HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda packet - CC - 2019.07.01City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, July 1, 2019
CLOSED SESSION - 6:15 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. Morrision, City
Manager Lisa K. Goldman, City Attorney Kathleen Kane, Finance Director Carol
Augustine
Employee Organizations: Association of Police Administrators, Burlingame Police
Officers Association, Burlingame Police Sergeants Association, AFSCME Local 829
Administrative Unit, AFSCME Local 829 Maintenance Unit, AFSCME Local 829
Burlingame Association of Middle Managers, Teamsters Local 856, and Department
Heads and Unrepresented Unit
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
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2019
July 1, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
6. PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Veolia Donation for Music in the Parka.
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 June 17, 2019a.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Appeal Procedures for Denial of Massage
Registration Under Chapter 6.39 of the Burlingame Municipal Code
b.
Staff Report
Proposed Ordinance
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Cratus Inc. for the East
Burlingame Avenue and Anza Lagoon Bridge Utility Improvements Project, City Project
No. 83522, and Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Coastland for
Construction Management Services Related to the Project
c.
Staff Report
Resolution Awarding Construction Contract
Resolution Approving Professional Services Agreement
Bid Summary
Project Location Map
Construction Contract
Professional Services Agreement
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the 2018 Sidewalk Repair Program by Golden Bay
Construction, Inc., City Project No. 85250
d.
Staff Report
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2019
July 1, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the California Drive Roundabout Project by Redgwick
Construction Co., City Project No. 83920
e.
Staff Report
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Ray Park Playground Project, City Project No .
84440
f.
Staff Report
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with
PFM Financial Advisors LLC for Financial Advisory Services
g.
Staff Report
Resolution
Agreement
Attachments:
Letter From the Mayor to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the
Association of Bay Area Governments Regarding a Potential Office Space Cap in
Burlingame
h.
Staff Report
Letter to MTC and ABAG
Futures Round 2 Strategy Details
Attachments:
Set Public Hearing Date for an Appeal of the Planning Commission ’s May 28, 2019
Action Denying an Application for Design Review Amendment for Changes to a
Previously Approved First and Second Story Addition to an Existing Split -Level House at
25 Arundel Road
i.
Staff Report
Appeal Letter
Attachments:
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
Special Event Permit Discussion and Determinationa.
Staff Report
Special Event Application Submitted by Applicant
Letter to Council from Applicant
Photos from Applicant
Attachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2019
July 1, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Vacation of a 10-Foot Wide Public Utility
Easement at 1568 Alturas Drive
b.
Staff Report
Resolution
Exhibit A to Resolution
Letters of Consent from Utility Companies
Publication Affidavit
Attachments:
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
Discussion of Affordable Housing Fund Programsa.
Staff Report
Memorandum: Options for Affordable Housing Trust Fund Policies
Attachment A: Potential Priority Goals/Strategies
Attachment B: Homelessness Prevention Programs
Attachment C: Use of NOFA Process
Attachments:
Update on the New Community Center Projectb.
Staff Report
Project Budget
Community Center Rendering
Community Center Rendering
Attachments:
Adoption of an Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement for Lots F
and N
c.
Staff Report
Proposed Resolution
Amendment to DDA
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
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2019
July 1, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for
public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes are available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting
Monday, August 19, 2019
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda
will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose
Road during normal business hours.
Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2019
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on June 17, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Bobbi Benson.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Colson reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. US HIGHWAY 101 BROADWAY INTERCHANGE CALTRANS LANDSCAPING UPDATE
DPW Murtuza stated that per Councilmember Brownrigg’s request, staff scheduled a presentation
concerning the timeline of the landscaping project for the Broadway Interchange.
San Mateo County Transportation Authority (“TA”) project manager Pamela Quan explained that there are
two distinct landscaping components to the Broadway Interchange project:
1. Landscaping in Burlingame’s right-of-way (completed as part of the interchange project); and
2. Landscaping in Caltrans’ right-of-way
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
2
Ms. Quan reviewed the landscaping that was done in the City’s right-of-way. She displayed a map of the
work that was done, which includes the intersection of Rollins and Broadway and Old Bayshore Highway
and Airport Boulevard.
Ms. Quan reviewed the three main issues that caused a delay of the Caltrans’ right-of-way landscaping
project. The first reason was that pursuant to Caltrans’ policy, highway planting work has to be handled
under a separate contract following the completion of the roadway construction contract. Secondly, in
February 2014, Caltrans established a Drought Action Plan that deferred all highway planting work until
drought conditions improved. This ban was lifted in November 2016, and Caltrans has begun work on the
projects that were delayed. Thirdly, she explained that the landscape contract cannot proceed until Caltrans
has closed out all costs associated with the construction of the Broadway Interchange. She noted that there
were a few bills left to pay, and that then Caltrans would be able to determine what additional funds
remained for landscaping.
Ms. Quan discussed the timeline going forward for the landscaping project:
May 2019- begin final design
March/April 2020 – complete final design
Summer 2020 – advertise for construction
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the City would have a chance to comment on the final design. Ms.
Quan stated that the TA met with City staff to discuss the design. She explained that Caltrans has a set
framework for highway planting. She noted that anything beyond the standard design requires maintenance
from the City. DPW Murtuza added that the Parks and Recreation staff reviewed the design and commented
on the types of trees and plants that should be used.
Mark Thomas (landscape architecture firm) project manager Christine Anderson discussed the consultant’s
landscaping design for the project. She noted that the consultants chose plants that are drought tolerant,
would filter storm water before it enters the Bay, are easy to maintain, and are aesthetically pleasing.
