of 3
hours)
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Page 37
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
PERSONNEL COSTS
Personnel Costs by Job Class
Administration
Firefighter
Fire Captain
Fire Administrative Captain
Fire Prevention Specialist
Fire Inspector
Deputy Fire Marshal
Battalion Chief
Division Chief or Fire
Marshal
Deputy Fire Chief
Fire Chief
Resolution No. 33-2008
$ 57.00 per hour
$ 87.00 per hour
$141.00 per hour
$141.00 per hour
$ 80.00 per hour
$137.00 per hour
$146.00 per hour
$170.00 per hour
$186.00 per hour
$189.00 per hour
$208.00 per hour
$ 61.00 per hour
$ 88.00 per hour
$103.00 per hour
$103.00 per hour
$ 82.00 per hour
$138.00 per hour
$144.00 per hour
$117.00 per hour
$177.00 per hour
$188.00 per hour
$205.00 per hour
GENERAL PERMITS
Aerosol Products Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $163.00
Amusement Buildings Resolution No. 33-2008 $297.00 $267.00
Apartments, Hotels and
Motels – 10 or less units
Resolution No. 33-2008 $177.00 $140.00
Apartments, Hotels and
Motels – 11 to 25 units
Resolution No. 33-2008 $212.00 $166.00
Apartments, Hotels and
Motels – 26 or more units
Resolution No. 33-2008 $247.00 $192.00
Apartments Assigned to
Prevention
$236.00 $219.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Page 38
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Aviation Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00
Battery System Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00
Carnivals and Fairs Resolution No. 33-2008 $433.00 $267.00
Christmas Tree Lot Resolution No. 33-2008 $161.00 $267.00
Combustible Fiber Storage Resolution No. 33-2007 $263.00 $267.00
Combustible Material
Storage
Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Commercial Occupancy
Assigned to Prevention
Resolution No. 33-2008 $97.00 $200.00
Commercial Rubbish-
Handling Operation
Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Compressed Gasses Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Cryogens Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Dry Cleaning Plants Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Dust-Producing Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Exhibits & Trade Shows –
Display Booth
Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Exhibits & Trade Shows –
With Open Flame
Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Exhibits & Trade Shows –
Display Fuel Powered
Equipment
Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Page 39
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Explosives or Blasting Agents Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00
Fire Hydrants and Water
Control Valves
Resolution No. 33-2008 $261.00 $265.00
Fireworks Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00
Flammable or Combustible
Liquids
Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00
Hazardous Materials Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00
High-Piled Combustible
Storage – 20,000 square feet
or less
Resolution No. 33-2008 $475.00 $481.00
High-Piled Combustible
Storage – more than 20,000
square feet
Resolution No. 33-2008 $578.00 $549.00
Highrise H&S§13214(b) $444.00 $316.00
Hot-Work Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Liquefied Petroleum Gasses Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00
Liquid- or gas-fueled
Vehicles or Equipment in
Assembly Buildings
Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00
Live Audiences Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00
Lumber Yards storing in
excess of 100,000 board Feet
Resolution No. 33-2008 $366.00 $370.00
Magnesium Working Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Page 40
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Motor Vehicle Fuel-
Dispensing Stations
Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Open Burning Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Organic Coating Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Ovens, Industrial Baking and
Drying
Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Parade Floats Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Places of Assembly Resolution No. 33-2008 $434.00 $439.00
Production Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $434.00 $439.00
Pyrotechnical and Special
Effects Material
Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00
Radioactive Materials Resolution No. 33-2008 $281.00 $267.00
Refrigeration Equipment Resolution No. 33-2008 $391.00 $370.00
Repair Garage Resolution No. 33-2008 $297.00 $267.00
Spraying and Dipping Resolution No. 33-2008 $297.00 $267.00
Tents, Canopies, and
Temporary Membrane
Structures
Resolution No. 33-2008 $398.00 $402.00
Tire Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Wood Products Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
LIBRARY
Page 41
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
CITY OF BURLINGAME FEES
Photocopies – Black and White $0.15 per page at
vending machine
No Change
Photocopies - Color $0.45 per page at
vending machine
No Change
Internet /Database copies or
printouts – Black and White
Resolution No. 27-2011 First 3 pages free
$0.15 per page
No Change
Internet /Database copies or
printouts – Color
Resolution No. 27-2011 First page free
$0.45 per page
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
LIBRARY
Page 42
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Facilities Rental
Lane Community Room rental
Use of Audio Visual Equipment
Tech Media Lab rental
Use of Audio Visual Equipment
Computer Laptop set-
up/breakdown
Upper Level U.L. Meeting
Room rental
Use of Audio Visual Equipment
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 27-2011
$100.00
$30.00 flat fee
$60.00 first 4 hours
$30.00 flat fee
$50.00 flat fee
$40.00 first 4
hours. $10.00 each
additional hour
$30.00 Flat fee
$130.00
$90.00 first 4
hours. $10.00
each additional
hour
No Change
$70.00 first 4
hours. $10.00
each additional
hour
Outside System Book Loan Resolution No. 27-2011 $5.00 + additional
fee from lending
library if applicable
No Change
Photo/filming fee (only for
shoots requiring staff
oversight during closed hours)
$50.00/hour No Change
USB Flash Drive $10.00 each
Ear-Bud Headphones $2.00 each
Cloth Shopping Bag $5.00 each
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
LIBRARY
Page 43
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Passport:
Acceptance/US State
Department Fee
Passport Photo Fee
Express Mail Service to
Passport Processing Center
Set by US State
Department
$35.00 (as of April
2, 2018)
$15.00
$19.99 or current
postal rate
No Change
No Change
Current USPS
Priority Mail
Express Rate
PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM CONSORTIUM CONTROLLED FEES
Overdue Fee for Adult Peninsula Library System $0.25 per item, per
day
No Change
Maximum Fee Peninsula Library System $8.00 Adult No Change
Lost Book Replacement Fee Peninsula Library System $5.00 per item plus
costs of
replacement of
item
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 44
Group Classifications for Purposes of Parks & Recreation Facilities Usage:
Group A: City of Burlingame, Burlingame School District
Group A-1: Recognized Burlingame based non-profit youth sports groups (for field use only)
Group B: Non-profit groups or organizations with IRS Section 501c(3) tax exempt status
Group C: Private parties, commercial, business, and profit-making organizations
School District Fees: Fees shall be applied to the district and affiliated organizations (examples: PTA,
Boosters, Foundations) as follows:
A. San Mateo Union High School District
a. Unless otherwise specified in an adopted facility use agreement, indoor and athletic facility
fees shall be calculated administratively to be comparable to the SMUHSD fee schedule as it
pertains to City use of similar SMUHSD facilities.
b. Picnic and special park facility fees, and staffing fees charged to SMUHSD shall be at the rates
described in other sections of the fee schedule.
B. Burlingame School District
a. Unless otherwise specified in an adopted facility use agreement, indoor and athletic facility
fees shall be calculated administratively to be comparable to the BSD fee schedule as it
pertains to City use of similar BSD facilities.
b. Picnic and special park facility fees, and staffing fees charged to BSD shall be at the rates
described in other sections of the fee schedule. Pool fees for BSD use shall be charged at the
non-profit rate.
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 45
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
INDOOR FACILITIES
Recreation Center
Auditorium
Group A
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Burlingame Non-Profit Meetings
Non Resident Non-Profit
Meetings
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Auditorium Deposit
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 33-
2008
No Charge
$152.00 1st hour
$78.00 /add’l hour
$165.00 1st hour
$83.00/add’l hour
$42.00 per hour
$46.00 per hour
$262.00 1st hour
$132.00/ add’l
hour
$303.00 1st hour
$149.00/ add’l
hour
$500.00
No Change
$157.00 1st hour
$81.00 /add’l hour
$171.00 1st hour
$86.00/add’l hour
$43.00 per hour
$48.00 per hour
$271.00 1st hour
$137.00/ add’l
hour
$314.00 1st hour
$154.00/ add’l
hour
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 46
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Other Recreation Center Rooms
Group A
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Burlingame Non-Profit Meetings
Non Resident Non-Profit
Meetings
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
No Charge
$117.00 1st hour
$59.00 /add’l hour
$128.00 1st hour
$63.00/add’l hour
$23.00 per hour
$25.00 per hour
$152.00 1st hour
$78.00/add’l hour
$165.00 1st hour
$83.00/add’l hour
No Change
$121.00 1st hour
$61.00 /add’l hour
$132.00 1st hour
$65.00/add’l hour
$24.00 per hour
$26.00 per hour
$157.00 1st hour
$81.00/add’l hour
$171.00 1st hour
$86.00/add’l hour
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 47
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Facility Room Deposit
Kitchen
Group A:
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
$200.00 Per Room
50% discount on
deposit of lounge if
2nd lounge is
rented at the same
time
50% discount on
deposit of kitchen
if rented with
another room
No Charge
$19.00 per hour
$23.00 per hour
$35.00 per hour
$41.00 per hour
No Change
No Change
No Change
$20.00 per hour
$24.00 per hour
$36.00 per hour
$42.00 per hour
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 48
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Additional Rental Charges:
Tables/Chairs-up to 50
Tables/Charis-51 to 100
Tables/Chairs-over 100
Coffee Pots
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 33-
2008
$19.00
$28.00
$43.00
$15.00 per pot
$20.00
$29.00
$45.00
No Change
Building Attendant * Resolution No. 33-
2008
$40.00 per hour No Change
Field Attendant Resolution No. 41-
2008
$40.00 per hour No Change
Weekend Custodian Resolution No. 27-
2006
$102.00 per event No Change
Weekday Custodian Resolution No. 31-
2003
$32.00 per hour No Change
Extra, Non-Scheduled Hours Resolution No. 27-
2006
$268.00 per hour No Change
Wine/beer to be served Resolution No. 31-
2003
$33.00 additional No Change
*Building Attendant will be on duty 30 minutes prior to and 30 minutes after duration of activities at Recreation Center.
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 49
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
Large Special Event Deposit for
Athletic Fields:
Less than 100 in attendance
More than 100 in attendance
Group A-1: Field Use per Season
by Burlingame-based non-profit
youth sports group.
Fields used by Accredited
Burlingame-based non-profit
youth sports groups
Resolution No. 27-
2011
$250.00 per event
$500.00 per event
$16.00 per
Resident
$85.00 per Non-
Resident plus $3.00
per hour per field
for Resident
groups,
$9.00 per hour per
field for groups less
than 50% Resident
Security Deposit
$500.00
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 50
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Bayside Ball Fields #1 and #2
Group A
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Bayside Field Lights
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 24-
2010
No Charge
$22.00 per hour
$32.00 per hour
$32.00 per hour
$52.00 per hour
$36.00 per hour
No Change
$23.00 per hour
$33.00 per hour
$33.00 per hour
$54.00 per hour
$37.00 per hour
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 51
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Bayside Ball Fields #3,#4 or #5 for
Softball or Baseball
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Bayside Field Lights
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 24-
2010
No Charge
$17.00 per hour
$27.00 per hour
$27.00 per hour
$42.00 per hour
$36.00 per hour
No Change
$18.00 per hour
$28.00 per hour
$28.00 per hour
$43.00 per hour
$37.00 per hour
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 52
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Bayside Soccer Fields
Group A
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Bayside Field Lights
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 24-
2010
No Charge
$22.00 per hour
$32.00 per hour
$32.00 per hour
$52.00 per hour
$36.00 per hour
No Change
$23.00 per hour
$33.00 per hour
$33.00 per hour
$54.00 per hour
$37.00 per hour
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 53
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Cuernavaca Park
Group A
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 33-
2008
No Charge
$22.00 per hour
$32.00 per hour
$32.00 per hour
$52.00 per hour
No Change
$23.00 per hour
$33.00 per hour
$33.00 per hour
$54.00 per hour
Murray Field
Group A
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Murray Field Lights
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 24-
2010
No Charge
$55.00 per hour
$75.00 per hour
$75.00 per hour
$95.00 per hour
$36.00 per hour
No Change
$57.00 per hour
$78.00 per hour
$78.00 per hour
$98.00 per hour
$37.00 per hour
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 54
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Ray Park Ball Fields #1 or #2
Group A
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 33-
2008
No Charge
$22.00 per hour
$32.00 per hour
$32.00 per hour
$52.00 per hour
No Change
$23.00 per hour
$33.00 per hour
$33.00 per hour
$54.00 per hour
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 55
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Washington Park Main Ball Field
for Baseball
Group A
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Washington Park Lights
Resolution No. 41-
2008
Resolution No. 41-
2008
Resolution No. 41-
2008
Resolution No. 41-
2008
Resolution No. 41-
2008
Resolution No. 24-
2010
No Charge
$32.00 per hour +
field attendant
$52.00 per hour +
field attendant
$52.00 per hour +
field attendant
$72.00 per hour +
field attendant
$36.00 per hour
No Change
$33.00 per hour +
field attendant
$54.00 per hour +
field attendant
$54.00 per hour +
field attendant
$75.00 per hour +
field attendant
$37.00 per hour
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 56
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Washington Park Bullpen
Group A
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2007
Resolution No. 33-
2008
No Charge
$17.00 per hour
$22.00 per hour
$32.00 per hour
$42.00 per hour
No Change
$18.00 per hour
$23.00 per hour
$33.00 per hour
$43.00 per hour
Washington Park Main Ball field
Outfield for Soccer
Group A
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Washington Park Lights
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 24-
2010
No Charge
$32.00 per hour
$52.00 per hour
$52.00 per hour
$72.00 per hour
$36.00 per hour
No Change
$33.00 per hour
$54.00 per hour
$54.00 per hour
$75.00 per hour
$37.00 per hour
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 57
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Washington Park Small Ball Field
Group A
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Washington Small Lights
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 24-
2010
No Charge
$17.00 per hour
$27.00 per hour
$27.00 per hour
$42.00 per hour
$36.00 per hour
No Change
$18.00 per hour
$28.00 per hour
$28.00 per hour
$43.00 per hour
$37.00 per hour
Tennis Courts
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
For Profit Rental
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Resolution No. 61-
2006
Resolution No. 103-
2009
Resolution No. 103-
2009
$34.00 for 4
hours/per court
$54.00 for 4
hours/per court
$20.00 per
hour/per court
$24.00 per
hour/per court
$35.00 for 4
hours/per court
$56.00 for 4
hours/per court
$21.00 per
hour/per court
$25.00 per
hour/per court
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 58
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
PICNIC PERMITS
West-end of Washington Park
(for Burlingame non-profit
groups only)
Resolution No. 27-
2011
$445.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
No Change
Electrical Service Hook-up at
West-end of Washington Park
Resolution No. 32-
2009
$79.00 No Change
Small Picnic Area
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
2008
Resolution No. 33-
2008
$105.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
$142.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
$109.00 Permit
Fee No Deposit
$147.00 Permit
Fee No Deposit
Large Picnic Area
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Resolution No. 24-
2010
Resolution No. 24-
2010
$210.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
$263.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
$217.00 Permit
Fee No Deposit
$272.00 Permit
Fee No Deposit
Non-profit Group Picnic Fees:
Cuernavaca & Ray Parks
Resolution No. 103-
2009
$100.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
$103.00 Permit
Fee No Deposit
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 59
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Both Washington Park Picnic
Areas
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
$288.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
$368.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
$298.00 Permit
Fee No Deposit
$381.00 Permit
Fee No Deposit
West End Picnic Area
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
New Fee
New Fee
$110.00 Permit
Fee No Deposit
$147.00 Permit
Fee No Deposit
Washington Park Bocce Ball
Courts
(reservations)
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Rental of Bocce Ball and
Horseshoes
Resolution 34-2013
Resolution 34-2013
$26.00/hour per
court
No Deposit
$31.00/hour per
court
No Deposit
$10.00 Flat Rate +
$40.00 Refundable
deposit
$27.00/hour per
court
No Deposit
$32.00/hour per
court
No Deposit
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 60
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Washington Park Horseshoe Pits
(reservations)
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Resolution 34-2013
Resolution 34-2013
$26.00/hour per
court
No Deposit
$31.00/hour per
court
No Deposit
$27.00/hour per
court
No Deposit
$32.00/hour per
court
No Deposit
Rental of Park Space for Private
Classes (Exercise Boot Camps,
Stroller Exercise Classes & Other
Private Uses)
Burlingame residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 103-
2009
Resolution No. 103-
2009
$18.00 per hour
$22.00 per hour
$19.00 per hour
$23.00 per hour
Village Park Picnic Fee (3 tables)
Burlingame residents
Non-residents
Resolution 24-2010
Resolution 24-2010
$105.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
$142.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
$109.00 Permit
Fee No Deposit
$147.00 Permit
Fee No Deposit
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 61
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Non-Profit Community Groups
Equipment Rental Fees
Collapsible Picnic Table
Tables
Chairs
Tents
Risers – without wheels
Risers – with wheels
Resolution No. 32-
2009
$15.00 per
table/per day
$4.00 per table/per
day
$2.00 per chair/per
day
$20.00 per
tent/per day
$30.00 per
riser/per day
$50.00 per
riser/per day
$16.00 per
table/per day
$4.00 per
table/per day
$2.00 per
chair/per day
$21.00 per
tent/per day
$31.00 per
riser/per day
$52.00 per
riser/per day
Inflatable Jump House
Washington Park
Recreation Center Patio
Resolution No. 27-
2011
Resolution No. 27-
2011
$105.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit (Must
be done in
conjunction with a
picnic permit)
$105.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit (Must
be in conjunction
with rental of
Lounge II)
$109.00 Permit
Fee No Deposit
(Must be done in
conjunction with a
picnic permit)
$109.00 Permit
Fee No Deposit
(Must be in
conjunction with
rental of Lounge II)
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 62
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Wedding Ceremony
Washington Park Rose Garden
With Recreation Center Rental
Resolution No. 27-
2011
Resolution No. 27-
2011
$105.00 residents
$158.00 non-
residents
$53.00 residents
$105.00 non-
residents
$109.00 residents
$164.00 non-
residents
$55.00 residents
$109.00 non-
residents
Photo Shoots in Parks
Application Fee
Rental Fee Per Day
Student Photo Shoot
Film Shoot in Parks
Application Fee
Commercial or Corporate
Feature Film/Documentary
Resolution No. 27-
2011
Resolution No. 27-
2011
$53.00 non-
refundable fee
$132.00 per day
No Charge or
application fee
$309.00 non-
refundable fee
$420.00 per day
$630.00 per day
$55.00 non-
refundable fee
$137.00 per day
No Change
$320.00 non-
refundable fee
$435.00 per day
$652.00 per day
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 63
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Brochure Ads
1/8 page
1/4 page
1/2 page
Full page
Full Page Inside Front Cover
Full Page Inside Back Cover
Full Page Back Cover
Layout
Discount for Non-Profits
Resolution No. 27-
2011
1 issue/4 issues (1
year - 20%
Discount)
$73.00/$234.00
$146.00/$467.00
$293.00/$938.00
$585.00/$1,872.00
$788.00/$2,521.00
$735.00/$2,352.00
$876.00/$2,803.00
$75.00 per hour
25% resident
groups
0% non-resident
groups
No Change
$76.00/$242.00
$151.00/$483.00
$303.00/$971.00
$605.00/$1,938.00
$816.00/$2,609.00
$761.00/$2,434.00
$907.00/$2,901.00
$78.00 per hour
No Change
CLASSES
Class Fees
Resolution No. 31-
2003
To be set based on
class provider and
materials/facilities
provided
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 64
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Registration Fees Resolution No. 24-
2010
$12.00 No Change
Non-resident Fee on Classes Resolution No. 31-
2003
Add 20% to class
fee rounded to
nearest dollar
No Change
Senior discount – Burlingame
residents age 65 and over
Resolution No. 103-
2009
25% off class fee
on classes held at
Recreation Center
No Change
Senior discount – non-residents
age 65 and over
Resolution No. 31-
2003
Waive non-
resident fee
No Change
Registration cancellation charge
Resolution No. 33-
2008
$8.00 per class or
event
No Change
TREE AND PARKS FEES
Memorial tree plantings
15 gallon/24” box size
Resolution No. 33-
2008
$200.00/$400.00 No Change
Memorial Bench – Washington
Park
Memorial Bench – Bayside Park
Resolution No. 27-
2011
$2,000.00
$2,200.00
$3,000.00
Additional street tree plantings
15 gallon/24” box size
Resolution No. 32-
2009
$95.00/$250.00 $98.00/$258.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Page 65
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Protected Tree Removal
Application Fee
Failure to Meet Replanting
Requirements of Permit
Resolution No. 33-
2008
$75.00
$1,200.00
No Change
No Change
Arborist’s plan review for
landscaping requirements on
planning applications
(See also planning fee schedule)
Resolution No. 33-
2008
$238.00 No Change
Arborist check of construction
plans and inspection of
landscape requirements on
building permit submittals
Resolution No. 33-
2008
$238.00 No Change
Appeal to City Council from
Beautification Commission
decision (does not include
noticing costs)
Resolution No. 33-
2008
$455.00 No Change
Noticing, City Council Appeal Resolution No. 33-
2008
$96.00 No Change
Street Banner Hanger Resolution No. 24-
2010
$125.00 No Change
Private Tree Emergency Work
Business Hours (M-F; 7-3:30)
After Hours (Weekends &
Holidays)
$78.00 per hour
$99.00 per hour
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
Page 66
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
PRE-APPLICATIONS
Preliminary Plan Check, New
Construction*
Resolution No. 27-2011 $850.00 $880.00
Preliminary Plan Check, Remodel* Resolution No. 27-2011 $425.00 $440.00
Zoning Verification/Property Profile
Letter
$100.00 $103.00
APPLICATIONS
Ambiguity/Determination Hearing
before Planning Commission
(applies to Planning, Fire, and
Building requests)
Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,420.00 $1,470.00
Amendment/Extension of Permits Resolution No. 27-2011 $765.00 $792.00
Antenna Exception Fee Section 18.18.040 $3,000.00 $3,105.00
Appeal to Planning Commission of
administratively approved
permits/appeal to City Council of
Planning Commission decisions
Noticing to be charged separately
Resolution No. 33-2008 $910.00 $942.00
*Fifty percent (50%) of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete
application.
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
Page 67
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Legal Review-Substantive work by
City Attorney for development
projects requiring discretionary
review before the Planning
Commission under Title 25
Resolution No. 48-2015
$186.00/hour $193.00/hour
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,883.00 $1,949.00
Condominium Permit, 10 Units or
Fewer
Resolution No. 33-2008 $3,352.00 $3,469.00
Condominium Permit, 11 Units to
25 Units
Resolution No. 33-2008 $3,937.00 $4,075.00
Condominium Permit, 26 Units to
50 Units
$4,621.00 $4,783.00
Condominium Permit, 51 Units to
100 Units
$5,426.00 $5,616.00
Condominium Permit, 101 Units and
Greater
$6,371.00 $6,594.00
Design Review, Addition Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,207.00 $1,249.00
Design Review, Amendment Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,042.00 $1,078.00
Design Review Deposit** Resolution No. 27-2006 $1,360.00 $1,408.00
Design Review – Handling Fee
Resolution No. 33-2008 $529.00 $548.00
**Minimum deposit. Formula for ultimate calculation is design review consultant fee times hours spent. Project not set for hearing
until actual time paid.
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
Page 68
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Minor “FYI” Amendment to
Approved Project – Applicant
Initiated
$402.00 $416.00
As-Built “FYI” Variation from
Approved Project
$1,482.00 $1,534.00
Design Review, New Construction –
Single Family Residential
Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,206.00 $1,248.00
Design Review, New Construction –
Multifamily Family Residential 25
Units or Fewer
New Fee $1,872.00
Design Review, New Construction –
Multifamily Family Residential 26
Units or Greater
New Fee $2,496.00
Design Review, New Construction –
Commercial, 5,000 Gross Square
Feet or Less
New Fee $1,248.00
Design Review, New Construction –
Commercial, 5,001-10,000 Gross
Square Feet
New Fee $1,872.00
Design Review, New Construction –
Commercial, 10,001 Gross Square
Feet or Greater
New Fee $2,496.00
Fence Exception Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,060.00 $1,097.00
Minor Modification Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,350.00 $1,397.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
Page 69
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Hillside Area Construction Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $2,220.00 $2,298.00
Accessory Dwelling Unit Resolution No. 27-2011 $686.00 $710.00
Reasonable Accommodation Resolution No. 27-2011 $433.00 $448.00
General Plan Amendment/Re-
zoning
Resolution No. 27-2011 $7,220.00 $7,473.00
Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty
Permit,
Building Official Inspection Deposit
Resolution No. 27-2011 $500.00 $517.00
Special Use Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $4,120.00 $4,264.00
Variance Resolution No 27-2011 $4,307.00 $4,458.00
Wireless Communications
Administrative Use Permit
Municipal Code Chapter
25.77
$1,914.00 $1,981.00
Plan Recheck Fee
More than two revisions to plans
Major redesign of project plans
Resolution No. 32- 2009
Resolution No. 32- 2009
$699.00
$841.00
$723.00
$870.00
ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental, Categorical
Exemption
Resolution No. 27-2011 $117.00 $121.00
Environmental, Negative
Declaration (R-1 and R-2)
Resolution No. 27-2011 $6,069.00 $6,281.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
Page 70
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Environmental, Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration and/or with a
Responsible Agency
Resolution No. 27-2011 Pass-through of
actual
contractor cost
Pass-through of
actual contractor
cost, plus 10% of
contract
handling fee,
deposit to be
determined by
Director of
Community
Development
Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. 31-2003 20% of contract,
deposit to be
determined by
Director of
Community
Development
Pass-through of
actual contractor
cost, plus 20% of
contract
handling fee,
deposit to be
determined by
Director of
Community
Development
Environmental Posting Fee,
Mitigated Negative Declaration and
EIR
Resolution No. 27-2011 $830.00 $859.00
Fish & Game Fee for Negative
Declaration, whether mitigated or
not (pass-through fee)
Fish & Game Code §
711.4
$2,280.75 $2,361.00
Fish & Game Fee for Environmental
Impact Report (pass-through fee)
Fish & Game Code §
711.4
$3,168.00 $3,279.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
Page 71
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
County Clerk Processing Fee for Fish
& Game (pass-through fee)
Fish & Game Code §
711.4
$50.00 $52.00
PARKS
Arborist Review (when required) Resolution No. 33-2008 $238.00 $246.00
NOTICING
Noticing, R-1 and R-2 Resolution No. 27-2011 $640.00 $662.00
Noticing, All Other Districts Resolution No. 27-2011 $640.00 $662.00
Noticing, R-1 Design Review,
Residential
Resolution No. 27-2011 $890.00 $921.00
Noticing, R-1 Design Study,
Residential
Resolution No. 27-2011 $890.00 $921.00
Noticing, Design Review, all other
districts
Resolution No. 27-2011 $890.00 $921.00
Noticing, Minor Modifications,
Hillside Area Construction Permits
Resolution No. 27-2011 $744.00 $770.00
Noticing, General Plan Amendment
– Re-zoning
Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,331.00 $1,378.00
Noticing, Environmental Impact
Report
Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,331.00 $1,378.00
Noticing, City Council Appeal Resolution No. 33-2008 $100.00 $103.00
Noticing, Accessory Dwelling Unit
Amnesty Permit
Resolution No. 61-2004 $64.00 $66.00
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
Page 72
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Noticing – Wireless
Communications
Municipal Code Chapter
25.77.120
$586.00 $607.00
Noticing – Replacement of Posted
Sign
$333.00 $345.00
Noticing – Design Review Yard Sign $546.00 $565.00
SIGNS
50 square feet or less Resolution No 27-2011 $250.00 $259.00
Over 50 SF and less than 200 square
feet Resolution No. 27-2011 $356.00 $368.00
Over 200 square feet Resolution No. 27-2011 $410.00 $424.00
Sign Variance Resolution No. 27-2011 $3,029.00 $3,135.00
Removal of Illegal Sign Resolution No. 33-2008 $121.00 $125.00
PUBLICATIONS
Zoning Map Resolution No. 32-2009 $5.00 No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
Page 73
The Bayfront Development Fee is charged to all new construction/development within the Bayfront Specific
Plan Area on the east side of US 101. One-half of the fee is payable before issuance of a building permit and
the balance is payable when certificate of occupancy is requested. Ordinance No. 1739 (2004), as amended,
provides for annual adjustment based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News
Record (ENR) as of July 1 of each year. Adjustments to these fees will be included in the City of Burlingame
Master Fee Schedule based on any change in the construction cost index as of July 1, 2019.
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Bayfront Development Fee
Office
Restaurant
Hotel
Hotel, Extended Stay
Office, Warehouse,
Manufacturing
Retail – Commercial
Car Rental
Commercial Recreation
All Other
Ord. No. 1739 (2004)
$2,712.00/TSF
$10,923.00/TSF
$889.00/room
$864.00/room
$4,112.00/TSF
$9,985.00/TSF
$63,369.00/acre
$19,666.00/acre
$2,185.00 per
p.m. peak hour
trip as detailed
by traffic study
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
Page 74
North Burlingame & Rollins Road Development Fees are charged to all new construction and development
within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area. One-half of the fee is payable before issuance of
a building permit and the balance is payable when certificate of occupancy is requested. Ordinance No. 1751
(2005) provides for annual adjustment beginning in 2006, based on the construction cost index published in
the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1 of each year. Adjustments to these fees will be included in the
City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule based on any change in the construction cost index as of July 1, 2019.
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
North Burlingame & Rollins Road
Development Fee
Rollins Road Area of Benefit
El Camino North Area of Benefit
Multiple family dwelling or duplex
Any use other than multiple family
dwelling or duplex
Ord. No. 1751 (2005)
Ord. No. 1751 (2005)
Ord. No. 1751 (2005)
$0.62 per square
foot of building
$0.62 per square
foot of building
$0.78 per square
foot of building
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
Page 75
The Public Facilities Impact Fee is a general category of fees based on the uses, number of dwelling units
and/or amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of a development
project. The fees are committed to public improvement, public services, and community amenities
affected by new development (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.80).
The purpose of the fee is established upon approval of a permit for construction or reconstruction, and is
intended for improvements in one or more of the following categories:
• General Facilities & Equipment • Streets & Traffic
• Libraries • Fire
• Police • Storm Drainage
• Parks & Recreation
The establishing ordinance provides no annual escalator for the Public Facilities Impact Fee.
Single Family Multifamily Commercial Office Industrial
Fee per Dwelling
Unit
Fee per Dwelling
Unit
Fee per 1,000 sq.ft.
of Building
Fee per 1,000 sq.ft.
of Building
Fee per 1,000 sq.ft.
of Building
General $ 2,756 $ 1,636 $ 640 $ 930 $ 305
Library $ 2,383 $ 1,415 $ 478 $ 695 $ 228
Police $ 437 $ 259 $ 102 $ 147 $ 48
Parks $ 590 $ 350 $ 118 $ 172 $ 56
Traffic/Streets $ 1,573 $ 1,105 $ 1,810 $ 7,285 $ 1,146
Fire $ 642 $ 381 $ 248 $ 360 $ 118
Storm Drainage $ 781 $ 391 $ 442 $ 717 $ 628
Total Impact Fee: $ 9,162 $ 5,537 $3,838 $10,306 $2,529
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
Page 76
Commercial Development Impact Fees were adopted by the City Council in 2017-2018 to provide a
dedicated source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame.
• Retail - $7.00 per square foot ($5.00 w/ prevailing wages)
• Hotel - $12.00 per square foot ($10.00 w/ prevailing wages)
• Office projects of 50,000 square feet or less - $18.00 per square foot ($15.00 w/
prevailing wages)
• Office projects greater than 50,000 square feet - $25.00 per square foot ($20.00 w/
prevailing wages)
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
Page 77
Residential Development Impact Fees are scheduled to be adopted by the City Council on April 1, to be
effective June 1, 2019. The fees are to be used to increase, improve, and/or protect the supply of housing
affordable to moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households. An “in-lieu” option is
available where the developer chooses to provide an affordable unit or units on site.
Impact Fee – Per Square Foot
Base With Prevailing / Area Wage
Rental Multifamily – 11 units and above
Up to 50 du/ac $17.00 / sq ft $14.00 / sq ft
51-70 du/ac $20.00 / sq ft $17.00 / sq ft
71 du/ac and above $30.00 / sq ft $25.00 / sq ft
For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) – 7 units and above
$35.00 / sq ft $30.00 / sq ft
Notes:
1. Rental Multifamily with total of 10 units or fewer are exempt.
2. For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) with total of 6 units or fewer are exempt.
3. Rental projects that convert to condominiums within 10 years of completion of construction would be subject
to the fee differential as a condition of conversion. The fee differential shall be based on the fee structure in
place at the time of conversion to condominiums, minus the fees originally submitted at the time of
construction.
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
Page 78
Burlingame Avenue Parking In Lieu Fees are applicable only to commercial properties within
Downtown Burlingame and are collected in those instances where a land-use requires additional
parking, but the site cannot physically accommodate additional spaces. The fee is based upon a per-
space, or portion thereof that is not being provided on the property. The funds are to remain in the
City’s Parking fund to help defray the cost of building a City-owned and operated parking structure.
The fees are updated annually based on the February Consumer Price Index – Urban Wage Earners
and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the San Francisco Area.