Ms. Anderson discussed project costs. She stated that the consultants had identified $1.2 million for
construction, which equates to approximately $200,000 per acre. She noted that usually Caltrans designs to
$155,000 per acre.
Ms. Anderson displayed an overhead picture of the consultants’ landscape concept for the interchange. She
stated that the design uses trees and low shrubs to soften the look of the engineered slopes. She noted that
Caltrans has requested that the shrubs are no taller than three feet and that trees are limbed up to ensure
visibility. She added that the plan is to use small and medium sized trees to highlight areas.
Councilmember Keighran asked about the height of medium sized trees. Ms. Anderson stated that Caltrans
defines medium as up to 25 feet in height.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if all the trees in the design are medium sized. Ms. Anderson replied in
the negative and explained that the design includes some large shade and evergreen trees.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
3
Ms. Anderson stated that the project includes swales to filter off any trash before it enters the Bay. She
noted that Caltrans requested that the consultants add cobble mulch areas to soften the rip rap areas.
Ms. Anderson reviewed the recommended plant palette.
Large Tree – Quercus Douglasii, Quercus, Agrifolia, Cedrus Deodara, and Pesudoisuga Menziesii
Medium and Small Tree – Pistacia Chinensis, Acacia Dealbata, lagerstroemia Indica, and
Metrosideros Excelsa
Shrub and Ground Cover – Plumbago Auricuiata, Cotinus Coggygria, Ceanothus “Dark Star”, Ilex
Cornuia “Burfordii”, Jasminum Mesnyi, Mimulus Hybrids, Acacia Redolens, Cotoneaster Dammeri
“Lowfast”, and Arctostaphylos Uva-Ursi
Biofiltration Area Planting – Achillea Millefouum, Salvia Spathacea, Epilobium Canum “Catalina”,
and Carex Divulsa
Ms. Quan stated that it is estimated that the project will cost $2.4 to $2.9 million. She noted that there is
currently $1.9 million committed to the project.
DPW Murtuza stated that construction should be completed by Summer/Fall 2021.
DPW Murtuza stated that based on staff’s workload, it would be difficult for the City to undertake the
project. Accordingly, he explained that he had informed the TA that the City would prefer that Caltrans
implement the project and the TA manage the design.
Vice Mayor Beach thanked the consultants and staff for the presentation. She noted that she is a member of
the TA’s Board of Directors and discussed the meeting where the Board approved additional funding of $7.5
million for the Broadway Interchange project. She stated that $7.5 million was a substantial increase to the
project cost. She explained that the additional funding included $3.5 million for utilities and $2 million for
landscaping. She asked if there were additional funds remaining that could be used for this project. Ms.
Quan stated that Caltrans and the TA are working on closing out the PG&E contract and would have a better
idea after this is completed.
Councilmember Keighran asked if she was correct that DPW Murtuza’s preference was for Caltrans to take
over the maintenance of the proposed landscaping. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative and added that
the landscaping is in Caltrans’ right-of-way.
Councilmember Keighran asked if there would be a point person that staff could work with to ensure that the
landscaping is maintained. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked how many large trees are included in the design. Ms. Anderson stated that
there are approximately 200 trees planed for the area, half of which would be large.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the design phase would really take a year and if there was any way to
speed up the process. Ms. Anderson stated that the consultants were working with Caltrans at each step of
the project to ensure that the project is completed as quickly as possible.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
4
Mayor Colson asked if it was possible to put a sign up to alert the public about the future landscaping plans
for the area. Ms. Anderson stated that while this can’t be done on Caltrans land, this could be done on City
land.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Bobbi Benson discussed her concerns about the proposed height of some of the shrubs
and the maintenance of the land.
Mayor Colson closed public comment.
Mayor Colson thanked staff for the presentation.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff voiced concern about complete dig out projects and asked the City to
consider underground setback regulations.
Wynn Grcich voiced concern about water purity.
A Burlingame resident discussed her concern about wireless facilities and cell towers.
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 8c and 8i.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8d, 8e, 8f, 8g, 8h, and 8j; seconded by
Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 3, 2019
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes for June 3, 2019.
b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 (ZONING CODE) – CODE SECTION 25.32.030
(BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) AND 25.70.090 (OFF-STREET
PARKING) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL
RECREATION AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE
COMMERCIAL (BAC) DISTRICT
CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 66-2019 and Ordinance 1966.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
5
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH WILSEY HAM FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN AND SURVEY
SERVICES FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CHAPIN AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that this item was for a $100,000 feasibility study of Chapin Avenue
between El Camino Real and Primrose Road. He explained that he didn’t understand what the City was
looking to accomplish with the study. He asked if the City was looking to slow traffic on Chapin, install
green infrastructure, or make better use of the wide road. Additionally, he asked if staff had discussed the
proposed study with Molly Stones.
DPW Murtuza stated that for a long time, staff has studied Chapin Avenue and discussed ways to add
parking and improve pedestrian crossings. He explained that recently, the County conducted a study that
looked at available opportunities for green infrastructure and identified Chapin Avenue as one of the best
options. He noted that adding green infrastructure to Chapin Avenue would help the City reach specific
pollutant load reductions required by the Regional Water Board.
DPW Murtuza explained that the study would look at the feasibility of different projects for Chapin Avenue.
He noted that under the study, the City would conduct public outreach and receive input from the
surrounding businesses.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he didn’t see the urgency in funding projects to improve Chapin
Avenue.