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Burlingame Avenue Parking in Lieu
Fees
Resolution 48-2000
$54,468.92
$56,258.68
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
Page 79
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Vehicle Release Resolution No.32-2009 $150.00 $155.00
Police Reports
Report Copies
Resolution No.32-2009
Gov’t Code § 6253(b)
$0.25 per page No Change
Fingerprint Rolling Fee Live scan Fee Set by
State of California
Department of Justice
$35.00 plus
appropriate State
Dept. of Justice
and/or Federal
processing fee
No Change
CD’s/DVD’s Containing Digital
Files
Resolution No.32-2009 $93.25 per
CD/DVD
$96.50 per
CD/DVD
Clearance Letter Resolution No. 32-2009 $27.00 $28.00
Repossessed Vehicle Gov’t Code § 41612 $15.00 No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
Page 80
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Preferential Parking Permits
(Residential Permit Parking
Program)
Issuance (up to 2 permits for
same address)
Annual renewal (up to 2
permits for same address)
Charge for replacement of lost
permit
Resolution No. 22-2008
(Section 13.36.070)
Resolution No. 22-2008
(Section 13.36.070)
Resolution No. 22-2008
(Section 13.36.070)
$55.00
$55.00
$55.00
$57.00
$57.00
$57.00
Burlingame Avenue
Downtown Area Parking
Permits
Section 13.32.020 $60.00/month $60.00/month
Driving Under Influence (DUI)
Fees
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 33-2007
Resolution No. 33-2007
Resolution No. 33-2007
$223.00 per hour
$130.00 per
blood test
$48.00 per
breath or urine
test
$130.00 per
refused blood
test
$231.00 per hour
$136.00 per
blood test
$50.00 per breath
or urine test
$136.00 per
refused blood
test
Security Service (Outside
Detail) (minimum charge of
four hours)
Resolution No. 33-2008 $140.00 per hour $145.00 per hour
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
Page 81
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Alarm Permit Application Fee
Alarm Permits (Annual
Renewal)
Resolution No. 116-2003
(Section 10.10.110)
Resolution No. 116-2003
(Section 10.10.110)
$18.00
$32.00 per year
No Change
No Change
False Alarm Charge
1 to 2 false alarms
3 to 5 false alarms
6 or more false alarms
Any false alarm for which no
alarm permit has been
issued
Resolution No. 116-2003
(Section 10.10.090)
Resolution No. 116-2003
(Section 10.10.090)
Resolution No. 28-2006
No Charge
$50.00 each
$100.00 each
$50.00 (includes
cost of alarm
permit plus
$18.00 initial
application fee)
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Live Entertainment Permit Resolution No. 32-2009
(Sections 6.16.090
6.16.030)
$580.00 $600.00
Single Event Entertainment
Permit
(Section 6.16.090) New Fee $103.00
Peddlers and Solicitors Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.24.030)
$617.00 for
investigation plus
fingerprinting
fees
$639.00 for
investigation plus
fingerprinting
fees
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
Page 82
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Curb Painting Resolution No. 33-2007 $57.00 for
investigation
$59.00 for
investigation
Tanning Salon
Application
Sale or Transfer
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.42.060)
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.42.120)
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.42.160)
$944.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$864.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$648.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$977.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$894.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$671.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
Massage Operator
Application
Sale or Transfer
Renewal
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 6.40.060)
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 6.40.120)
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 6.40.160)
$1,221.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$1,221.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$765.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$1,264.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$1,264.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$792.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
Page 83
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Model/Escort Service
Application
Sale or Transfer
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.41.040)
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.41.100)
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.41.130)
$1,036.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$945.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$648.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$1,072.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$978.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$671.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
Private Patrol Company
Application
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.44.050)
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.44.080)
$347.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$174.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$359.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$180.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
Taxi Operator
Application
Renewal
Section 6.36.050
Section 6.36.190
Business license
fee plus
fingerprinting
fees
Business license
fee plus
fingerprinting
fees
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
Page 84
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Taxi Driver
Application
Renewal
Section 6.36.050
Section 6.36.190
$70.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$64.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$72.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$66.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
Taxicab Annual Inspection Section 6.36.120 $80.00 per
vehicle
$83.00 per
vehicle
Valet Parking Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.30.040)
$670.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$693.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
Concealed Weapon Resolution No. 32-2009 $1,130.00 for
investigation
$1,170.00 for
investigation
Fortune Teller Resolution No. 41-2008
(Set by Section 6.38.060)
$670.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
$693.00 plus
fingerprinting
fees
Unruly Gathering Section 10.70.070 Cost of Hours of
Officer Response
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
Page 85
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Special Events & Street
Closing:
Application and Permit
Sidewalk Closure
Road Closure
Resolution No. 32-2009
$100.00
$100.00 per
parcel/per day
$200.00 per
parcel/per day
$103.00
$103.00 per
parcel/per day
$207.00 per
parcel/per day
Verification of non-resident
“proof-of-correction” citations
Resolution No. 90-2009 No Charge No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
Page 86
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
SEWER CONNECTION FEES
Single-family and Duplex Section 15.08.020 $264.00/unit
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/18
$266.00/unit
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/19
Multi-family Section 15.08.020 $201.00/unit
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/18
$204.00/unit
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/19
Commercial/Retail Section 15.08.020 $420.00/thousand
square feet (TSF)
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/18
$425.00/thousand
square feet (TSF)
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/19
Office Section 15.08.020 $91.00/TSF
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/18
$92.00/TSF
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/19
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
Page 87
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Warehouse Section 15.08.020 $118.00/TSF
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/18
$119.00/TSF
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/19
Restaurant Section 15.08.020 $1,040.00/TSF
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/18
$1,050.00/TSF
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/19
Hotel with Restaurant Section 15.08.020 $663.00/room
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/18
$670.00/room
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/19
Hotel without Restaurant Section 15.08.020 $410.00/room
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/18
$414.00/room
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record Construction
Cost Index as of
1/1/19
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
Page 88
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE FEES
The fee covers two (2) samples; additional samples charged according to
the Analytical Processing Fee Schedule below.
Light Discharger, Annual Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
$606.00 No Change
Moderate Discharger,
Annual
Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
$1,660.00 No Change
Heavy Discharger,
Annual
Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
$2,318.00 No Change
Non-Conventional
Discharger, Annual
Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
$1,239.00 No Change
Groundwater Discharger Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
Non-conventional
Fee plus $6.98 per
1000 gallons
discharged
No Change
Application Processing
Fee
Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
$160.00 No Change
ANALYTICAL FEES
In-house Testing Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
Cost No Change
Contract Lab Testing Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
Cost plus 15% No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
Page 89
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
BIMONTHLY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
Single-family or duplex Ord. No. 1844-2010
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 1/1/2012)
$12.25 per thousand
gallons. Minimum
charge $24.50
No Change
Multi-family residential Ord. No. 1844-2010
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 1/1/2012
)
$11.45 per thousand
gallons
No Change
Restaurant, other
commercial food-related
uses
Ord. No. 1844-2010
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 1/1/2012)
$32.59 per thousand
gallons
No Change
Heavy strength
commercial
Ord. No. 1844-2010
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 1/1/2012)
$21.97 per thousand
gallons
No Change
Light strength
commercial
Ord. No. 1844-2010
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 1/1/2012)
$13.53 per thousand
gallons
No Change
Institutional Ord. No. 1844-2010
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 1/1/2012)
$4.80 per thousand
gallons
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
Page 90
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
NEW CUSTOMERS IN SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEX
CLASSIFICATION
Number of Residents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 or more
Section 15.08.072
(Effective 1/1/2012)
$47.63
$59.26
$72.52
$85.78
$97.94
$101.44
$110.30
$128.46
$150.60
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
WATER
Page 91
Water fees are set via a three year rate-setting cycle with an effective date of January 1. The following rates
are effective January 1, 2019.
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
BI-MONTHLY CHARGE FOR METERS
5/8" and 3/4" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $84.03 No Change
1" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $140.05 No Change
1 - ½" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $280.10 No Change
2" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $448.16 No Change
3" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $840.30 No Change
4" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $1,400.50 No Change
6" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $2,801.00 No Change
8" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $4,481.60 No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
WATER
Page 92
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
WATER CONSUMPTION
Single Family Residential Tiers Ord. No. 1880 (2017)
Rates per thousand
gallons
Tier 1 (0-4,000 gal):
$9.79
Tier 2 (4,001-8,000
gal): $10.98
Tier 3 (8,001-
16,000 gal): $12.18
Tier 4 (16,001-
24,000 gal): $13.38
Tier 5 (24,001 gal &
above): $14.58
No Change
Commercial/Multi-
Family/Duplex/Other
Ord. No. 1880 (2017) Effective Jan 1,
2019: $11.46 per
thousand gallons
No Change
Water Service Turn-On
8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday
thru Friday
3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.,
Monday thru Friday
3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.,
Monday thru Friday
Saturday/Sunday/Holiday
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
No Charge
$20.00
$60.00
$60.00
No Change
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
WATER
Page 93
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Penalty Fee (Past Due)
Not paid within 30 days of
billing
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
1.5% penalty
No Change
Service Renewal
8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday
thru Friday
3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.,
Monday thru Friday
3:31 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.,
Monday thru Friday
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
$35.00
$45.00
$60.00
No Change
Maintenance of Water in Fire
Protection System
Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $1.00 per month
per inch of pipe
diameter, with
$2.00 minimum
charge
No Change
Flow Test
5/8" through 1"
1 - ½" and 2"
Over 2"
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
$50.00
$80.00
$100.00 minimum
(if over $100.00,
cost of testing plus
15%)
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
WATER
Page 94
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Temporary Water Service
Meter charges (does not
include water consumption)
Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $750.00 deposit
$43.00 per month
for 1-inch meter
$85.00 per month
for three-inch
meters
No Change
Water Service Turn-on Deposit
if Delinquent on City Water
Account in Previous 12 months
Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $50.00 or 2 months
estimated
consumption,
whichever is
greater
No Change
Work on City Water System Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $60.00 permit
$1,500.00 bond or
deposit
No Change
Fire Flow Test Section 15.04.030 $242.00 per
hydrant
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
WATER
Page 95
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Water Line Installation
5/8" bypass meter
3/4" service with meter
1" service with meter
1 - ½ “ service with meter
2" service with meter
If larger than 2" or a length of
more than 60 feet
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
Ord. No. 1805 (2006)
$350.00
$4,100.00
$4,135.00
$5,280.00
$5,420.00
Cost plus 15%
No Change
Meter Upgrade
To 3/4" meter or 1" meter
(meter only)
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
$254.00
No Change
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL
Page 96
The City’s agreement with San Mateo County requires that animal control fees reflect the fees adopted by the
County Board of Supervisors (S.M.C Ordinance No. 04628, approved July 24, 2012). These fees are subject to
changes based on any future action by the County of San Mateo, and are available on-line at
https://library.municode.com/ca/san_mateo_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT6AN#!
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NO:
9b
MEETING DATE:
May 6, 2019
To:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222
Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of Broadway Area Business Improvement
Assessments for Fiscal Year 2019-20
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Hold a public hearing to consider any protests to the Broadway Area BID assessments;
2. End the public hearing and ask the City Clerk to report out any protests filed with the City;
and,
3. If protests do not represent the majority of the assessments, then adopt the resolution setting
the 2019-20 fiscal year assessments.
BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted a resolution of intention to set the 2019-20 fiscal year Broadway Area
BID assessments on April 1, 2019 and established May 6, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. as the public hearing
date and time. Notice of the public hearing was sent to owners of all businesses within the district
during the week of April 8th.
DISCUSSION
Subsequent to the presentation of the Broadway Area BID Annual Report to the Council on April
1st, the BID Board provided the City with further detail into the year’s expenditures. The Broadway
Business Improvement District Expenditures information is attached to this staff report.
No changes in the boundaries, assessments, or business classifications of the business district
are proposed. If there is a protest by businesses that represent a majority of the value of the
assessments, then the resolution cannot be approved. As of the time of writing this staff report,
the City had not received any protests, although protests may be presented in writing before or at
the hearing. Any and all protests must be received by the City Clerk at or before the time
fixed for the public hearing.
Broadway Area Business Improvement District Assessments May 6, 2019
2
FISCAL IMPACT
Up to $28,400 in assessments is collected annually with City business licenses. All of these funds
are forwarded to the Broadway Area Business Improvement District for improvements as
authorized by the BID Board of Directors. The City of Burlingame covers the expenses associated
with the renewal of the BID.
Exhibits:
• Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Establishing 2019-20 Fiscal Year
Assessments for the Broadway Area Business Improvement District and Determining that
No Majority Protest Has Been Made
• Broadway Area BID Assessment Roll (showing weight of protest votes)
1
RESOLUTION NO. ________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ESTABLISHING AND LEVYING 2019-20 ASSESSMENTS FOR
THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq.,
the City Council of the City of Burlingame established the Broadway Area Business
Improvement District (“BABID”) for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and
physical maintenance of said business district, and
WHEREAS, the BABID Advisory Board has filed its annual report with the City Clerk and
has requested the Burlingame City Council to set and levy the BABID assessments for the
2019-20 fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2019, the Burlingame City Council approved the BABID’s annual
report and adopted a Resolution of Intention to levy BABID assessments for the 2019-20 fiscal
year; and
WHEREAS, the Burlingame City Council set a public hearing to consider its levy of
assessments on the businesses in the BABID for May 6, 2019, at 7:00 p.m, at the Council
Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, and said public hearing was
duly noticed as required by State law; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on May 6, 2019 the Burlingame City Council
received and considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons and any and
all written protests presented by businesses within the BABID; and
WHEREAS, the current level of assessments on businesses in the BABID will continue
to be levied for the fiscal year 2019-20 so that improvements and programs may continue in the
BABID; and
WHEREAS, the BABID’s proposed activities and improvements, the proposed
assessments and the boundaries of the District for the 2019-20 fiscal year are without change
from those currently in place for the BABID;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
1. All of the facts and assertions recited above, in the staff report and supporting
documentation are true and correct.
2. Written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received at or
before the close of the public hearing on May 6, 2019, that constituted a majority as defined in
Government Code sections 36500 and following.
2
3. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the 2019-20 fiscal year on
businesses in the BABID as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1461, to pay for
improvements and activities of the BABID.
4. The types of improvements and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments on
businesses in the BABID are set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
5. The method and basis for levying the assessments on all businesses within the
BABID are set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
______________________________
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 on the 6th day of
May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
______________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
3
EXHIBIT A
Improvements and Activities to be Funded by the Levy of Assessments on Businesses in
the Broadway Area Business Improvement District
• BID funding/contribution to Burlingame Trolley.
• Burlingame Pet Parade - September.
• Halloween Trick-or-Treat Event - October.
• Broadway Cheer Holiday Toy Drive with Central County Fire Department - December.
• Install and maintain string lights on mature trees throughout the year.
• Revamp and maintain Broadway website and promote events.
• Revamp and maintain Pet Parade website and promote event.
• Grow and maintain social media presence of the Broadway merchants (Facebook,
Google).
• Promote new & existing businesses on Facebook.
• Advertise Broadway Business District on Google.
• New Neighbor postcard marketing.
• Plan Hotel Concierge Tour.
• Merchant communication efforts such as door-to-door, email, calling in regards to
downtown updates, parking updates, upcoming events, construction, planned power
outages, road closures etc. (New merchants welcomed by BID President.)
• Assist new merchants during planning and building phase/process having difficulties with
local, county and state agencies.
• Maintenance of 32 well lights at street corner bulb-outs illuminating corner trees.
• Work with Boys Scouts to set up and remove American flags to celebrate patriotic
holidays.
• Educate businesses in regards to encroachment permits and illegal “A-Frames”.
• Update Broadway Business Directory brochure for Burlingame Trolley.
• Work with BCE to promote Broadway businesses by donating gift certificates for the
Gala Online Auction.
• Shop Small Business Saturday - November.
• “Bike to Shop Day” event by County of San Mateo.
• Communicate with City and City departments in resolving any and all issues to beautify,
clean, maintain and make Broadway a safe environment to shop.
• Encourage business owners to renew their outdated/dilapidated awnings with up to $500
subsidy from BID.
• Implement and maintain new & existing businesses on Google Map.
• Design and custom-make 10 bike racks with the Broadway Arch logo.
• Hotel Book full-page advertising with Explorer Publishing.
4
EXHIBIT B
BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
ASSESSMENT BASIS*
BUSINESS TYPE
NO. OF STAFF ** ANNUAL ASSESSMENT
RETAIL &
RESTAURANT
4+ $450
1 - 3 $300
SERVICE 3+ $250
1 - 2 $150
PROFESSIONAL
3+ $200
1 - 2 $150
FINANCIAL NA $500
* ----- Amount shown is annual total
** --- Staff means any persons working (full time or full time
equivalency) including owners, partners, managers,
employees, family members, etc.
Business Definitions (Burlingame Municipal Code § 6.52.010):
Retail ❏ Businesses that buy and resell goods. Examples are clothing stores,
shoe stores, office supplies, etc.
Restaurant
❏ Selling prepared food and drink.
Service ❏ Businesses that sell services. Examples are beauty and barber shops,
repair shops that do not sell goods, contractors, auto shops, etc.
Professional ❏ Includes engineering firms, architects, attorneys, dentists, optometrists,
physicians, realtors, insurance offices, etc.
Financial ❏ Banks, savings and loans, household finance companies, etc.