Vice Mayor Beach voiced her support for this study. She discussed green infrastructure requirements that
the State is working on and how this study will assist the City in compl ying with future regulations. She
noted that this project would also help to address community issues of parking and pedestrian crossing. She
asked that staff and the consultants work with TSPC and BPAC to address their concerns from the
beginning.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she felt the City’s focus should be on North Rollins Road as the City
was preparing to create a new neighborhood in that area.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he worked on Chapin Avenue for two years. He noted that he believed it
was important to address safety concerns and the need for green infrastructure on Chapin Avenue. He stated
that the City would be able to apply for grants for this project.
Vice Mayor Beach asked why staff marked this project as a priority. DPW Murtuza discussed the County
study and concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety.
Councilmember Keighran asked the police department to provide data on citations and accidents that have
occurred in this area. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
6
Mayor Colson asked if this study could include the intersection in front of City Hall and the Library. DPW
Murtuza stated that because of the complexity of the intersection in front of City Hall it will have to be
handled as a separate item.
Mayor Colson discussed the post office project and the potential need to accommodate the farmers’ market
in a different area. She suggested that the study include potentially using Chapin Avenue for other needs
such as the farmers’ market.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Bobbi Benson discussed adding parking spots to Chapin Avenue.
Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff discussed a similar street in Pacific Grove and asked the City to look at
that design.
Mayor Colson closed public comment.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 67-2019; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN, CITY PROJECT NOS. 85160,
85170, AND 85180, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 68-2019.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR THE PER
CAPITA PROPOSITION 68 GRANT(S)
P&R Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 69-2019.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE AFSCME LOCAL 829 ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT
AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, AND APPROVING THE
CITY OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY SCHEDULE)
HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 70-2019.
g. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE
AND EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
7
WITH BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA, INC. FOR PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING
INSPECTION SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-2019 TO INCREASE THE
CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $300,000 TO COVER EXPECTED EXPENSES RELATED TO
TWO LARGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 71-2019.
h. APPROVAL OF THE DONATION, RECOGNITION, AND SPONSOR POLICY FOR THE
NEW COMMUNITY CENTER FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN
P&R Director Glomstad requested Council approve of the Donation, Recognition, and Sponsor Policy for the
new Community Center fundraising campaign.
i. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER TO THE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA
GOVERNMENTS REGARDING A POTENTIAL OFFICE SPACE CAP IN BURLINGAME
Councilmember Brownrigg commended Mayor Colson for paying attention to MTC’s proposal and the
Mayor’s decision to write a letter on behalf of the City. He stated that almost always the better way to
discourage activity is to put a price on it versus regulating with hard caps. He suggested that if the County
wanted to regulate office space growth, then the cities should determine an appropriate fee to discourage the
growth. He noted that then the cities would need to work together to determine how best to use the fees.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that one-size fits all regulation doesn’t work. She noted that there are several
examples in the Bay Area of cities considering caps including Palo Alto and Mountain View. She stated that
there are a lot of unintended consequences to creating a cap. She suggested that the letter to MTC state that
the City will consider innovative solutions to deal with the jobs housing gap. She noted that if the City were
to consider an office space cap, there would need to be a discussion with staff concerning the goals and cap
structure that would work best in Burlingame. She added that this decision couldn’t happen at the State
level.
Councilmember Keighran asked to see a draft of the letter before it is sent. She noted that like the CASA
Compact, this is another example of MTC and ABAG governing what the City should be doing.
Mayor Colson thanked her colleagues for their support. She explained that she was alerted to this issue by
Rosanne Faust and that other cities would be writing letters too. She stated that part of the issue with the cap
is that MTC is using the numbers from the 2016 census, which don’t reflect the total number of housing units
in the city. Additionally, she explained that there wasn’t a clear reasoning behind capping office space
where the jobs to housing ratio is greater than or equal to 2.0. She stated that the methodology is not
objective, and their goal is for businesses to relocate to other cities with smaller jobs housing gaps.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
8
Burlingame resident Bobbi Benson voiced her dislike of the MTC/ABAG proposal.
Mayor Colson closed public comment.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to MTC and ABAG
regarding a potential office space cap in Burlingame; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion
passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 PERSONNEL
CHANGES
HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 72-2019.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS (1) ADOPTING THE FY 2019-20
OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE
DIRECTOR TO ASSIGN USES OF FUND BALANCE AMOUNTS; (2) APPROVING THE
GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT; AND (3) APPROVING A CONTRIBUTION TO THE
CITY’S PENSION BENEFIT TRUST ACCOUNT WITH PARS
Finance Director Augustine stated that there were a few changes to the proposed FY 2019-20 budget after
the May 2019 Budget Study Session:
1. Increase of $200,000 in property tax revenues
2. $5,000 increase in community funding
3. Increase of $3.5 million in transfer to Capital Investment Reserve
4. Additional $800,000 restricted for Pension Trust Fund contribution
Finance Director Augustine discussed the projected General Fund revenues for FY 2019-20. She explained
that property tax increased due to higher assessed valuations. She noted that the assessment role will
continue to grow until June 30, 2019. She noted that the sales and use tax revenues in the current year were
much higher than anticipated due to three anomalies:
CDFTA launched new software that confused people, which led to late reporting
Increase due to back orders in new automobile sector
One-time revenues received from development projects
Finance Director Augustine stated that charges for services revenues are predicted to decline because the
volume of development activity is expected to decrease, and the Recreation Center will be closed for half of
the fiscal year.
Finance Director Augustine noted that TOT remains strong, but noted that the City is beginning to see
growth slow down.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
9
Finance Director Augustine discussed General Fund expenditures. She noted that the salaries and wages for
FY 2019-20 are $19,667,799, and benefits are $12,260,661. She stated that there was an insignificant
change in FTE from last year to this year. Therefore, it is a good time to review personnel costs and compare
expenses between the two years. She explained that the total personnel costs are going up 3.2% and that the
majority of this increase is due to retirement costs. She noted that there is a $786,517 increase in retirement
costs from the previous year.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the City’s different reserve funds. She noted that the proposed $3.5
million increase in funding of the Capital Investment Reserve and $800,000 increase in Section 115 Pension
Trust funding contributed to a decrease of $2.5 million in the unassigned fund balance. She stated that the
Economic Stability Reserve is funded at 24% of General Fund revenues and is projected to be $18.9 million
in the coming fiscal year.
Finance Director Augustine stated that no changes have been made to the City’s Capital Improvement
Program since the May Budget Study Session.
Finance Director Augustine showed a pie chart of the proposed FY 2019-20 appropriations by major fund.
She noted that the City’s capital projects compose 21.34% of total appropriations and general fund is 49.7%.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the Gann Appropriation limit. She explained that the limit is a
required exercise as a result of a November 1979 initiative. She stated that it places a limit on growth of
expenditures for public programs and is adjusted annually for changes in cost of living and population. She
noted that the current fiscal year’s Gann Appropriation limit doesn’t include the Measure I revenues.
Accordingly, the proposed Gann Appropriation limit resolution for FY 2019-20 includes a correction the
previous year’s limit.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the City’s strategy for its long term liabilities. She explained that the
OPEB liability at the end of last year was $53.1 million. However, she stated that the actuarial assets held by
the CERBT account should be close to $19 million by the end of the current fiscal year. She stated that the
OPEB liability will be fully funded b y 2034.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the proposed contributions to the Section 115 Trust by fund for FY
2019-20
General Fund - $2,957,000
Admin/IT ISF - $3,950
Building Enterprise - $57,900
Facilities ISF - $39,300
Fleet/Equipment ISF - $23,460
Landfill Fund - $3,490
Parking Enterprise - $13,200
Sewer Enterprise - $117,700
Solid Waste Enterprise - $20,000
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
10
Water Enterprise - $143,000
The total funding for the Section 115 Trust is $3,379,000. She noted that at the end of FY 2019-20, there
will be about $11.5 million with the inclusion of the $800,000 for CCFD.
Mayor Colson discussed the five-year forecast numbers for pension funding. She asked what the total dollar
amount is that the City is trying to get to in the Section 115 Trust. Finance Director Augustine stated that it
should be about $17 million when the City begins to draw down on the funds.
Finance Director Augustine stated that in terms of the City’s infrastructure liabilities, the City has been
funding the Capital Investment Reserve for several years. She noted that the projected balance of the Capital
Investment Reserve at the end of FY 2019-20 is $35.3 million.
Mayor Colson stated the City will pay for the new Community Center by first drawing down on the bond
funding and then on the Capital Investment Reserve. Finance Director Augustine noted that the City is
current putting the annual contribution of $1 million in Measure I and $1 million in General Fund money in
the debt service funds for the Community Center.
Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the staff and the Council have done a great job at growing reserves and
controlling costs.
Vice Mayor Beach agreed with Councilmember Ortiz and noted there is nearly $10 million in the Section
115 Trust and $35 million in Capital Reserves.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 73-2019, Resolution Number 74-2019,
and Resolution Number 75-2019; seconded by Vice Mayor Beach. The motion passed unanimously by
voice vote, 5-0.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE EL CAMINO REAL
UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT 2019-1
DPW Murtuza stated that PG&E converts many miles of overhead electric facilities to underground utilities
on an annual basis through work credits accumulated by communities in the California Public Utilities
Commission (“CPUC”) Rule 20A program. He explained the Rule 20A program is funded by utility revenue
that PG&E collects. The funds are then distributed to cities that meet specific criteria and establish an
underground utility district.
DPW Murtuza stated that currently the City has approximately $5.7 million in Rule 20A funding. He noted
that the total estimated cost of undergrounding overhead power lines on El Camino Real between Peninsula
Avenue and Dufferin Avenue is $25 to $30 million. He explained that although the Council has expressed
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
11
interest in undergrounding the power lines on El Camino Real, the complexity of utility infrastructure and
Caltrans regulations have prevented the project from moving forward.
DPW Murtuza stated that recently, CPUC passed Resolution E-4971, which ordered PG&E to reallocate
$554,000 of unused Rule 20A credits from agencies including Burlingame to the City of Live Oak. He
explained that if the City doesn’t create an underground utility district by July 24, 2019, the City will lose
approximately $20,000 in Rule 20A credits.
DPW Murtuza stated that the proposed underground utility district is approximately 13,000 linear feet with
140 power poles.
DPW Murtuza explained that staff has not created a scope of work for undergrounding utilities on El Camino
Real nor has a schedule been developed. He added that other sources of funding would need to be identified
for the project.
DPW Murtuza stated that to be eligible for Rule 20A funding, the City Council must find that an
underground utility district is in the general public interest for one or more of the following reasons:
1. Undergrounding avoids or eliminates an unusually heavy concentration of overhead electric facilities;
2. The street right-of-way is extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of
pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
3. The street right-of-way adjoins or passes through a civic area, public recreation area, or an area of
unusual scenic interest to the general public; and/or
4. The street or road or right-of-way is an arterial street or major collector.
He noted that El Camino Real satisfies the second and fourth point.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the City has a deadline to underground the utilities once a utility district is
established. DPW Murtuza replied in the negative.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the underground utility district is established if the City could obtain
unused Rule 20A credits from other cities. DPW Murtuza stated that the City has several options to assist in
funding the project. He explained that the City could borrow against future Rule 20A credits or purchase
unused credits from other cities at a discount rate. He added that the City would need to look at other
sources of funding.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if she was correct that this district wouldn’t be an assessment district that could be
taxed. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Colson opened the public hearing.