Page 1 of 3
BROADWAY AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL - FISCAL YEAR 2019-20
LICENSE FEE #EMP NAME CONTACT ADDRESS Weight
32134 450.00$ 10 CAPPO MGMT IX, INC DBA OCEAN HONDA OF BURLINGAME JEFFREY E CAPPO 1070 BROADWAY 1.58%
29996 450.00$ 4 YANGON FRANK CHUNG WEI WANG 1136 BROADWAY 1.58%
18813 450.00$ 22 WALGREENS #06655-LICENSING WALGREEN CO 1160 BROADWAY 1.58%
30198 450.00$ 8 ROYAL DONUT CAFE, INC.VAUNG CHHUO 1165 BROADWAY 1.58%
14722 450.00$ 10 PRESTON'S CANDY & ICE CREAM IRENE PRESTON 1170 BROADWAY 1.58%
17378 450.00$ 5 WEIMAX CORPORATION WEIMAX CORPORATION 1178 BROADWAY 1.58%
31797 450.00$ 4 BROADWAY IZAKAYA INC FREDA KONG 1190 BROADWAY 1.58%
32126 450.00$ 5 YAPRAK DONER SIHEM SAADALI & SALIH GULER 1199 BROADWAY #1 1.58%
33066 450.00$ 4 LARA MEDITERRANEAN CUISINE RAZIYE MITCHELL 1199 BROADWAY #1 1.58%
32070 450.00$ 4 DUO ENTOURAGE LLC LUN-YUN CHENG 1199 BROADWAY #2 1.58%
29855 450.00$ 5 YOUNG CAN WOK CHINESE BISTRO YONG WANG & LEANNA WANG 1200 BROADWAY 1.58%
30410 450.00$ 18 VILLAGE HOST 1201 BROADWAY 1.58%
07979 450.00$ 40 YAKINIKU HOUSE JUBAN VLADIMIR R. GRAVE 1204 BROADWAY 1.58%
21407 450.00$ 12 RISTORANTE ROCCA ROCCA KURT'S BROTHERS, INC.1205 BROADWAY 1.58%
07373 450.00$ 6 IL PICCOLO CAFFE D ARMANINO 1219 BROADWAY 1.58%
30407 450.00$ 19 COFFEE HOUSE HOLDINGS INC CLARICE TURNER 1230 BROADWAY 1.58%
22678 450.00$ 6 MIVAN RESTAURANT FIKRET DEMIRKOL 1232 BROADWAY 1.58%
25714 450.00$ 6 BURLINGAME FARMERS MARKET TOM & ASHRAF GHISHAN 1236 BROADWAY 1.58%
22102 450.00$ 12 BIG JOE'S CAFE BIG JOE'S FOOD, INC.1251 BROADWAY 1.58%
23782 450.00$ 6 SUBWAY SANDWICH FAMILY FOOD, INC.1308 BROADWAY 1.58%
17948 450.00$ 18 BROADWAY PRIME TIANMAR INC 1316 BROADWAY 1.58%
05991 450.00$ 9 CAFE FIGARO CIHAN AKKAYA 1318 BROADWAY 1.58%
33000 450.00$ 7 BROADWAY CENTRO PIZZA ELIO D'URZO 1326 BROADWAY 1.58%
20029 450.00$ 7 REBARTS INTERIORS/HUNTER-DOUGLAS GALL BART T SAN DIEGO III 1352 BROADWAY 1.58%
21656 450.00$ 4 BROADWAY GRILL BRODWAY GRILL INC 1400 BROADWAY 1.58%
30656 450.00$ 4 DANELI SHOE COMPANY DBA FOOTWEAR ETC.ELIE MONARCH 1405 BROADWAY 1.58%
32699 450.00$ 4 BONNE SANTE BROADWAY LYONS ANGELOS PARTNERSHIP 1431 BROADWAY 1.58%
23883 300.00$ 2 ANGEL DANAE LLC DBA VISITING ANGELS KAREN LAWSON 1126 BROADWAY #7 1.06%
25676 300.00$ 3 HANANI & BSHARA INC HANAMI & BSHARA INC 1130 BROADWAY 1.06%
32961 300.00$ 3 BAYROOT LEBANESE CUISINE GMG CUISINE INC 1130 BROADWAY 1.06%
30384 300.00$ 1 LE CROISSANT CAFE LEANGHOR BOU 1151 BROADWAY 1.06%
30004 300.00$ 1 SUTTERFIELD CONSIGNMENT GREGORY P. HOLTMANN 1174 BROADWAY 1.06%
32188 300.00$ 2 ISTANBUL MARKET SF EVSEM INC 1199 BROADWAY #3 1.06%
28059 300.00$ 1 BURLINGAME LAGUNA FLORIST & GIFTS RUTH DUL 1202 BROADWAY 1.06%
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
Page 2 of 3
BROADWAY AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL - FISCAL YEAR 2019-20
LICENSE FEE #EMP NAME CONTACT ADDRESS Weight
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
26637 300.00$ 1 I WIRELESS INC I WIRELESS INC.1212 BROADWAY 1.06%
20651 300.00$ 1 BELLA BOTTEGA LYNN ENEA 1233 BROADWAY 1.06%
27642 300.00$ 2 POT-POURRI ANTHONY DIEZ 1235 BROADWAY 1.06%
11683 300.00$ 2 NUTS FOR CANDY NOURIJAN & NORA KEVRANIAN 1241 BROADWAY 1.06%
12486 300.00$ 2 MR. Z'S CAMINO COMPANY, LLC 1301 BROADWAY 1.06%
22412 300.00$ 3 CAMINO COMPANY CO.CAMINO COMPANY, LLC.1301 BROADWAY 1.06%
09905 300.00$ 1 WILLIAM WARMBOE ANTIQUES WILLIAM WARMBOE 1305 BROADWAY 1.06%
30427 300.00$ 3 BEHAN'S "AN IRISH PUB"GERARD MITCHELL 1327 BROADWAY 1.06%
31591 300.00$ 3 SESAME KOREAN CUISINE SOO YOUNG KIM 1355 BROADWAY 1.06%
28956 300.00$ 1 GIGI'S BOUTIQUE REGINA AND WILLIAM FRANCIS 1365 BROADWAY 1.06%
33182 300.00$ 2 ARCH IN BUZZ INC DBA BURLINGAME LIQUORS ARCH IN BUZZ INC.1408 BROADWAY 1.06%
13026 300.00$ 3 DOLAN'S WINDOWS AND DOORS DOLAN'S OF CONCORD INC 1410 BROADWAY 1.06%
27389 300.00$ 1 SHELTER DESIGN BUILD JEFFREY WONG 1433 BROADWAY 1.06%
31389 300.00$ 1 TRIBAL WEAVE STUDIO PARNIAN RAHMATI 1452 BROADWAY 1.06%
42339 300.00$ 1 ALL THAT GLITTERS ISABELLE DE PAZ 1454 BROADWAY 1.06%
29585 250.00$ 3 A&A GAS & MART GHULAM ALI 1100 BROADWAY 0.88%
07232 250.00$ 6 CHEVRON STATIONS INC. #1504 CHEVRON STATIONS INC 1101 BROADWAY 0.88%
32336 250.00$ 5 EPRINTS & DOCUMENT SERVICES S SHARABIANLOU 1120 BROADWAY 0.88%
17408 250.00$ 3 TUNISS COMPUTER OSAMA ABBOUSHI 1124 BROADWAY 0.88%
20765 250.00$ 3 TRENZ SALON L PUDLO-CORIC / D CHIOLO 1211 BROADWAY 0.88%
30272 250.00$ 4 MANI PEDI SPA HUONG T BUI 1224 BROADWAY 0.88%
33037 250.00$ 4 K SPA PAN ZHANG & QIONG ZHENG 1247 BROADWAY 0.88%
30348 250.00$ 5 PPW 1300 BROADWAY, LLC.PPW 1300 BROADWAY, LLC 1300 BROADWAY 0.88%
29478 250.00$ 4 SPA ELYSEE ANTHONY PHAM 1360 BROADWAY 0.88%
28773 250.00$ 3 NABI SALON, INC SU BLACKMUN 1361 BROADWAY 0.88%
28811 250.00$ 4 FOCUS-N-FLY, INC.THOMAS MCGLYNN 1425 BROADWAY #7 0.88%
31934 250.00$ 7 PAWSITIVELY GROOMED LLC CARLOS CHAVES 1427 BROADWAY 0.88%
22681 250.00$ 5 R & M BROADWAY 76 INC ROGER & MAHER ABUYAGHI 1480 BROADWAY 0.88%
22244 150.00$ 1 CHEVRON USA (PA) 91909 CHEVRON U.S.A.1101 BROADWAY 0.53%
06003 150.00$ 1 GATEWAYS TO THE WORLD D. & G. GROEBNER 1122 BROADWAY 0.53%
31649 150.00$ 1 DPPM, INC DBA ZEPHYR REAL ESTATE ZEPHYR REAL ESTATE 1126 BROADWAY #8 0.53%
32923 150.00$ 1 LUSH LYFE STUDIO THUY LAN THI CAO 1134 BROADWAY 0.53%
17348 150.00$ 1 ON BROADWAY ANOUSH HOVANESSIAN 1163 BROADWAY 0.53%
21324 150.00$ 2 BROADWAY REALTY GARBIS / MAIDA BEZDJIAN 1199 BROADWAY #5 0.53%
Page 3 of 3
BROADWAY AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL - FISCAL YEAR 2019-20
LICENSE FEE #EMP NAME CONTACT ADDRESS Weight
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
13277 150.00$ 1 BROADWAY CLEANERS PANDORA LAI 1234 BROADWAY 0.53%
13181 150.00$ 1 BRIAN FORNESI INSURANCE AGENT BRIAN FORNESI 1243 BROADWAY 0.53%
08621 150.00$ 1 CHIC AZITA FATEMI 1249 BROADWAY 0.53%
16449 150.00$ 1 BELLALUNA - AVON PRODUCTS LINDA BULLIS 1310 BROADWAY 0.53%
22587 150.00$ 2 YOUR CLEANERS SO YOUNG PAIK 1321 BROADWAY 0.53%
24114 150.00$ 1 BURLINGAME SHOES AND REPAIR SAL SULEYMAN KILIC 1323 BROADWAY 0.53%
09412 150.00$ 1 ADAMS FINE TAILORING ADEM ARPACI 1324 BROADWAY 0.53%
29603 150.00$ 1 COSMO NAIL & BEAUTY SPA TRAM HUYEN THI TRAN 1359 BROADWAY 0.53%
18408 150.00$ 1 ANNE H HINCKLE ANNE H HINCKLE 1425 BROADWAY #2 0.53%
22626 150.00$ 1 MARK PLANTE CONSULTING MARK PLANTE 1425 BROADWAY #3 0.53%
23462 150.00$ 1 ERIN PENSINGER ERIN PENSINGER 1425 BROADWAY #5 0.53%
08225 150.00$ 1 HJS PROP. & INVEST./ SECURED ASSET MGT HANK SAUER 1425 BROADWAY #12 0.53%
09760 150.00$ 2 JML AUTO REPAIR JOHNNY GARCIA 1480 BROADWAY 0.53%
32794 150.00$ 1 ECONOMY SMOG CHECK LLC JONATHAN JUSTICE 1480 BROADWAY 0.53%
33175 150.00$ 1 GROOMINGDALES ANTHONY MARK OLIVEIRA 1130 CHULA VISTA AVE 0.53%
24018 150.00$ 1 DYLAN SALON DYLAN PHAM 1199 CHULA VISTA AVE 0.53%
17316 200.00$ 3 BROADWAY EYE CENTER DR ANDREW SOSS 1159 BROADWAY 0.70%
14434 200.00$ 3 A.V.R. REALTY, INC.A V R REALTY 1169 BROADWAY 0.70%
13602 150.00$ 2 T C KITA, O.D.T C KITA, O.D.1322 BROADWAY 0.53%
22599 150.00$ 1 JIM RUTHERFORD CONSULTATION JIM RUTHERFORD 1425 BROADWAY #4 0.53%
17010 150.00$ 2 PENINSULA ACUPUNCTURE CENTER INC HUI LIN - HO WAI CHEUNG 1425 BROADWAY #8 0.53%
24282 150.00$ 1 FAMILY INVESTMENTS MAHMOUD OLOUMI 1425 BROADWAY STE 16 0.53%
10050 150.00$ 1 CELEBRITY CONNECTION WILLIAM LASKEY 1425 BROADWAY #19 0.53%
11918 150.00$ 1 TRIO CONSULTING SUZANNE GRILL 1425 BROADWAY #20 0.53%
23961 150.00$ 1 EMILY KOEL, PHD EMILY KOEL 1425 BROADWAY #22 0.53%
28243 150.00$ 1 FARMERS INSURANCE CRAIG DELLINGES 1425 BROADWAY #23 0.53%
08831 500.00$ 16 WELLS FARGO BANK NA 1145 BROADWAY 1.76%
17390 500.00$ 3 STERLING BANK & TRUST FSB SELIGMAN & ASSOCIATES 1210 BROADWAY 1.76%
25833 500.00$ 6 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.1188 EL CAMINO REAL 1.76%
28,400.00$ 100.00%
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9c
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Prohibiting Retaliation for Smoking
Complaints
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the introduction 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. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff.
B. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance.
C. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance.
D. Conduct a public hearing.
E. Following the public hearing, discuss the ordinance and determine whether to bring it back
for second reading and adoption. If the Council is in favor of the ordinance, direct the City
Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed 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.
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: 10a
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209
Subject: 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)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to
execute an amendment to City Attorney Kathleen Kane’s employment agreement to increase her
salary by 3% effective with her anniversary date with the City, and authorizing the City of
Burlingame pay rates and ranges for employees (salary schedule).
BACKGROUND
City Attorney Kathleen Kane began her service with the City of Burlingame on April 1, 2013. On
April 15, 2019, the City Council met with Ms. Kane in closed session to review her performance
after her sixth year in office. Per Paragraph 7, Employment Benefits, of the Employment
Agreement, Ms. Kane receives the same benefits provided to City Department Heads.
DISCUSSION
Following their evaluation of her performance, Ms. Kane left the closed session, and the Council
thereafter discussed her compensation. In recognition of Ms. Kane’s positive performance
evaluation, the City Council discussed at the April 15 closed session a proposal to increase the
City Attorney’s salary by 3%, the same percentage increase that the Department Heads and
Unrepresented Employees received.
In order to increase her salary, Section 5 of the employment agreement must be amended to
increase the monthly salary from $18,812.48 per month to $19,376.88 per month effective with her
anniversary date with the City.
Per Paragraph 7, Employment Benefits, of the Employment Agreement, Ms. Kane is provided the
same benefits as the City Department Heads. The Department Head and Unrepresented
Compensation and Benefit Plan adopted by the Council on December 3, 2018 provides for a 1%
City contribution to a Post-Employment Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) account. Per
Paragraph 7, Ms. Kane receives this same benefit. The language of Paragraph 7 needs to be
City Attorney Employment Agreement Amendment May 6, 2019
2
amended, for clarity, to include Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) as one of the listed
benefits.
The proposed increase requires the City Council to authorize a new salary schedule that, once
approved, will be made available to the public via the City of Burlingame website.
FISCAL IMPACT
The financial impact to the current fiscal year is approximately $2,300. The City Attorney’s Office
budget can absorb this amount using existing funds.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Sixth Amendment to City Attorney's Employment Agreement
• City of Burlingame Salary Schedule
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A COST OF LIVING SALARY INCREASE OF 3%, AND
REVISIONS TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SALARY SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, City Attorney Kathleen Kane began her service with the City on April
1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted performance evaluations for Ms. Kane
upon completion of each year with the City, all of which have been positive; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined, following its evaluation on April 15, 2019,
that a salary increase of 3% was warranted in recognition of Ms. Kane’s successful
performance, effective with her anniversary date with the City; and
WHEREAS, adjustments to the benefits provided to the City Department Heads,
to add a 1% City contribution to a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA), requires
an adjustment to the benefits provided to Ms. Kane; and
WHEREAS, all other terms and conditions of Ms. Kane’s employment are to
remain as provided in her original employment agreement together with its applicable
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Salary Schedule has been revised in
accordance with this action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Burlingame authorizes the Mayor to execute the attached Sixth Amendment to Ms.
Kane’s City Attorney Employment Agreement, to increase Ms. Kane’s gross salary by
3%, effective with her anniversary date with the City, and to add Health Reimbursement
Arrangement (HRA) to Paragraph 7, Employment Benefits, and leaving all other terms
and conditions of employment as provided in the City Attorney Employment Agreement,
and authorizes and adopts the City of Burlingame Salary Schedule.
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
6th day of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME AND KATHLEEN KANE FOR EMPLOYMENT AS CITY ATTORNEY
OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
This amendment is entered into this day of May, 2019, by and between the City of Burlingame,
a Municipal Corporation existing under the laws of the State of California, herein called the "City,"
and Kathleen Kane ("Ms. Kane"), as follows:
RECITALS:
A. Ms. Kane is currently serving as City Attorney for the City of Burlingame pursuant to that
contract denominated "Agreement Between the City of Burlingame and Kathleen Kane for
Employment as City Attorney of the City of Burlingame" ("Employment Agreement"),
entered into on March 4, 2013.
B. Ms. Kane has successfully completed her sixth year with the City. Based on her successful
completion of her sixth year, the City Council determined that her salary should be increased
by 3.0%, from $18,812.48 per month to $19,376.88per month, effective with her anniversary
date with the City.
C. Paragraph 7, Employment Benefits, of the Employment Agreement, states that Ms. Kane shall be
provided with the same benefits as the City Department Heads. The City has agreed to provide a
contribution to a Post-Employment Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) account for the
City Department Heads, effective the first pay period of January 2019. This contribution shall also
be provided to Ms. Kane.
D. Both parties are amenable to this change and desire that all other terms and conditions of the
existing Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect.
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Paragraph 5, Monthly Compensation, of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to
provide that the City shall pay Ms. Kane a salary of $19,376.88 per month.
2. Paragraph 7, Employment Benefits, of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to
include Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA).
3. All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Ms. Kane have executed this Amendment as of the date
indicated above.