Burlingame residents Bobbi Benson and Jennifer Pfaff voiced their support for the establishment of the
district and undergrounding utilities on El Camino Real.
Mayor Colson closed the public hearing.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
12
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the importance of working with PG&E to underground the utilities.
He noted that he believed El Camino Real also qualified to be a utility district according to the third point.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 76-2019; seconded by Councilmember
Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
c. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR
DENIAL OF MASSAGE REGISTRATION UNDER CHAPTER 6.39 OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE
City Attorney Kane stated that in recent years the City has had to make numerous amendments to the
Municipal Code in relation to the regulation of massage establishments. She explained that the Police
Department regulates the registration process for individual practitioners and businesses in the city. She
stated under the City’s code, there is specific criteria that individuals and businesses are required to meet in
order to obtain their initial registration and their renewal. However, occasionally individuals don’t qualify
under the criteria, and the Police Department denies the renewal or initial registration. She stated that in
those cases, the applicant has a due process right to an appeal.
City Attorney Kane stated that the way the system was originally set up was that the appeals would be heard
by the Council. She explained that based on sister cities’ experiences, the appeals are fact intensive and
involve the development of a record on appeal. Accordingly, the City Council is not the best place to have a
fact intensive hearing. Therefore, she proposed amending the code to allow a professional to hear appeals.
City Attorney Kane explained that the proposed ordinance has the City Manager designate the hearing
officer. She noted that the hearing officer may be a Department Head – other than those potentially involved
in the determination to deny registration – or an independent hearing officer retained by the City.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if other cities were hiring independent hearing officers or if the City would be the
first. City Attorney Kane explained that each city regulates the massage industry differently and that she
believed this would be the best practice not only for the City but also for the individual appealing.
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 Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Mayor Colson asked that the City Clerk publish notice at least 5 days prior to the proposed adoption.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
13
10. STAFF REPORTS
a. CONSIDERATION OF TWO APPOINTMENTS TO THE LIBRARY BOARD OF
TRUSTEES
Mayor Colson explained that there were vacancies on the Library Board of Trustees due to the expiring
terms of Andrew Blanco and Lisa Rosenthal. She stated that both Board members chose not to reapply.
Accordingly, the Council interviewed five candidates on May 24, 2019. She noted that two of the candidates
live in Hillsborough.
City Manager Goldman explained that residents of Hillsborough are allowed to sit on the Library Board of
Trustees because Hillsborough helps pay for the costs of running the City’s libraries.
Councilmember Ortiz noted that this was an unusually strong group of candidates.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
The council voted and the City Clerk read the ballots.
Elisabeth Ostrow and Danielle Roces Garcia received a majority of the votes and therefore were appointed to
the two seats on the Library Board of Trustees.
b. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON
MODIFICATIONS TO OR DEMOLITION OF THE SEA WALL ON BURLINGAME’S
BAYFRONT
City Manager Goldman stated that during the City’s goal setting session, the Council identified five
infrastructure initiatives for special focus over the next year. She explained that the Mayor assigned two
Councilmembers to champion each initiative. One of the initiatives is sea level rise shoreline protection
improvements, and Mayor Colson and Councilmember Brownrigg are the assigned Councilmembers.
City Manager Goldman explained that the City received a grant from San Mateo County to evaluate sea level
rise as it relates to Burlingame and identify potential near-term and long-term adaption strategies that would
be applicable to the particular site conditions of the Bayfront. She noted that the result will be a high-level
assessment that will inform policies and future planning efforts.
City Manager Goldman stated that staff, Councilmember Brownrigg, and Mayor Colson have been busy
working on the grant project. She explained that the City held a stakeholder meeting with hotel general
managers on sea level rise and potential strategies. She also noted that some developers have proposed piers,
ferries, and other Bayfront activities.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
14
City Manager Goldman stated that based on the discussion, the Councilmembers determined that it might be
prudent to place a moratorium on any significant modifications to or demolition of the sea wall while the
City develops a long-term plan to address sea level rise.
CDD Gardiner stated that the sea level rise study is moving along, and staff is receiving administrative drafts
of materials. He explained that the study looks at segments of the shoreline with similar existing principal
characteristics called reaches. The consultants have identified five similar reaches in Burlingame and will be
identifying a unified approach for these segments. He added that there will be stakeholder meetings next
month and that the City is forming a technical advisory committee.
Mayor Colson discussed the City’s $40,000 funding to the Flood and Sea Level Rise District. She explained
that the district is planning to conduct comprehensive countywide discussions and determine multifaceted
solutions for the entire County. She stated that as the County undertakes this process, it is important that the
City put a moratorium on potential projects that could affect the sea wall.
Vice Mayor Beach voiced her support for a regional approach and that the City was undertaking its own
study. She asked how long the temporary moratorium would be. CDD Gardiner stated that the moratorium
should run at least as long as it takes the City to complete the study. However, he noted that the study would
lead to suggested solutions, and therefore the City might want the moratorium to run until the Council can
make decisions based off the study.
Councilmember Keighran and Councilmember Ortiz voiced support for the moratorium.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he was also in favor of the moratorium. He stated that recently Spur
and San Francisco Estuary Institute released a survey of the entire Bay. He explained that the study is a
thorough look at each region of the Bay. He noted that the study states that for Burlingame’s geography,
there is a need to build a sea wall that is reinforced. He stated that this was most likely a preview of what the
City’s study would say.
City Manager Goldman stated that there was a consensus by the Council to move forward with a
moratorium. She noted that staff would need to draft an ordinance creating the moratorium. She asked the
Council to determine how long the moratorium should be.
City Attorney Kane stated that the ending of the moratorium could be triggered by an event, like the
completion of the study. She explained that under the Government Code, the moratorium would first run for
45 days, then after re-evaluation, Council could extend the moratorium for 10 months. She added that the
Government Code prevents moratoriums from being extended past their necessity.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if Council’s only option was the 45-day moratorium with a 10 month extension or
could the Council put into place a moratorium that ends after the study is completed. City Attorney Kane
stated that as one of the reasons for a moratorium, the Council can note the pendency of a study and state that
the moratorium will expire on the earlier of the statutory time frame or the completion of the study. Vice
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 07/01/19
Burlingame City Council June 17, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
15
Mayor Beach asked if the 45-day moratorium would start after the study. City Attorney Kane stated that she
believed the direction was to start the moratorium now.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if the moratorium would preclude a project from moving forward that wouldn’t
touch the sea wall but wanted to conduct a study. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that she was in support of the initial study and having a reset at the end of the study
when the City has more information and has been given options.
City Attorney Kane stated that the longest a temporary moratorium can run is 2 years. Therefore, within that
time, Council will need to determine what sort of medium term plan the City should adopt for the Bayfront.
She noted that as the City gets more information, this plan can change.
Council agreed.
City Attorney Kane stated that staff would bring back the ordinance in August for Council’s review.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCMENTS
a. VICE MAYOR BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, 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 9:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8b
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Appeal Procedures for Denial of
Massage Registration Under Chapter 6.39 of the Burlingame Municipal Code
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the adoption of an ordinance amending appeal
procedures for denial of massage registration under Chapter 6.39 of the Municipal Code. In order
to do so, the Council should:
A. By motion, adopt the proposed ordinance.
B. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
Burlingame’s 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 under Municipal Code Section
6.39.070.
The Municipal Code currently provides that the City Council should hear appeals from the denial of
massage registration. Upon review of this procedure, staff has determined that appeals under
Chapter 6.39 are likely to be more fact-intensive and involve greater need for development of
particularized findings of fact than appeals from subordinate commissions. Further, scheduling a
special meeting of the Council is difficult to achieve in a time frame that is responsive to appellants’
interest in a speedy hearing. Given these differences from other appeals heard by Council, staff
suggests that appeal hearings be removed from Council and given instead to a hearing officer who
will be better equipped to conduct the kind of proceedings called for under Section 6.39.070. The
hearing officer will be designated by the City Manager and may be a Department Head – other than
those potentially involved in the determination to deny registration – or an independent hearing
officer retained by the City. The attached proposed ordinance also modifies some of the timelines
Massage Appeal Procedure Ordinance July 1, 2019
2
provided in the code, in order to provide greater flexibility in scheduling appeals and improved
notice to the applicant.
The Council introduced the ordinance and held a public hearing on it at the June 17, 2019 Council
meeting. The ordinance is now back for adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the City General Fund.
Exhibit:
Proposed Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING SECTION 6.39.070 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
APPEALS OF MASSAGE PERMIT DENIALS
WHEREAS, Chapter 6.39 of the Burlingame Municipal Code governs the
establishment, registration, and conduct of massage establishments within the
City in compliance with State law; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.39.070 provides that if registration or renewal is
denied by the Police Department, an applicant may appeal that decision to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.39.070 further sets forth the timing and certain
aspects of the method for hearing the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the time frames provided for in the current ordinance have
proved to be impractical to coordinate with scheduling a Council hearing; and
WHEREAS, the nature of appeal proceedings under Chapter 6.39 differ
from those otherwise heard by Council, such as appeals from subordinate
commissions, insofar as appeals under Chapter 6.39 are likely to require greater
presentation and evaluation of evidence and development of findings of fact; and
WHEREAS, a designated hearing officer is better equipped than the
Council to conduct a hearing on the matters raised in appeals under Chapter
6.39; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
DIVISION 1:
Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Section 6.39.070 is amended as follows:
Existing Section 6.39.070 is amended as follows, with strikethrough text
indicating deletions and underlined text indicating insertions:
“6.39.070.
If registration or renewal is denied, applicant has thirteen (13) calendar ten (10)
days from the date of mailing the denial notice within which to appeal to the city
council by filing a written application for a public hearing with the clerk of the city.
The written appeal application must state the grounds on which the applicant
objects to the denial of the registration or renewal. Notice and a public hearing
shall be given as follows:
(a) Upon receipt of the appeal, the city clerk shall set the matter for hearing
before the council a hearing officer, as designated by the City Manager, who may
be an independent hearing officer retained by the City or a City Department Head
other than the City Attorney or Chief of Police, at a regular meeting thereof, as
soon as is practicable but in any event within sixty (60) days from the date of
filing the appeal, and shall give written notice of the hearing to the applicant at
the applicant’s address set forth in the appeal by first class mail at least ten (10)
thirty (30) days prior to the hearing date, unless an earlier date is set by mutual
agreement of the City and appellant. The date for the appeal hearing may be
modified upon the request of the applicant or upon consultation and agreement
between the applicant and the city. The appeal hearing shall be public, and
notice of the scheduled hearing shall be provided in the same manner as for
appeals of decisions of the Planning Commission.