CITY OF BURLINGAME KATHLEEN KANE
Donna Colson, Mayor
Attest:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F
A109 ACCOUNTANT I MONTHLY $6,447.29 $6,769.53 $7,098.74 $7,458.08 $7,831.33
BIWEEKLY $2,975.67 $3,124.40 $3,276.34 $3,442.19 $3,614.46
HRLY.RATE $37.20 $39.06 $40.95 $43.03 $45.18
A104 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $4,404.83 $4,629.71 $4,861.55 $5,093.38 $5,336.80
BIWEEKLY $2,033.00 $2,136.79 $2,243.79 $2,350.79 $2,463.14
HRLY.RATE $25.41 $26.71 $28.05 $29.38 $30.79
A160 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $4,861.55 $5,093.38 $5,336.80 $5,584.87 $5,858.43
BIWEEKLY $2,243.79 $2,350.79 $2,463.14 $2,577.63 $2,703.89
HRLY.RATE $28.05 $29.38 $30.79 $32.22 $33.80
A102 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT III MONTHLY $5,584.87 $5,858.43 $6,148.22 $6,456.56 $6,778.81
BIWEEKLY $2,577.63 $2,703.89 $2,837.64 $2,979.95 $3,128.68
HRLY.RATE $32.22 $33.80 $35.47 $37.25 $39.11
A103 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $6,159.81 $6,468.15 $6,790.40 $7,128.88 $7,485.90
BIWEEKLY $2,842.99 $2,985.30 $3,134.03 $3,290.25 $3,455.03
HRLY.RATE $35.54 $37.32 $39.18 $41.13 $43.19
D202 ACTING POLICE CHIEF MONTHLY $16,097.56 $16,899.35
BIWEEKLY $7,429.64 $7,799.70
HRLY.RATE $92.87 $97.50
A105 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $5,325.21 $5,601.09 $5,883.93 $6,171.40 $6,468.15
BIWEEKLY $2,457.79 $2,585.12 $2,715.66 $2,848.34 $2,985.30
HRLY.RATE $30.72 $32.31 $33.95 $35.60 $37.32
A100 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $5,858.43 $6,148.22 $6,451.92 $6,755.62 $7,080.19
BIWEEKLY $2,703.89 $2,837.64 $2,977.81 $3,117.98 $3,267.78
HRLY.RATE $33.80 $35.47 $37.22 $38.97 $40.85
D502 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MONTHLY $11,973.87 $12,572.56 $13,201.19 $13,861.25 $14,554.31
BIWEEKLY $5,526.40 $5,802.72 $6,092.86 $6,397.50 $6,717.37
HRLY.RATE $69.08 $72.53 $76.16 $79.97 $83.97
D106
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/
ADMIN. SVCS. DIRECTOR MONTHLY $12,946.92 $13,579.01 $14,260.30 $14,966.19 $15,723.70
City of Burlingame Salary Schedule
Amended 5/6/19
BIWEEKLY $5,975.50 $6,267.24 $6,581.68 $6,907.47 $7,257.09
HRLY.RATE $74.69 $78.34 $82.27 $86.34 $90.71
A605 ASSISTANT ENGINEER MONTHLY $7,555.45 $7,924.06 $8,299.63 $8,735.48 $9,178.28
BIWEEKLY $3,487.13 $3,657.26 $3,830.60 $4,031.76 $4,236.13
HRLY.RATE $43.59 $45.72 $47.88 $50.40 $52.95
B421
ASSISTANT PARKS
SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,350.95 $7,718.52 $8,104.43 $8,509.65 $8,935.16
BIWEEKLY $3,392.75 $3,562.39 $3,740.51 $3,927.53 $4,123.92
HRLY.RATE $42.41 $44.53 $46.76 $49.09 $51.55
A111 ASSISTANT PLANNER MONTHLY $6,444.97 $6,769.53 $7,101.06 $7,455.76 $7,831.33
BIWEEKLY $2,974.60 $3,124.40 $3,277.41 $3,441.12 $3,614.46
HRLY.RATE $37.18 $39.06 $40.97 $43.01 $45.18
A608 ASSOCIATE ENGINEER MONTHLY $8,308.91 $8,716.93 $9,131.92 $9,614.13 $10,098.66
BIWEEKLY $3,834.88 $4,023.20 $4,214.73 $4,437.29 $4,660.92
HRLY.RATE $47.94 $50.29 $52.68 $55.47 $58.26
A112 ASSOCIATE PLANNER MONTHLY $7,196.11 $7,555.45 $7,935.66 $8,336.73 $8,754.03
BIWEEKLY $3,321.28 $3,487.13 $3,662.61 $3,847.72 $4,040.32
HRLY.RATE $41.52 $43.59 $45.78 $48.10 $50.50
B600
ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS MONTHLY $12,671.59 $13,309.99 $13,950.92 $14,665.31 $15,399.97
BIWEEKLY $5,848.43 $6,143.07 $6,438.89 $6,768.61 $7,107.68
HRLY.RATE $73.11 $76.79 $80.49 $84.61 $88.85
S607 AUTOMOTIVE MECHANIC MONTHLY $5,933.66 $6,222.94 $6,534.65 $6,862.05 $7,214.12
BIWEEKLY $2,738.61 $2,872.13 $3,015.99 $3,167.10 $3,329.60
HRLY.RATE $34.23 $35.90 $37.70 $39.59 $41.62
A705 BUILDING ATTENDANT MONTHLY $3,551.69 $3,725.56 $3,917.98 $4,115.04 $4,312.10
BIWEEKLY $1,639.24 $1,719.49 $1,808.30 $1,899.25 $1,990.20
HRLY.RATE $20.49 $21.49 $22.60 $23.74 $24.88
A706 BUILDING ATTENDANT - CS MONTHLY $4,673.76
BIWEEKLY $2,157.12
HRLY.RATE $26.96
A603 BUILDING INSPECTOR MONTHLY $7,145.10 $7,485.90 $7,875.38 $8,248.63 $8,645.07
BIWEEKLY $3,297.74 $3,455.03 $3,634.79 $3,807.06 $3,990.03
HRLY.RATE $41.22 $43.19 $45.43 $47.59 $49.88
A101
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
WORKER MONTHLY $5,422.58 $5,710.06 $5,941.89 $6,254.86 $6,560.88
BIWEEKLY $2,502.73 $2,635.41 $2,742.41 $2,886.86 $3,028.10
HRLY.RATE $31.28 $32.94 $34.28 $36.09 $37.85
S603 CCTV LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
B604 CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL MONTHLY $10,860.28 $11,399.87 $11,962.28 $12,550.00 $13,173.19
BIWEEKLY $5,012.44 $5,261.48 $5,521.05 $5,792.31 $6,079.93
HRLY.RATE $62.66 $65.77 $69.01 $72.40 $76.00
D102 CITY ATTORNEY MONTHLY $19,376.88
BIWEEKLY $8,943.17
HRLY.RATE $111.79
D109 CITY CLERK MONTHLY $8,886.84 $9,274.42 $9,730.44 $10,199.09 $10,700.68
BIWEEKLY $4,101.62 $4,280.50 $4,490.97 $4,707.27 $4,938.78
HRLY.RATE $51.27 $53.51 $56.14 $58.84 $61.73
B602 CITY ENGINEER MONTHLY $11,522.67 $12,107.19 $12,691.67 $13,343.98 $14,009.36
BIWEEKLY $5,318.16 $5,587.94 $5,857.69 $6,158.76 $6,465.86
HRLY.RATE $66.48 $69.85 $73.22 $76.98 $80.82
D801 CITY LIBRARIAN MONTHLY $13,388.54 $14,097.85 $14,809.70 $15,551.98 $16,309.41
BIWEEKLY $6,179.32 $6,506.70 $6,835.25 $7,177.84 $7,527.42
HRLY.RATE $77.24 $81.33 $85.44 $89.72 $94.09
D200 CITY MANAGER MONTHLY $20,721.55
BIWEEKLY $9,563.79
HRLY.RATE $119.55
B103 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER MONTHLY $7,232.97 $7,593.10 $7,974.02 $8,370.64 $8,790.75
BIWEEKLY $3,338.29 $3,504.51 $3,680.32 $3,863.37 $4,057.27
HRLY.RATE $41.73 $43.81 $46.00 $48.29 $50.72
D110
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER
AND SENIOR RISK ANALYST MONTHLY $7,770.17 $8,125.97 $8,534.30 $8,956.95 $9,405.87
0.9 FTE (36 hours/week )BIWEEKLY $3,586.23 $3,750.45 $3,938.91 $4,133.98 $4,341.17
HRLY.RATE $44.83 $46.88 $49.24 $51.67 $54.26
T900
COMMUNICATION
DISPATCHER I MONTHLY $6,054.40 $6,327.07 $6,628.83 $6,938.59 $7,280.09
BIWEEKLY $2,794.33 $2,920.18 $3,059.46 $3,202.42 $3,360.04
HRLY.RATE $34.93 $36.50 $38.25 $40.03 $42.00
T901
COMMUNICATION
DISPATCHER II MONTHLY $6,353.52 $6,631.50 $6,959.76 $7,280.09 $7,653.35
BIWEEKLY $2,932.40 $3,060.69 $3,212.19 $3,360.04 $3,532.31
HRLY.RATE $36.66 $38.26 $40.15 $42.00 $44.15
D108
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,500.00 $14,171.30 $14,883.17 $15,627.95 $16,405.69
BIWEEKLY $6,230.77 $6,540.60 $6,869.15 $7,212.90 $7,571.86
HRLY.RATE $77.88 $81.76 $85.86 $90.16 $94.65
D100 COUNCIL MEMBER MONTHLY $590.04
BIWEEKLY $272.33
HRLY.RATE $3.40
A106 CUSTODIAN MONTHLY $4,446.56 $4,650.58 $4,880.09 $5,137.43 $5,401.72
BIWEEKLY $2,052.26 $2,146.42 $2,252.35 $2,371.12 $2,493.10
HRLY.RATE $25.65 $26.83 $28.15 $29.64 $31.16
B603
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS OPERATIONS MONTHLY $11,600.13 $12,182.68 $12,789.18 $13,432.86 $14,097.85
BIWEEKLY $5,353.91 $5,622.78 $5,902.70 $6,199.78 $6,506.70
HRLY.RATE $66.92 $70.28 $73.78 $77.50 $81.33
B107 DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY $10,320.69 $10,837.49 $11,379.61 $11,944.52 $12,544.94
BIWEEKLY $4,763.39 $5,001.92 $5,252.13 $5,512.85 $5,789.97
HRLY.RATE $59.54 $62.52 $65.65 $68.91 $72.37
D501 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY MONTHLY $8,585.20 $9,014.46 $9,465.18 $9,938.44 $10,435.36
BIWEEKLY $3,962.40 $4,160.52 $4,368.55 $4,586.97 $4,816.32
HRLY.RATE $49.53 $52.01 $54.61 $57.34 $60.20
D600 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY $14,275.18 $14,987.03 $15,739.42 $16,524.76 $17,353.17
BIWEEKLY $6,588.55 $6,917.09 $7,264.35 $7,626.81 $8,009.15
HRLY.RATE $82.36 $86.46 $90.80 $95.34 $100.11
A451
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SPECIALIST MONTHLY $7,856.83 $8,253.27 $8,665.93 $9,097.14 $9,553.85
BIWEEKLY $3,626.23 $3,809.20 $3,999.66 $4,198.68 $4,409.47
HRLY.RATE $45.33 $47.62 $50.00 $52.48 $55.12
B605 ELECTRICAL SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $8,161.92 $8,532.42 $8,965.57 $9,406.54 $9,878.84
BIWEEKLY $3,767.04 $3,938.04 $4,137.96 $4,341.48 $4,559.46
HRLY.RATE $47.09 $49.23 $51.72 $54.27 $56.99
A301
EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS/FIRE
EDUCATION SPECIALIST MONTHLY $6,083.31 $6,373.10 $6,693.03 $7,036.14 $7,374.62
BIWEEKLY $2,807.68 $2,941.43 $3,089.09 $3,247.45 $3,403.67
HRLY.RATE $35.10 $36.77 $38.61 $40.59 $42.55
A604 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II MONTHLY $6,060.12 $6,366.14 $6,693.03 $7,022.23 $7,367.66
BIWEEKLY $2,796.98 $2,938.22 $3,089.09 $3,241.03 $3,400.46
HRLY.RATE $34.96 $36.73 $38.61 $40.51 $42.51
A615
ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
COORDINATOR MONTHLY $6,829.81 $7,168.29 $7,532.27 $7,905.52 $8,299.63
BIWEEKLY $3,152.22 $3,308.44 $3,476.43 $3,648.70 $3,830.60
HRLY.RATE $39.40 $41.36 $43.46 $45.61 $47.88
D105 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT MONTHLY $6,500.47 $6,796.84 $7,146.45 $7,503.66 $7,881.10
BIWEEKLY $3,000.22 $3,137.00 $3,298.36 $3,463.23 $3,637.43
HRLY.RATE $37.50 $39.21 $41.23 $43.29 $45.47
B900
FACILITIES DIVISION
MANAGER MONTHLY $8,694.21 $9,129.94 $9,586.59 $10,066.69 $10,567.71
BIWEEKLY $4,012.71 $4,213.82 $4,424.58 $4,646.16 $4,877.40
HRLY.RATE $50.16 $52.67 $55.31 $58.08 $60.97
S704 FACILITIES LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
S703
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
WORKER MONTHLY $5,420.12 $5,704.92 $5,949.35 $6,256.58 $6,559.31
BIWEEKLY $2,501.60 $2,633.04 $2,745.86 $2,887.65 $3,027.38
HRLY.RATE $31.27 $32.91 $34.32 $36.10 $37.84
D103 FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY $14,145.98 $14,852.77 $15,589.96 $16,375.29 $17,191.02
BIWEEKLY $6,528.92 $6,855.13 $7,195.36 $7,557.83 $7,934.32
HRLY.RATE $81.61 $85.69 $89.94 $94.47 $99.18
B606 FLEET MANAGER MONTHLY $8,498.50 $8,929.04 $9,372.60 $9,839.68 $10,330.22
BIWEEKLY $3,922.38 $4,121.09 $4,325.82 $4,541.39 $4,767.79
HRLY.RATE $49.03 $51.51 $54.07 $56.77 $59.60
A805 GRAPHIC ARTIST MONTHLY $5,378.53 $5,645.14 $5,927.98 $6,224.73 $6,535.38
BIWEEKLY $2,482.40 $2,605.45 $2,735.99 $2,872.95 $3,016.33
HRLY.RATE $31.03 $32.57 $34.20 $35.91 $37.70
S403
GROUNDS EQUIPMENT
REPAIR WORKER MONTHLY $5,397.70 $5,651.10 $5,933.66 $6,222.94 $6,534.65
BIWEEKLY $2,491.25 $2,608.20 $2,738.61 $2,872.13 $3,015.99
HRLY.RATE $31.14 $32.60 $34.23 $35.90 $37.70
D107
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST
II MONTHLY $7,612.57 $7,995.12 $8,377.65 $8,805.77 $9,249.11
BIWEEKLY $3,513.49 $3,690.06 $3,866.61 $4,064.20 $4,268.82
HRLY.RATE $43.92 $46.13 $48.33 $50.80 $53.36
D805
HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,317.57 $14,024.36 $14,728.63 $15,465.81 $16,225.81
BIWEEKLY $6,146.57 $6,472.78 $6,797.83 $7,138.07 $7,488.83
HRLY.RATE $76.83 $80.91 $84.97 $89.23 $93.61
D400
HUMAN RESOURCES
TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,792.17 $6,065.18 $6,362.78 $6,680.05 $7,029.30
BIWEEKLY $2,673.31 $2,799.31 $2,936.67 $3,083.10 $3,244.29
HRLY.RATE $33.42 $34.99 $36.71 $38.54 $40.55
S610
INSTRUMENTATION
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
S404
IRRIGATION REPAIR
SPECIALIST MONTHLY $5,397.70 $5,651.10 $5,933.66 $6,222.94 $6,534.65
BIWEEKLY $2,491.25 $2,608.20 $2,738.61 $2,872.13 $3,015.99
HRLY.RATE $31.14 $32.60 $34.23 $35.90 $37.70
A606 JUNIOR ENGINEER MONTHLY $6,862.27 $7,186.83 $7,555.45 $7,924.06 $8,299.63
BIWEEKLY $3,167.20 $3,317.00 $3,487.13 $3,657.26 $3,830.60
HRLY.RATE $39.59 $41.46 $43.59 $45.72 $47.88
S605 LABORER MONTHLY $4,848.29 $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78
BIWEEKLY $2,237.67 $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05
HRLY.RATE $27.97 $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03
A801 LIBRARIAN I MONTHLY $5,640.51 $5,911.75 $6,185.31 $6,502.93 $6,811.26
BIWEEKLY $2,603.31 $2,728.50 $2,854.76 $3,001.35 $3,143.66
HRLY.RATE $32.54 $34.11 $35.68 $37.52 $39.30
A800 LIBRARIAN II MONTHLY $6,208.50 $6,519.15 $6,832.13 $7,165.97 $7,541.54
BIWEEKLY $2,865.46 $3,008.84 $3,153.29 $3,307.37 $3,480.71
HRLY.RATE $35.82 $37.61 $39.42 $41.34 $43.51
B801 LIBRARIAN III MONTHLY $7,833.12 $8,224.54 $8,621.14 $9,067.35 $9,510.92
BIWEEKLY $3,615.28 $3,795.94 $3,978.99 $4,184.93 $4,389.65
HRLY.RATE $45.19 $47.45 $49.74 $52.31 $54.87
A804 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $4,319.06 $4,543.93 $4,766.49 $4,986.74 $5,248.71
BIWEEKLY $1,993.41 $2,097.20 $2,199.92 $2,301.57 $2,422.48
HRLY.RATE $24.92 $26.22 $27.50 $28.77 $30.28
A803 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $4,819.82 $5,033.10 $5,304.35 $5,543.14 $5,814.38
BIWEEKLY $2,224.53 $2,322.97 $2,448.16 $2,558.37 $2,683.56
HRLY.RATE $27.81 $29.04 $30.60 $31.98 $33.54
A802 LIBRARY ASSISTANT III MONTHLY $5,380.85 $5,626.60 $5,918.71 $6,213.13 $6,507.56
BIWEEKLY $2,483.47 $2,596.89 $2,731.71 $2,867.60 $3,003.49
HRLY.RATE $31.04 $32.46 $34.15 $35.85 $37.54
B803
LIBRARY CIRCULATION
SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $6,178.85 $6,471.07 $6,776.35 $7,131.22 $7,459.98
BIWEEKLY $2,851.77 $2,986.65 $3,127.55 $3,291.33 $3,443.07
HRLY.RATE $35.65 $37.33 $39.10 $41.14 $43.04
B805 LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER MONTHLY $9,132.56 $9,599.62 $10,074.50 $10,580.73 $11,128.67
BIWEEKLY $4,215.03 $4,430.59 $4,649.77 $4,883.42 $5,136.31
HRLY.RATE $52.69 $55.38 $58.12 $61.04 $64.20
S606 MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN MONTHLY $6,649.01 $6,980.90 $7,337.46 $7,700.75 $8,093.18
BIWEEKLY $3,068.78 $3,221.96 $3,386.52 $3,554.19 $3,735.32
HRLY.RATE $38.36 $40.27 $42.33 $44.43 $46.69
B610 MANAGEMENT ANALYST MONTHLY $7,770.50 $8,125.36 $8,535.04 $8,957.74 $9,406.54
BIWEEKLY $3,586.38 $3,750.17 $3,939.25 $4,134.34 $4,341.48
HRLY.RATE $44.83 $46.88 $49.24 $51.68 $54.27
A120 MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT MONTHLY $6,424.10 $6,746.35 $7,080.19 $7,437.21 $7,805.83
BIWEEKLY $2,964.97 $3,113.70 $3,267.78 $3,432.56 $3,602.69
HRLY.RATE $37.06 $38.92 $40.85 $42.91 $45.03
A107 OFFICE ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $4,230.96 $4,446.56 $4,666.81 $4,889.37 $5,155.97 $5,274.21
BIWEEKLY $1,952.75 $2,052.26 $2,153.91 $2,256.63 $2,379.68 $2,434.25
HRLY.RATE $24.41 $25.65 $26.92 $28.21 $29.75 $30.43
A670 OFFICE ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $4,634.35 $4,845.32 $5,088.74 $5,341.44 $5,587.18
BIWEEKLY $2,138.93 $2,236.30 $2,348.65 $2,465.28 $2,578.70
HRLY.RATE $26.74 $27.95 $29.36 $30.82 $32.23
S401
PARK MAINTENANCE
LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
S407
PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER
I MONTHLY $4,866.23 $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78
BIWEEKLY $2,245.95 $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05
HRLY.RATE $28.07 $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03
S406
PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER
II MONTHLY $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78 $6,189.30