(b) On the date set, the council hearing officer shall hear the matter, and
may continue it from time to time before reaching a decision. The proceedings
before the council hearing officer shall be informal and the rules of evidence shall
not apply. However, the applicant and any interested parties may present such
evidence as they deem appropriate, provided it complies with the any procedures
set forth by the council for appeals. If the council hearing officer finds that the
applicant has satisfactorily met all of the requirements of this chapter, it she or he
shall order the issuance of the registration and business license. If it she or he
finds that the requirements have not been met satisfactorily, it she or he shall
deny the registration.
(c) All findings of the council hearing officer shall be final and conclusive
upon the applicant.”
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 17th day of June, 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: 8c
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Cratus Inc., for
the East Burlingame Avenue and Anza Lagoon Bridge Utility Improvements
Project, City Project No. 83522, and Approving a Professional Services
Agreement with Coastland for Construction Management Services Related to
the Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions as follows:
(1) Award a construction contract to Cratus Inc., for the East Burlingame Avenue and Anza
Lagoon Bridge Utility Improvements Project, City Project No 83522, in the amount of
$3,632,704 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract; and
(2) Approve a professional services agreement with Coastland Civil Engineering, Inc. in the
amount of $266,790 for construction management services related to the project and
authorize the City Manager to execute the same.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has implemented a robust Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to address the
City’s aging infrastructure. This project consists of installing new water mains and new sanitary
sewer mains along the eastern portion of Burlingame Avenue to limit the construction disruption to
residents and complete the improvements ahead of the new community center project construction.
The deteriorated pipelines on the eastern portion of Burlingame Avenue were originally installed in
1905 and 1914, respectively, and have reached the end of their useful lives.
The water main work consists of replacing approximately 3,600 linear feet of four-inch diameter
cast iron water main on Burlingame Avenue from East Lane to South Rollins Road with new
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and ductile iron pipes. The existing 4-inch and 6-inch diameter cast iron
pipes will be increased in size to new 6-inch and 8-inch diameter Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and
ductile iron water main. The sanitary sewer collection system scope of work consists of replacing
old sanitary sewer pipelines with approximately 2,100 linear feet of new 8-inch diameter Polyvinyl
Chloride (PVC) and High Density Poly-ethylene (HDPE) sewer mains on Burlingame Avenue from
East Lane to Dwight Road. In addition, eight new sanitary sewer manholes will be installed as part
of the project.
Award of Construction Contract and Professional Services Agreement for July 1, 2019
East Burlingame Avenue & Anza Lagoon Bridge Utility Improvements Project
2
The new potable water system infrastructure will improve water quality, flow, and pressure to serve
the residents in the area. In addition, the new water system will improve fire protection capability
for the residents in the affected area. Similarly, the improved sanitary sewer system infrastructure
will help reduce sanitary sewage overflows, minimize sewage stoppages, and improve the
environment.
Additionally, the water main upgrade at the Anza Lagoon Bridge (between Kincaid’s restaurant and
Embassy Suites) was added to the project as a bid alternate. A 12-inch diameter steel water main
dated 1976 is attached to the existing bridge structure and is showing signs of deterioration. Failure
of the existing pipe could result in a discharge of chloraminated water into the San Francisco Bay
and may potentially affect the habitat of the marine environment. A new 8-inch diameter PVC pipe
is proposed to be slip-lined into the existing pipe with flexible joints and valves as required.
DISCUSSION
Construction Contract: The project was advertised for bids on May 13, 2019. The sealed bids were
opened on June 6, 2019, and a total of six bids were received ranging from $3,436,504 to
$3,838,582. Cratus Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of $3,436,504, which
is 9% lower than the engineer’s estimate of $3,793,395. Staff has reviewed Cratus Inc.’s proposal
and finds that the contractor has met all the project requirements and has a past history of
performing similar work successfully for the City and other agencies. As a result, staff recommends
that the City Council award the project to Cratus Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute
the construction contract.
Professional Services Contract: Coastland Civil Engineering, Inc. has been selected as the top
qualified firm to provide professional services related to construction management and inspection
through a competitive RFP (Request for Proposal) process. Coastland has extensive experience
in construction management and inspection services for utility work and has successfully completed
similar projects for the City in the past. Staff has negotiated a professional service fee with
Coastland Engineering in the amount of $266,790 for the following scope of professional services:
Attend and manage pre-construction meetings between the City and contractor;
Perform daily construction inspections and provide construction management services for
a 120 working day construction period;
Assemble project files and administer construction management procedures;
Prepare daily written construction reports and document photographic records of the
project;
Attend weekly construction progress meetings, perform necessary field engineering work,
and perform quality assurance assessments;
Provide written reports and documentation, including weekly statement of working days,
meeting minutes, field directive log, and tracking change orders;
Perform construction management services including manage submittals, requests for
information (RFI), labor compliance, and maintaining records;
Award of Construction Contract and Professional Services Agreement for July 1, 2019
East Burlingame Avenue & Anza Lagoon Bridge Utility Improvements Project
3
Perform cost and schedule management including review and advise the City on
contractor’s overall and weekly construction schedule as well as tracking work quantities’
calculations;
Provide public relations and outreach services;
Provide conflict resolution and claims management services including negotiate claims,
advise the City regarding liquidated damages, and final payment; and
Perform project close out inspection and develop final punch list.
The professional service fee amount represents approximately 7% of the construction cost. The
amount is consistent with industry standards for construction management and inspection services
based on the scope and complexity of the project.
The project construction is anticipated to begin in August 2019 and anticipated to be completed by
February 2020.