BIWEEKLY $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05 $2,856.60
HRLY.RATE $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03 $35.71
A201
PARKING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER MONTHLY $4,729.40 $4,954.28 $5,197.70 $5,461.99 $5,735.56
BIWEEKLY $2,182.80 $2,286.59 $2,398.94 $2,520.92 $2,647.18
HRLY.RATE $27.29 $28.58 $29.99 $31.51 $33.09
A200 PARKING SYSTEM TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,137.43 $5,401.72 $5,649.78 $5,925.66 $6,222.41
BIWEEKLY $2,371.12 $2,493.10 $2,607.59 $2,734.92 $2,871.88
HRLY.RATE $29.64 $31.16 $32.59 $34.19 $35.90
D705
PARKS & RECREATION
DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,388.54 $14,097.85 $14,809.70 $15,551.98 $16,309.41
BIWEEKLY $6,179.32 $6,506.70 $6,835.25 $7,177.84 $7,527.42
HRLY.RATE $77.24 $81.33 $85.44 $89.72 $94.09
B410
PARKS SUPERINTENDENT/CITY
ARBORIST MONTHLY $9,586.03 $10,082.55 $10,574.03 $11,108.55 $11,683.61
BIWEEKLY $4,424.32 $4,653.48 $4,880.32 $5,127.02 $5,392.44
HRLY.RATE $55.30 $58.17 $61.00 $64.09 $67.41
B420 PARKS SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,846.17 $8,245.38 $8,660.27 $9,096.05 $9,657.04
BIWEEKLY $3,621.31 $3,805.56 $3,997.05 $4,198.18 $4,457.10
HRLY.RATE $45.27 $47.57 $49.96 $52.48 $55.71
B430
PARKS SUPERVISOR/CITY
ARBORIST MONTHLY $8,036.66 $8,451.55 $8,869.04 $9,310.01 $9,884.05
BIWEEKLY $3,709.23 $3,900.72 $4,093.40 $4,296.93 $4,561.87
HRLY.RATE $46.37 $48.76 $51.17 $53.71 $57.02
A114 PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR MONTHLY $6,447.29 $6,769.53 $7,098.74 $7,458.08 $7,831.33
BIWEEKLY $2,975.67 $3,124.40 $3,276.34 $3,442.19 $3,614.46
HRLY.RATE $37.20 $39.06 $40.95 $43.03 $45.18
A614
PERMIT TECH/GREEN
BUILDING SPECIALIST MONTHLY $6,224.73 $6,535.38 $6,869.22 $7,205.38 $7,567.04
BIWEEKLY $2,872.95 $3,016.33 $3,170.41 $3,325.56 $3,492.48
HRLY.RATE $35.91 $37.70 $39.63 $41.57 $43.66
A609 PERMIT TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,659.05 $5,939.57 $6,245.59 $6,549.29 $6,876.18
BIWEEKLY $2,611.87 $2,741.34 $2,882.58 $3,022.75 $3,173.62
HRLY.RATE $32.65 $34.27 $36.03 $37.78 $39.67
A108 PLANNER MONTHLY $7,196.11 $7,553.13 $7,940.29 $8,308.91 $8,735.48
BIWEEKLY $3,321.28 $3,486.06 $3,664.75 $3,834.88 $4,031.76
HRLY.RATE $41.52 $43.58 $45.81 $47.94 $50.40
D104 PLANNING DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,249.21 $13,902.79 $14,607.03 $15,139.04 $16,091.57
BIWEEKLY $6,115.02 $6,416.67 $6,741.71 $6,987.25 $7,426.88
HRLY.RATE $76.44 $80.21 $84.27 $87.34 $92.84
B111 PLANNING MANAGER MONTHLY $10,498.02 $11,022.42 $11,569.60 $12,149.74 $12,760.25
BIWEEKLY $4,845.24 $5,087.27 $5,339.81 $5,607.57 $5,889.34
HRLY.RATE $60.57 $63.59 $66.75 $70.09 $73.62
A205
POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES COORDINATOR MONTHLY $5,522.27 $5,795.83 $6,080.99 $6,368.46 $6,674.48
BIWEEKLY $2,548.74 $2,675.00 $2,806.61 $2,939.29 $3,080.53
HRLY.RATE $31.86 $33.44 $35.08 $36.74 $38.51
M200 POLICE CAPTAIN MONTHLY $12,640.84 $13,254.43 $13,834.06 $14,515.57 $15,219.73
BIWEEKLY $5,834.24 $6,117.43 $6,384.95 $6,699.50 $7,024.49
HRLY.RATE $72.93 $76.47 $79.81 $83.74 $87.81
D201 POLICE CHIEF MONTHLY $15,424.59 $16,193.62 $17,001.38 $17,842.65 $18,740.75
BIWEEKLY $7,119.04 $7,473.98 $7,846.79 $8,235.07 $8,649.58
HRLY.RATE $88.99 $93.42 $98.08 $102.94 $108.12
A202 POLICE CLERK I MONTHLY $4,404.83 $4,629.71 $4,861.55 $5,093.38 $5,336.80
BIWEEKLY $2,033.00 $2,136.79 $2,243.79 $2,350.79 $2,463.14
HRLY.RATE $25.41 $26.71 $28.05 $29.38 $30.79
A203 POLICE CLERK II MONTHLY $4,861.55 $5,093.38 $5,336.80 $5,584.87 $5,858.43
BIWEEKLY $2,243.79 $2,350.79 $2,463.14 $2,577.63 $2,703.89
HRLY.RATE $28.05 $29.38 $30.79 $32.22 $33.80
A204 POLICE CLERK III MONTHLY $6,746.35
BIWEEKLY $3,113.70
HRLY.RATE $38.92
M202 POLICE LIEUTENANT MONTHLY $10,816.43 $11,354.89 $11,924.06 $12,519.20 $13,145.04
BIWEEKLY $4,992.20 $5,240.72 $5,503.41 $5,778.09 $6,066.94
HRLY.RATE $62.40 $65.51 $68.79 $72.23 $75.84
P200 POLICE OFFICER MONTHLY $7,474.68 $7,885.61 $8,242.22 $8,676.76 $9,090.06
BIWEEKLY $3,449.85 $3,639.51 $3,804.10 $4,004.66 $4,195.41
HRLY.RATE $43.12 $45.49 $47.55 $50.06 $52.44
P201 POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE MONTHLY $7,193.79
BIWEEKLY $3,320.21
HRLY.RATE $41.50
M201 POLICE SERGEANT MONTHLY $9,080.61 $9,510.43 $9,982.77 $10,490.52 $11,024.26
BIWEEKLY $4,191.05 $4,389.43 $4,607.43 $4,841.78 $5,088.12
HRLY.RATE $52.39 $54.87 $57.59 $60.52 $63.60
B201 POLICE SERVICES MANAGER MONTHLY $8,986.56 $9,435.89 $9,907.70 $10,403.08 $10,923.24
BIWEEKLY $4,147.64 $4,355.03 $4,572.78 $4,801.42 $5,041.50
HRLY.RATE $51.85 $54.44 $57.16 $60.02 $63.02
A711 PROGRAM COORDINATOR MONTHLY $3,850.75 $4,040.86 $4,240.23 $4,451.20 $4,673.76
BIWEEKLY $1,777.27 $1,865.01 $1,957.03 $2,054.40 $2,157.12
HRLY.RATE $22.22 $23.31 $24.46 $25.68 $26.96
A612 PROGRAM MANAGER MONTHLY $9,257.11 $9,723.09 $10,202.99 $10,717.66 $11,253.19
BIWEEKLY $4,272.51 $4,487.58 $4,709.07 $4,946.61 $5,193.78
HRLY.RATE $53.41 $56.09 $58.86 $61.83 $64.92
A130
PROGRAM OUTREACH
SPECIALIST MONTHLY $4,597.26 $4,826.77 $5,067.88 $5,322.89 $5,587.18
0.8 FTE (32 hours/week )BIWEEKLY $2,121.81 $2,227.74 $2,339.02 $2,456.72 $2,578.70
HRLY.RATE $26.52 $27.85 $29.24 $30.71 $32.23
A610
PROJECT MANAGER/GIS
COORDINATOR MONTHLY $10,604.06
BIWEEKLY $4,894.18
HRLY.RATE $61.18
A611 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR MONTHLY $7,126.56 $7,476.63 $7,854.51 $8,246.31 $8,663.61
BIWEEKLY $3,289.18 $3,450.75 $3,625.16 $3,805.99 $3,998.59
HRLY.RATE $41.11 $43.13 $45.31 $47.57 $49.98
A701 RECREATION COORDINATOR MONTHLY $5,554.73 $5,821.34 $6,097.22 $6,400.92 $6,718.53
BIWEEKLY $2,563.72 $2,686.77 $2,814.10 $2,954.27 $3,100.86
HRLY.RATE $32.05 $33.58 $35.18 $36.93 $38.76
B710
RECREATION
SUPERINTENDENT MONTHLY $9,132.56 $9,602.24 $10,074.50 $10,585.95 $11,131.29
BIWEEKLY $4,215.03 $4,431.80 $4,649.77 $4,885.82 $5,137.52
HRLY.RATE $52.69 $55.40 $58.12 $61.07 $64.22
B700 RECREATION SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,689.61 $8,088.83 $8,461.99 $8,905.55 $9,349.14
BIWEEKLY $3,549.05 $3,733.30 $3,905.53 $4,110.26 $4,314.99
HRLY.RATE $44.36 $46.67 $48.82 $51.38 $53.94
B106 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT MONTHLY $7,079.05 $7,449.57 $7,846.17 $8,255.84 $8,691.62
BIWEEKLY $3,267.26 $3,438.26 $3,621.31 $3,810.39 $4,011.52
HRLY.RATE $40.84 $42.98 $45.27 $47.63 $50.14
A602 SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR MONTHLY $8,016.80 $8,413.23 $8,811.99 $9,277.97 $9,746.27
BIWEEKLY $3,700.06 $3,883.03 $4,067.07 $4,282.14 $4,498.28
HRLY.RATE $46.25 $48.54 $50.84 $53.53 $56.23
B601 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER MONTHLY $10,972.12 $11,520.08 $12,099.34 $12,702.08 $13,341.36
BIWEEKLY $5,064.05 $5,316.96 $5,584.31 $5,862.50 $6,157.55
HRLY.RATE $63.30 $66.46 $69.80 $73.28 $76.97
A113 SENIOR PLANNER MONTHLY $8,735.48 $9,169.01 $9,625.72 $10,107.93 $10,617.97
BIWEEKLY $4,031.76 $4,231.85 $4,442.64 $4,665.20 $4,900.60
HRLY.RATE $50.40 $52.90 $55.53 $58.32 $61.26
A607
SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS
INSPECTOR MONTHLY $7,912.47 $8,308.91 $8,716.93 $9,131.92 $9,614.13
BIWEEKLY $3,651.91 $3,834.88 $4,023.20 $4,214.73 $4,437.29
HRLY.RATE $45.65 $47.94 $50.29 $52.68 $55.47
B608 STREET & SEWER SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,467.53 $7,842.02 $8,236.70 $8,647.08 $9,077.64
BIWEEKLY $3,446.55 $3,619.40 $3,801.56 $3,990.96 $4,189.68
HRLY.RATE $43.08 $45.24 $47.52 $49.89 $52.37
S604
STREET, SEWER &
DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE
WORKER MONTHLY $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78 $6,189.30
BIWEEKLY $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05 $2,856.60
HRLY.RATE $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03 $35.71
S601
STREET, SEWER AND
DOWNTOWN LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
B607
STREETS, STORM DRAINS, AND
SEWER DIVISIONS MANAGER MONTHLY $8,694.21 $9,129.94 $9,586.59 $10,066.69 $10,567.71
BIWEEKLY $4,012.71 $4,213.82 $4,424.58 $4,646.16 $4,877.40
HRLY.RATE $50.16 $52.67 $55.31 $58.08 $60.97
S602
TRAFFIC SIGN & PAINT
LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
A601 TRAFFIC-CIVIL ENGINEER MONTHLY $7,924.06 $8,299.63 $8,735.48 $9,178.28 $9,639.63
BIWEEKLY $3,657.26 $3,830.60 $4,031.76 $4,236.13 $4,449.06
HRLY.RATE $45.72 $47.88 $50.40 $52.95 $55.61
A600 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER MONTHLY $9,136.55 $9,597.90 $10,075.48 $10,578.56 $11,114.09
BIWEEKLY $4,216.87 $4,429.80 $4,650.22 $4,882.41 $5,129.58
HRLY.RATE $52.71 $55.37 $58.13 $61.03 $64.12
S405 TREE LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
S409 TREE MAINTENANCE WORKER MONTHLY $5,218.30 $5,516.55 $5,767.71 $6,048.02 $6,344.03
BIWEEKLY $2,408.45 $2,546.10 $2,662.02 $2,791.40 $2,928.02
HRLY.RATE $30.11 $31.83 $33.28 $34.89 $36.60
S411 TREE WORKER MONTHLY $5,386.49 $5,639.89 $5,924.69 $6,216.21 $6,530.16
BIWEEKLY $2,486.07 $2,603.03 $2,734.47 $2,869.02 $3,013.92
HRLY.RATE $31.08 $32.54 $34.18 $35.86 $37.67
S400
UTILITIES
INSPECTOR/LOCATOR MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
B500 WATER DIVISION MANAGER MONTHLY $8,694.21 $9,129.94 $9,586.59 $10,066.69 $10,567.71
BIWEEKLY $4,012.71 $4,213.82 $4,424.58 $4,646.16 $4,877.40
HRLY.RATE $50.16 $52.67 $55.31 $58.08 $60.97
S501
WATER MAINTENANCE
LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
S503
WATER MAINTENANCE
WORKER MONTHLY $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78 $6,189.30
BIWEEKLY $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05 $2,856.60
HRLY.RATE $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03 $35.71
S502 WATER METER REPAIRER MONTHLY $5,142.05 $5,388.73 $5,646.62 $5,929.17 $6,222.94
BIWEEKLY $2,373.26 $2,487.11 $2,606.13 $2,736.54 $2,872.13
HRLY.RATE $29.67 $31.09 $32.58 $34.21 $35.90
B501 WATER OPERATIONS SUPERVIS MONTHLY $7,467.53 $7,842.02 $8,236.70 $8,647.08 $9,077.64
BIWEEKLY $3,446.55 $3,619.40 $3,801.56 $3,990.96 $4,189.68
HRLY.RATE $43.08 $45.24 $47.52 $49.89 $52.37
S508
WATER QUALITY AND METER
LEAD WORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
S507
WATER QUALITY AND METER
TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,375.27 $5,644.37 $5,926.93 $6,222.94 $6,534.65
BIWEEKLY $2,480.90 $2,605.10 $2,735.51 $2,872.13 $3,015.99
HRLY.RATE $31.01 $32.56 $34.19 $35.90 $37.70
B503 WATER QUALITY SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,467.53 $7,842.02 $8,236.70 $8,647.08 $9,077.64
BIWEEKLY $3,446.55 $3,619.40 $3,801.56 $3,990.96 $4,189.68
HRLY.RATE $43.08 $45.24 $47.52 $49.89 $52.37
S505
WATER SERVICE &
OPERATIONS TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
A110 ZONING TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $6,143.58 $6,438.01 $6,757.94 $7,101.06 $7,446.49
BIWEEKLY $2,835.50 $2,971.39 $3,119.05 $3,277.41 $3,436.84
HRLY.RATE $35.44 $37.14 $38.99 $40.97 $42.96
NOTES
All positions are 40-hour week, unless otherwise noted
Effective 6/26/2017
6/26/2017 3% salary increase for all AFSCME bargaining unit positions, per applicable MOUs
Amended 7/10/17 FY2017-18 budget classification and compensation revisions
Amended 8/21/17 classification and compensation revisions
Amended 9/18/17 classification and compensation revisions
Amended 12/25/17 3% salary increase Department Head and Unrepresented Unit, Teamsters, AFSCME BAMM,
2% salary increase POA, Police Sergeants, Police Sergaeants, Police Administrators Units, per applicable MOUs
3% salary increase City Manager, per employment agreement
Amended 6/25/2018 3% salary increase for AFSCME Admin and Maint bargaining unit, per applicable MOUs
3% salary increase City Attorney, per employment agreement
Amended 9/17/18 classification and compensation revisions
Amended 12/24/187 3% salary increase Department Head and Unrepresented Unit, AFSCME BAMM,
5% salary increase POA, Police Sergeants, Police Sergeants, Police Administrators Units, per applicable MOUs
4% salary increase City Manager, per employment agreement
Amended 1/21/19 4.5% salary increase Teamsters Unit, effective 12/24/2018
Amended 3/13/19 classification and compensation revisions
Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
C100 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT $32.50 $34.08 $35.76 $37.45 $39.26
C500 ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER $51.85 $54.43 $57.16 $60.02 $63.02
C112 ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS $73.11 $76.79 $80.49 $84.61 $88.85
C601 AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICIAN $25.17 $26.42 $27.74 $19.13 $30.58
C705 BUILDING ATTENDANT $18.21 $19.10 $20.12 $21.10 $22.11
C102 BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER $27.81 $29.26 $30.50 $32.09 $33.67
C106 CUSTODIAN $22.37 $23.41 $24.55 $25.83 $27.18
C613 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II $32.02 $33.66 $35.36 $37.11 $38.93
C602 FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGER $48.32
C615 FLEET MANAGER $49.03 $51.51 $54.07 $56.77 $59.60
C805 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR $76.83 $80.91 $84.97 $89.23 $93.61
C600 INTERN I $15.34 $16.10 $16.91 $17.76 $18.66
C608 INTERN II $26.52 $31.83 $37.13 $42.44 $47.74
C606 LABORER $25.83 $27.02 $28.51 $29.85 $31.29
C807 LIBRARIAN I $28.92 $30.32 $31.73 $33.36 $34.94
C806 LIBRARIAN II $31.85 $33.44 $35.05 $36.80 $38.68
C801 LIBRARY AIDE I $14.57 $15.17 $15.83 $16.55 $17.25
C808 LIBRARY AIDE II $16.03 $16.73 $17.46 $18.23 $19.04
C804 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I $22.16 $23.32 $24.46 $25.58 $26.94
C803 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II $24.72 $25.84 $27.22 $28.42 $29.83
C611 MANAGEMENT ANALYST $43.50 $45.50 $47.81 $50.16 $52.67
C107 OFFICE ASSISTANT I $21.70 $22.82 $23.93 $25.09 $26.44
C702
PARK AND RECREATION FIELD
MONITOR $22.73 $23.86 $25.06 $26.31 $27.63
C211 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER $27.29 $28.59 $30.00 $31.50 $33.09
C201
PARKING ENFORCEMENT
TECHNICIAN $24.29 $25.43 $26.68 $28.01 $29.44
C409 PARKS AND TREE WORKER $27.67 $29.22 $30.57 $32.07 $33.66
C809
PASSPORT APPLICATION
ACCEPTANCE AGENT $22.16 $23.32 $24.46 $25.58 $26.94
C900 PER DIEM COMM DISPATCHER $18.17 $22.04 $36.33 $42.41
C199 POLICE SERVICE AIDE $13.73 $14.37 $15.07 $15.78 $16.43
C712 PRESCHOOL MUSIC SPECIALIST $63.65
C711 PRE-SCHOOL SITE COORDINATOR $21.10 $22.16 $23.27 $24.43 $25.65
C714 PRE-SCHOOL TEACHER $19.73 $20.72 $21.76 $22.85 $23.99
C612 PROGRAM MANAGER $48.87 $51.31 $53.86 $56.56 $59.42
C713 PROGRAM OUTREACH SPECIALIST $27.32 $28.68 $30.12 $31.62 $33.21
C700 RECREATION LEADER I $12.00 $12.60 $13.23
C701 RECREATION LEADER II $13.89 $14.58 $15.31
City of Burlingame Salary Schedule - Casual Positions (Non-PERS)
Amended 1/21/19
C710 RECREATION SPECIALIST $17.47 $18.34 $19.26 $20.22 $21.23
C703 SENIOR RECREATION LEADER $16.08 $16.88 $17.73
C614
SIDEWALK PROGRAM
COORDINATOR $33.36 $35.03 $36.78 $38.62 $40.55
C641 SUMMER CREW $12.00 $12.60 $13.23 $13.89 $14.58
C642 SUMMER CREW LEADER $15.30 $16.06 $16.86 $17.70 $18.58
NOTES
All positions are hourly
Effective 1/1/16
Amended 8/21/17
Amended 12/25/17 3% salary increase per approved salary and benefit memo for casual employees
Amended 12/10/18 adding Library Aide II (Flexibly staffed with Library Aide I)
Amended 12/24/18 min wage impacts, 3% COLA incr per approved salary and benefit memo for casual ees
(except Comm Dispatchers)
Amended 1/21/19 4.5% salary increase for Per Diem Communications Dispatcher
Amended XX Add Fleet Manager
Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
CP50 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY $38.24 $81.95
CP25 ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER $51.85 $54.44 $57.16 $60.02 $63.04
CP61 AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICIAN $25.17 $26.42 $27.74 $29.13 $30.58
CP30 INTERN II $26.52 $31.83 $37.13 $42.44 $47.74
CP60 LABORER $25.83 $27.02 $28.51 $29.84 $31.29
CP87 LIBRARIAN I $28.92 $30.32 $31.73 $33.36 $34.94
CP86 LIBRARIAN II $31.85 $33.44 $35.05 $36.80 $38.68
CP80 LIBRARY AIDE I $14.57 $15.17 $15.83 $16.55 $17.25
CP81 LIBRARY AIDE II $16.03 $16.73 $17.46 $18.23 $19.04
CP10 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I $22.16 $23.31 $24.47 $25.58 $26.94
CP11 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II $24.72 $25.84 $27.22 $28.43 $29.83
CP21 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER $27.29 $28.59 $30.00 $31.50 $33.09
CP40 PARKS AND TREE WORKER $27.52 $28.89 $30.34 $31.85 $33.45
CP15 PER DIEM COMM DISPATCHER $19.44 $23.58 $38.88 $45.37
CP71 RECREATION SPECIALIST $17.47 $18.34 $19.26 $20.22 $21.23
CP05 SENIOR PLANNER $48.42 $50.85 $53.37 $56.03 $58.86
CP20 SUSTAINABILITY COORDINATOR $45.77 $48.07 $50.47 $52.99 $55.64
NOTES
All positions are hourly
Effective 7/10/2017
Amended 9/18/17
Amended 12/25/17 3% salary incr per approved salary and benefit memo for part-time casual ees
Amended 6/18/18 adding Intern II, and Library Assistant II
Amended 9/17/18 adding Librarian II
Amended 9/17/18 adding Parking Enforcement Officer
Amended 12/10/2018 adding Automotive Technician and Library Aide II (Flexibly staffed with Library Aide I)
Amended 12/24/18 min wage impacts, 3% COLA incr per approved salary and benefit memo for casual ees
(except Comm Dispatchers)
Amended 1/21/19 4.5% salary increase for Per Diem Communications Dispatcher
City of Burlingame Salary Schedule - Casual Positions
Amended 1/21/19
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 10b
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Governing Appeal Procedures for Massage
Establishments and Practitioners
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider and adopt a resolution setting procedures for
hearing appeals from the denial of registration or renewal for massage establishments and
practitioners.
BACKGROUND
Burlingame’s Municipal Code provisions relating to massage establishments have been amended
numerous times in recent years in order to respond to shifting state legislative mandates. As part
of those amendments, the City enacted a registration procedure for both individual practitioners
and massage establishments that is consistent with state law. Grounds for denial of registration or
renewal include failure to maintain the state-level California Massage Therapy Council certification;
employment of practitioners who are not certified; misrepresentation in an application to the City;
and commission of various offenses; among other reasons. If an application for registration or
renewal is denied, the applicant has a right to an appeal hearing before Council under Municipal
Code Section 6.39.070.
DISCUSSION
While the Municipal Code states that massage establishments may appeal denial of registration to
the Council, it does not set forth the procedure for hearing such appeals. As with the Council’s
adoption of a resolution for Planning Commission appeals, the Council should adopt a resolution
that sets forth the mechanism for hearing massage appeals so that the parties have adequate
notice about how their appeals will proceed. The goal of the resolution is to provide for due process,
including adequate notice and the opportunity to be heard, while preserving the informal nature of
proceedings before the Council. The attached proposed resolution, like that for Planning
Commission appeals, provides that formal rules of evidence do not apply and sets forth the manner
for conducting appeal hearings. Council should consider the resolution, provide any feedback, and
adopt the proposed resolution (with any applicable changes). After adoption of the resolution, staff
will work to schedule two pending appeals to come before Council in the near future.
FISCAL IMPACT
Massage Establishment Appeal Procedures May 6, 2019
2
There is no direct impact on the City General Fund from adopting the proposed resolution.
However, it is likely that because the City Attorney oversees the code enforcement function, the
City will need to retain outside counsel to advise the Council on procedural matters in order to avoid
a potential conflict between the enforcement and advice roles. The amount required for that service
will vary depending on the particulars of future appeals.
Exhibit:
• Proposed Resolution
Massage Establishment Appeal Procedures 1
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ADOPTING PROCEDURES GOVERNING APPEAL HEARINGS HELD PURSUANT
TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.39.070
WHEREAS, Municipal Code section 6.39.070 provides that applicants who have been
denied registration or renewal for massage establishment certification under the Municipal Code
may appeal to the City Council for review of that denial; and
WHEREAS, appellants are entitled to notice and the opportunity to be heard in such
appeals; and
WHEREAS, such proceedings before the Council are administrative and informal in
nature; and
WHEREAS, guidance for future appeals is necessary in order to establish the manner in
which such appeals shall be heard; and
WHEREAS, the guidance contained in this resolution shall provide notice to appellants
and the public about the procedure for such appeals; and
WHEREAS, Council may amend such procedures within its discretion as deemed
necessary and appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that:
1. Appeals under Municipal Code section 6.39.070 may be heard at a regular or special
meeting of the City Council.
2. Such appeals shall be publicly noticed as required under the Brown Act and other
applicable law.
3. Appellants shall be afforded 30 days’ notice prior to the scheduled hearing, to be sent
via first class mail to the last known address for appellant or appellant’s counsel as
applicable and postmarked at least 33 days prior to the scheduled meeting, unless an
earlier date is scheduled within the City’s discretion at the appellant’s request.
Because providing this notice may bring the appeal hearing date outside of the time
frame anticipated in the ordinance, appellants are permitted to continue operation
pending the appeal (unless independently enjoined through a court proceeding), and
any delay occasioned in scheduling an appeal is deemed to be non-injurious to
appellants.
Massage Establishment Appeal Procedures 2
4. If the City Attorney or Deputy/Assistant City Attorney advised, oversaw, or was
involved with the code enforcement or Police Department determination to refuse
registration of a massage establishment or practitioner, the City Attorney or
Deputy/Assistant City Attorney shall not advise Council in connection with the
corresponding appeal hearing under section 6.39.070. Instead, outside counsel shall
be retained to provide independent advice, or the Council may opt to hear the appeal
without such advice of counsel.
5. Appellant and City staff may each submit any written materials in support of their
respective positions to Council. In order to provide adequate time for review, such
material must be submitted to the City Clerk by 5 pm on the day that is 10 calendar
days prior to the scheduled hearing. If that day falls on a weekend or City holiday, the
written materials are due by 5 pm on the weekday prior to the 10-day period. The
written materials submitted may include position statements, legal arguments, sworn
or unsworn witness accounts, or any other information deemed relevant by the
submitting party. Because these submissions will become part of the public record,
they should not contain private information about individuals such as medical
information. Parties to the appeal may submit redacted materials.
6. Appellant and City staff may but are not required to provide an up to 5-page rebuttal
statement regarding any information submitted by the other party to the appeal. Such
rebuttal should be submitted to the Clerk before 5 pm at least 5 calendar days prior to
the Council hearing. If the 5th day falls on a weekend or City holiday, the rebuttal
statement should be submitted by the weekday following the 5th day.
7. The hearing before the Council shall be informal, and is expected to take up to
approximately one hour. The Mayor shall preside; in the Mayor’s absence, the Vice
Mayor shall preside. Prior to the hearing, Council members shall disclose on the
record any ex parte communications they have had with any persons interested in the
appeal, including City staff involved in the decision to deny registration. The rules of
evidence do not apply. The appellant may but is not required to make a statement to
Council and may have one or more additional people speak on their behalf, including
appellant’s counsel. Formal testimony will not be taken, and no witnesses shall be
administered an oath (unless appellant wishes to do so themselves), but appellant
may include any information or speakers s/he/they deem relevant to Council.
Appellant shall be afforded 20 minutes for this initial presentation of the issues and
information, which may be extended at the discretion of the presiding Council member.
City staff shall then be afforded 20 minutes for their presentation. Council members
may ask questions of appellant and staff during their presentations.
8. Following the initial presentations by appellant and City staff, members of the public
shall be allowed to comment. Such comment shall be limited to three minutes per
speaker, except that the presiding Council member may extend or shorten the time
allotted to members of the public in light of the number of speakers.
Massage Establishment Appeal Procedures 3
9. Appellant shall be provided an opportunity for a summation and/or rebuttal, limited to
5 minutes unless otherwise provided at the discretion of the presiding Council member.
Council members may ask any final clarifying questions of appellant or staff, after
which the hearing shall be closed and Council will deliberate.
10. Following its deliberation, Council may take one of the following actions: a. affirm the
denial of registration/renewal; b. reverse denial of registration/renewal and order staff
to issue a registration certificate; or c. suspend staff’s determination and order
additional investigation or consideration of identified issues or information before staff
reaches a final determination. Council may take these actions by oral motion, and
may direct staff to prepare a resolution reflecting their direction for adoption at a
subsequent meeting. Council should endeavor to reach a final determination of the
appeal on the scheduled hearing date, unless a continuance is necessary because of
the duration of presentations/public comment or because further investigation or
elaboration is necessary on one or more specifically identified issues. If Council
requires more time for deliberation, Council may continue their discussion after the
close of the public hearing, but Council must not engage in ex parte discussions with
anyone – including City staff – regarding the substance of the appeal prior to a decision
being made at a later public meeting. If a continuance is necessary, the continued
hearing should be scheduled as soon as practicable, given the purpose of the
continuance and Council’s availability. City staff shall exercise a good faith effort to
work with appellants to find an acceptable date for a continued hearing, but appellants
shall not have the right to unilaterally dictate the date nor avoid final determination by
making themselves unavailable for the continued hearing.
11. The decision of Council shall be final. The procedures contained in this resolution are
designed to provide guidance to Council; any of these procedures may be waived by
Council as deemed necessary, and failure to strictly adhere to the procedures set forth
here shall not be deemed to invalidate Council’s action on any appeal.
____________________________
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 6th day
of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
City Clerk
1
Memorandum
AGENDA NO: 11a
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019
To: City Council
Date: May 6,2019
From: Mayor Donna Colson
Subject: Committee Report
Thursday, 4/18/19:
Home for All
EPA first ever RV park for residents
San Carlos Update - Balancing 1/3 who do not want to see change with need for more affordable
housing
Community Engagement - Continuing to work on engagement program that started with Burlingame,
HMB, RWC and PV. Moving on to Brisbane, San Mateo, Pacifica, Foster City, Hill sborough
Partnerships - School District, C/CAG Compact Joint Workshop
Planning Commissioner Training: April 30 - new series to work with PC around housing - this one will
focus on Housing and has already 60 people signed up
Conversation for Future
Understanding the entire Peninsula and where/who has the jobs and where the housing is going to
balance and looking at a more wholistic approach.
More data on each city and their Job/Housing ratios - who is providing housing and who is providing
jobs?
Now the approach is NO MORE commercial - general consensus this is a very problematic approach -
no one supported, but did want to understand the ratios in the county and look in more regional ways.
Future of HFA
Move from workgroup to Task Force - standing committee with no end date, and change to an idea of
shorter more tactical group meetings
Continue - Funding, Legislation, Housing and Mobility
New Task Forces - Second Unit, Housing and Climate Change, Tenant Protections
Hello Housing - Subsidized help for people wanting to use ADU and county is hoping for four cities that
will participate AND idea is they keep the prices low.
Colson Committee Report May 6, 2019
2
Thursday, 4/18/19: Housing Legislation
SB3300
4 components - approval, certainty and legalizes new standards for occupied substandard buildings
HCD has a standardized form and after application is deemed complete and if project deems it complies
with zoning = then 12 months and no more than 3 hearings
Concerns over the complexity and size of the project, one year is too tight
Concerns over shortage of staff time
Takes design standards back to 1/1/2018 and no option to update those standards
No historic or other type accommodation
AB1487
Bill to create a regional housing agency HABA, comprised of ABAG/MTC
Very strong opposition by all members except SF
Concerns over excessive taxing
Concerns of draining local funds from small cities into big cities
Do not support the composition of the board - if it happens should fall under ABAG
Duplicates all the work that is done at the County levels - SMC has 7 CORE agencies in place and this
would just duplicate
Support by all of the cities for a head count tax and authorizing counties to charge this and hope to
incentive companies to move from dense areas out to the housing rich areas
Will move to review AB1279, AB1483, AB1484 for next meeting SB50, SB4
Thursday, 4/25/19:
Home for All: Learning Network Meeting
HMB - Updated ADU units and also having conversations around how we can provide farm worker
overlays and other zoning to update for more workforce housing
Portola Valley - ADU conversation started and how
RWC - having a small meeting with long-time building owners to work to keep their naturally affordable
units still affordable. Working on ADU conversation and how to get out tha t information to community.
Burlingame - Work on Talks Shop initiative and using format. Created two new website features a Major
Projects visual map, and then created a new updated housing website.
Overall, no great sense that local people understand the greater legal environment and vice-versa that our
state legislature needs to learn what we are doing.
Key take always - 1. Continue through policy and project development. 2. Committing to sustaining
responsive communications, keep activity shared values and helpful frames, keep assessing information
3. Keep expanding your network - how do we target smaller engagement.
Report Out - 1. Use social media, engage new residents, smaller workshops from the county, like the
idea of holding a landlord convening to make sure we keep those units affordable and what can we do
for them.
Colson Committee Report May 6, 2019
3
Scott Weiner Meeting
Acknowledged shortage in construction workforce and high cost of building
Saying that half of the US housing deficit is in CA and we are second to last in homes per capita
Core foundational problem is we are short millions of homes and we designed a system that stifles
housing production. CA downzoned and you could build an apartment building, then 1960 and 1980
downzoned in SF and LA and banned apartments in LA a nd SF - 70% of land cannot be build and in
80% of CA illegal to build anything other than a single family home.
This means in theory that you have banned affordable housing. Downzoning has happened in job centers
and so he is saying that you have now made it impossible for people to have a small developer or non-
profit developer.
Need to do the following:
Rezoned Housing and we are overdue for a conversation on the topic.
Says need to streamline and accelerate housing.
Need to invest and subsidize affordable housing - Redevelopment pulled out.
SW Believes we must do more to protect tenants.
Gov Newsom has made this a top priority.
Lot of discussion on local control vs. state control and believes that if it local control does not deliver
good results then he believes the state should take this back because local jurisdictions have failed. (But
it was the State that defunded Redevelopment and the FEDS that also took away funding).
CEQA has gone way beyond what it was intended and has been used to stop trans portation and housing.
Supports prevailing wage for labor, but they are using CEQA to get Project Labor Agreement together
and thinks we should just set a standard as to what labor is going to be paid, rather than enforcing them
to sue. SB 35 streamlines the process.
97% of cities are not meeting low and extremely low-income housing, so SB 35 cuts off and reduces
permitting.
Kate Harley - SF Office Director of Mayors Office and Community Development
Barriers to housing gap, struggle with growing income inequality. Increasing incomes of SF that are
driving up rents (only a few people) and so there is this imbalance in what housing costs and what the
majority of people can actually afford in SF. Rising costs of constriction. 21 to 22 quarters of
construction cost increases. Reduction of federal - Section 8 anti-poverty are gone.
$500 million housing bond going on the ballot this year .
500 units that are part of a modular pilot program.
Ramon Kochavi - Marcus and Millichap - Large Real Estate Developer in SF
SF is NOT an inflow market in general in multi-family because we are heavily regulated (rent control),
and there is a fear from investors as to how and why to invest in SF.
Evelyn Stivers - ED HLC non-profit advocacy organization
Investment in affordable housing - San Mateo, we have the smallest percentage of affordable homes and
white flight suburbs that discouraged affordable housing. Says we have no big city and need a bigger
Colson Committee Report May 6, 2019
4
world view to recognize housing, and need to understand that the people NOT in the room matter and
this is a difficult decision for City Councils (implied we are not doing this and used FB as an example in
Menlo Park) and said easy to bring in $, but then deny housing. 1/2C sales tax, but does not make up for
RA, but does go along way...2,000 homes in the county and have improved, but not quick enough and
need 25,000 homes and as we expand it gets bigger.
Kenneth Jones - Landis Real Estate Development - Advisor to cities and developers and focus on
housing production
High construction and high land costs are making it hard to develop and when you go to lower levels of
affordability, then the project will not pencil
Inefficient construction process is another issue - only 37% of labor on the site is efficient and the rest is
wasted time.
David Conklin - Lobbyist for commercial builders and trade association since 1901 and represent
companies that build commercial development projects.
Governor laid out a big plan to develop housing in Burlingame
Hard costs to build a unit - $700K - $850K per unit of housing affordable, renovation is coming in at
$900,000 per unit (deferred maintenance and upgrade). Construction cost is 60% and the rest are fees
(but also land costs). Labor and materials shortage for both sides. Inland $400 -$500 SF to build, and
some private developers balk at impact fees. Huge workforce skilled gap - every 5 retiring, there is 1
going into the trade.
Recent fires have exasperated housing conversation
(SW chimed in that regular housing is NOT necessarily luxury)
$1.75 billion dollars of budget from Governor’s Office and have over 200 bills on housing and gambit of bills
introduced in response to Governor’s call to action. Role of state vs. local perspective and that is the crux of the
argument.
Wednesday, 5/1/19:
C/CAG and San Mateo County Housing: Housing Legislative Meeting
Exempt cities from SB50 if they have a General Plan and a Master Plan or Site Plan. Kevin Mullin is
interested and the assembly is not on the same page as the Senate on the legislation. T here is money in
the Governor’s budget and we need to support that allocation. Concerns over definition of “jobs -rich
environment”. Problem is an economic problem created by jobs growth and we have moved in a positive
direction in up-zoning. We are working to even out the balance of jobs and housing and working to get
affordable. Concerns over regulatory exemptions that relate to size seems counterintuitive.
Rhonda Pashcal/Mark Tollefson of the Governor’s office and we will work to remove the barriers, but
cannot hold them (cities) accountable to building - just zoning. Sonja Palladio - Deputy Director for
Legislation - CA Dept HCD
Gov will NOT support taking transport funding for housing. League is moving toward the idea that
alternative exemptions for working. Get information to Heather about the adverse impacts to a city like
Colson Committee Report May 6, 2019
5
Burlingame - how they are not reaching their goals - example in Burlingame, is the Lyon Hoag
neighborhood.
ABAG-MTC Housing Legislative Work Group - Production Related Housing Bills Part 3
Meet with local officials in the AM to work on sending a what we are doing right and what might be a
problem memo to staff who can consolidate and help get that information to lawmakers.
AB1279 Bloom
Alternative to SB50 and advocated by progressive groups that are pushing for
By right housing development - high resource areas, area of high opportunity and low residential density
that is not currently experiencing gentrification/displacement. Complicated up-zoning for both of these.
Affordability - 45 years rented, suggest 55, p.8. 55 years
No reimbursement for schools
Overrides single family development
>10 units, 10% at low income or 5% to very low income
Residential or commercial - 100 units up to 55 feet
o 25% to lower income and and 25% to very low
o Appreciate the exemption - we have hazardous waste site
o Bill sponsors are concerning - mainly legal organizations
How would we fund this because this will not come out of the private market
Try to bring housing to “exclusive communities” and provide access to low-income areas. Could petition
out.
AB 1483 Grayson: Data Collection and Reporting
Asking for a chart of what we already get and what we want to get - need to simplify this and not
overburden the staff.
Many jurisdictions already do this, but some smaller agencies may struggle with the manpower need to
track and report this data.
AB1485 Wicks: Housing Development Streamlining
Provides for those rents at 80-120% of the AMI be at least 20% below FMV for the county
#31 Dictates 20% of total units be for households below 120% of area median income and 20% below
the FMV for the county at the time
Requires prevailing wage
Another size cutoff - 225,000 and a coastal or bay county
Need more explanation 35 B = historical district - Why included for parking exemption
Produce sufficient housing to meet their RHNA numbers - aggregate, by income level how?
Author’s statement - for decades CA has failed to create enough housing at all income levels...not sure
this is actually true.
AB1486 Ting: Surplus Land
Expands definition of agencies applicable - sewer, water, and utility
Expand exempt land to include - land held for exchange
Colson Committee Report May 6, 2019
6
Except property being held for exchange - clarity please?
Land that is subject to legal restrictions - that makes housing on the site prohibited or incompatible due
to legal or other restrictions
FMV determined by appraisal or economic evaluation - conducted or approved by the department
Payment period for surplus land may exceed 20 years, but not more than the la nd is being used for
housing (55 years).
Appreciate the call out of park and recreational land and designated in the general plan as use for that.
A site smaller than 1/2 acre shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need
unless the locality can demonstrate sites of similar size were successfully developed during the prior
planning period
E1 line 30 - A county, not including the City and County of SF, shall be considered suburban unless the
county is in an MSA of 2mm or great in pop ulation, in which case the county shall be considered
metropolitan?
Long list of Oppose unless amend - what are these groups’ concerns and requirements to agree?
SB6 Beale and McGuire: Data Collection and Analysis
How does this work with Grayson 1483
Language expressing a person earning min wage must work three jobs on average to pay rent on a 2
BDRM apartment?
Rent burdened numbers - what is the goal for this - 10% of your income on rent. Most target 30% of
income on rent, but many people pay over 50% of their incomes to purchase a home - with taxes and
maintenance.
AB11 Redevelopment Law
Brief mention of 100613 - impact on the amount that the state is required to apportion to local
educational entities...what does this mean?
Question - what about development on school sites? In other words, could schools that build housing on
their sites, capture the tax-increment created so as to support the housing costs?
What about impact on school sites? Do we quantify? Says that we would be required to pass through
property tax to make other taxing entities whole, excluding the school’s portion? - Says the state would
backfill to keep the schools whole with Prop 98 funding, but what happens if the state revenue declines?
CTA does not support this bill.
1
Memorandum
AGENDA NO: 11b
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019
To: City Council
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Vice Mayor Emily Beach
Subject: Committee Report
Thursday, 3/28/19:
League of California Cities Environmental Quality Policy Committee Meeting, Costa Mesa (day trip)
Caltrain Local Policy Makers Group
C/CAG BPAC (Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee)
Monday, 4/1/19: City Council Meeting
Thursday, 4/4/19:
San Mateo County Transportation Authority Board Meeting
Annual Sexual Harassment Training Webinar
Sustainable San Mateo County Awards
o Congratulations Burlingame Citizens Environmental Council for receiving award recognition!
Friday, 4/5/19:
US 101 Managed Lane Ad Hoc Committee Meeting: unanimous recommendation for JPA staffing v ision
achieved after months of discussion and negotiation.
Progress Seminar – Friday – Sunday) excellent speakers and breakout sessions regarding housing,
transportation, regionalism, public safety, and sea level rise.
Monday, 4/8/19:
League of California Cities Peninsula Division Board Meeting
Constituent meeting with leaders from UMC & Mercy Center; discussed affordable housing an d
transportation infrastructure.
Tuesday, 4/9/19:
Constituent meeting: affordable housing & transportation discussion
Connecting with Council: Youth Advisory Committee Meeting with Councilmember Keighran and members
of the YAC leadership team. Inspiring and engaged students!
Beach Committee Report May 6, 2019
2
Wednesday, 4/10/19:
Economic Development Subcommittee Meeting: discussed work plan for upcoming months, and
communication strategy with owners of vacant storefronts regarding acceptable visual and maintenance
standards.
Thursday, 4/11/19:
League of California Cities Housing Legislation Webinar (in preparation for Legislative Action Day in
Sacramento 4/24)
Transform Leadership & Impact Celebration, honoring founder and retiring Executive Director Stuart Cohen.
TransForm’s mission is to promote walkable communities with excellent transportation choices to connect
people of all incomes to opportunity, keep California affordable, and help solve our climate crisis. Learn more
about them at Transfromca.org. Great event, great organization.
Friday, 4/12/19:
Mayors, Vice Mayors, and City Managers’ North County Lunch: Burlingame invited for the first tim e.
Discussions focused around collaborative sharing of resources and current housing legislation.
Monday, 4/15/19:
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, 4/16/19:
Burlingame Employee Recognition Lunch: honored employees with 10, 15, 20-year anniversaries working
for the City. Thanks for their loyal service!
Conference call with Transform regarding Measure W implementation and San Mateo County Transportation
Authority’s Strategic Plan update
Webinar with League of California Cities Board regarding housing legi slation and upcoming Board meeting
Wednesday, 4/17/19:
California Drive Roundabout Ribbon Cutting: great job Mayor Colson and staff during this celebration.
Constituent meeting: focused on housing legislation and affordability
Burlingame Talks Shop Retail Forum/Summit: great event; excellent planning by staff, Mayor Colson, and
Councilmember Keighran
Thursday, 4/18/19:
Commute.org Board of Directors Meeting
Meeting with Peninsula Health Care District Board Member regarding Wellness Community and affordab le
housing component
League of California Cities CitiPAC event: represented City of Burlingame
Beach Committee Report May 6, 2019
3
Wednesday, 4/24/19 – Thursday, 4/25/19:
League of California Cities Legislative Action Day in Sacramento
o Attended Senator Weiner’s committee hearing on SB50 as it merged with SB4
o Led Peninsula Division delegation meetings with Senator Hill, Assemblymember Mullin, and the
office of Assemblymember Karla. Discussions focused on current housing legislation.
League of California Cities Board of Directors Meeting in Sacramento
o Approved all seven Policy Committee’s recommendations on legislation
o Robust discussion about Housing Legislation and approved housing legislation strategy and
provided staff direction regarding how the League should negotiate with the Governor and
legislature on behalf of California Cities.
Thursday, 4/25/19:
CalMod (Caltrain Modernization) Local Policy Makers Group
Much important work being done at Caltrain with their Vision 2040 Business Plan. Anyone interested in
learning more, our LPMG group’s meetings are now video recorded (prior audio recordings available) here:
http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Local_Policy_Maker_Group.html
Highlights:
Caltrain ridership predicted to increase significantly from today’s 65,000 daily weekday ridership to 161,000 -
207,000 daily riders depending on growth scenario. Data suggests there is sufficient ridership demand for its
highest growth scenario.
o Peak hour baseline growth = equivalent of building 2 new highway lanes
o Moderate growth = equivalent of building 2.5 new highway lanes
o High growth = equivalent of building 5.5 new highway lanes
Only in high growth scenario all ridership demand is served.
Moderate/Baseline growth scenario: at peak of peak hour commute, loss of capacity 35 -40% in baseline or
moderate growth scenario; over course of day OK
Quad gates are required by Federal Law with trains passing at 110 MPH – all grade crossings will get them
when/if HSR passes through (apx. by 2030?)
Estimated cost $9-11 billion to address 42 at-grade crossings on Caltrain corridor: some will be grade
separated; others will need to close. This estimate in 2018 dollars. Will need mega -measure funding and/or
massive infusion of Federal and State funding.
Perspective on cost: Caltrain Electrification total price tag = $2 billion (vs. $11 billion to address grade
separations.)
Important note impacting service in Burlingame:
o Currently in Caltrain’s draft proposed service plan, most communities benefit with additional
Caltrain service from moderate and high growth scenarios. However, proposed Burlingame service
remains stable with 2 trains per hour (once every 30 minutes) at both Broadway and Burlingame
station.
Beach Committee Report May 6, 2019
4
o In contrast, for example, San Mateo doubles their service (from 4 to 8 trains per hour, or 6 to 12
trains per hour, in one case quadruples service from 2 to 8 trains per hour) under the three different
growth scenarios at San Mateo station, Hayward Park Station, Hillsdale Station.
o I advocated strongly for Burlingame to receive additional service under moderate or high growth
scenario to mitigate additional train volumes passing through our community. Reminded Caltrain
that according to their data the highest crowding on trains along the entire corridor exists between
Burlingame Station and Millbrae. Reminded them of Burlingame’s commitment to transit -oriented
development in our General Plan update, which depends on robust Caltrain service.
o I also encouraged all cities to look carefully at the proposed service levels for their communities.
Only 3 stations along the Caltrain corridor have stagnant or reduced service levels.
C/CAG BPAC (Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee)
Approved grant applications and score sheets for upcoming MTC bike/ped grants worth apx. $2 million.
Friday, 4/26/19:
Meeting with members of Sierra Club; discussion of Burlingame and regional environmental issues
Council of Cities dinner: Assemblymember Phil Ting guest speaker; housing legislation key topic
Saturday, 4/27/19:
Joint City Council & Planning Commission Annual Meeting
Monday, 4/29/19:
C/CAG’s Congestion Management and Environmental Quality Committee
o Discussed San Mateo’s “regionally specific project list” updated once every 4 years that focuses on
key eligible projects for federal, state, and regional funding. Advocated strongly for Grade
Separations to be included on this list. Am working with staff (C/CAG and Caltrain) to follow up
on this issue. MTC resistant to including grade separations on this list.
o Received presentation from Sustainable Silicon Valley about Dumbarton Corridor.
Tuesday, 4/30/19:
San Mateo County Office of Education Safe Routes to School Advisory Committee
Developer meeting regarding Bayfront property
Home for All planning Meeting for 5/23 panel
Wednesday, 5/1/19:
Attended Burlingame Rotary Club luncheon