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated final project expenditures:
Construction $3,632,704
Construction Inspection & Testing $266,790
Engineering Design & Administration $75,000
Contingencies $625,506
Total $4,600,0000
Funding Availability
The City Council has previously approved the project as part of the City’s Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). Adequate funding is available in the following CIP project accounts.
CIP 326-83521 – Shoreland Subdivision Water Improvements $1,232,000
CIP 326-83522 – East Burlingame Avenue Water Improvements $1,500,000
CIP 326-84570 – Anza Lagoon Bridge Water Improvements $365,000
CIP 327-83522 – East Burlingame Avenue Sewer Improvements $1,500,000
Total $4,600,0000
Exhibits:
Resolution Awarding Construction Contract
Resolution Approving Professional Services Agreement
Bid Summary
Project Location Map
Construction Contract
Professional Services Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO CRATUS INC., FOR EAST
BURLINGAME AVENUE AND ANZA LAGOON BRIDGE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
CITY PROJECT NO. 83522
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2019, the City issued notice inviting bid proposals for the East
Burlingame Avenue and Anza Lagoon Bridge Utility Improvements Project, City Project No.
83522; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2019, all proposals were received and opened before the City
Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, Cratus Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of
$3,632,704.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED and ORDERED,
1. That the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted;
and
2. That the bid of Cratus Inc. for said project in the amount of $3,632,704, is accepted;
and
3. That a contract be entered into between the successful bidder and the City of
Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager is authorized on behalf
of the City of Burlingame to execute the contract and to approve the faithful performance bond
and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor.
____________________
Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day of July,
2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COASTLAND
CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE EAST BURLINGAME AVENUE AND ANZA
LAGOON BRIDGE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
CITY PROJECT NO. 83522
RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California which FINDS,
ORDERS and DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in
the title above.
2. The City Manager is authorized to sign said agreement on behalf of the City of
Burlingame.
3. The City Clerk is instructed to attest such signature.
_____________________________
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 1st day of July,
2019 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_____________________________
City Clerk
EAST BURLINGAME AVENUE ‐ UTILITY IMPROVEMENTSCity Project No. 83522BID SUMMARYBID OPENING: THURSDAY, June 6, 2019 at 2:00 P.M.ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTIONNo.QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT1 Mobilization 1 LS 5% 180,300.00$ 80,000.00$ 80,000.00$ 154,000.00$ 154,000.00$ 260,000.00$ 260,000.00$ 185,000.00$ 185,000.00$ 98,000.00$ 98,000.00$ 130,000.00$ 130,000.00$ 2 Traffic Control 1 LS 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 115,000.00$ 115,000.00$ 185,000.00$ 185,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 3 Sheeting, Shoring and Bracing 1 LS 24,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 105,000.00$ 105,000.00$ 110,000.00$ 110,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 4 Construction Staking and Survey 1 LS 9,500.00$ 9,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 18,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 5 Site Investigation and Potholing 1 LS 13,000.00$ 13,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 23,684.00$ 23,684.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 6 Storm Water Pollution Prevention 1 LS 7,800.00$ 7,800.00$ 12,500.00$ 12,500.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 74" Water Main ‐ C900 PVC 115 LF 200.00$ 23,000.00$ 225.00$ 25,875.00$ 160.00$ 18,400.00$ 180.00$ 20,700.00$ 120.00$ 13,800.00$ 320.00$ 36,800.00$ 215.00$ 24,725.00$ 86" Water Main ‐ C900 PVC 1230 LF 240.00$ 295,200.00$ 205.00$ 252,150.00$ 175.00$ 215,250.00$ 225.00$ 276,750.00$ 145.00$ 178,350.00$ 330.00$ 405,900.00$ 325.00$ 399,750.00$ 98" Water Main ‐ C900 PVC 3,210 LF 260.00$ 834,600.00$ 225.00$ 722,250.00$ 180.00$ 577,800.00$ 270.00$ 866,700.00$ 170.00$ 545,700.00$ 350.00$ 1,123,500.00$ 220.00$ 706,200.00$ 10 10" Water Main ‐ C900 PVC 105 LF 280.00$ 29,400.00$ 240.00$ 25,200.00$ 275.00$ 28,875.00$ 290.00$ 30,450.00$ 195.00$ 20,475.00$ 370.00$ 38,850.00$ 385.00$ 40,425.00$ 11 6" Water Main ‐ DIP 143 LF 310.00$ 44,330.00$ 260.00$ 37,180.00$ 195.00$ 27,885.00$ 280.00$ 40,040.00$ 145.00$ 20,735.00$ 375.00$ 53,625.00$ 305.00$ 43,615.00$ 12 8" Water Main ‐ DIP 96 LF 350.00$ 33,600.00$ 260.00$ 24,960.00$ 210.00$ 20,160.00$ 300.00$ 28,800.00$ 170.00$ 16,320.00$ 400.00$ 38,400.00$ 270.00$ 25,920.00$ 13 4" Plug or Cap & Thrust Block 6 EA 450.00$ 2,700.00$ 500.00$ 3,000.00$ 1,200.00$ 7,200.00$ 130.00$ 780.00$ 500.00$ 3,000.00$ 300.00$ 1,800.00$ 400.00$ 2,400.00$ 14 6" Plug or Cap & Thrust Block 26 EA 550.00$ 14,300.00$ 600.00$ 15,600.00$ 1,300.00$ 33,800.00$ 185.00$ 4,810.00$ 500.00$ 13,000.00$ 300.00$ 7,800.00$ 500.00$ 13,000.00$ 15 10" Plug or Cap & Thrust Block 2 EA 675.00$ 1,350.00$ 650.00$ 1,300.00$ 1,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 345.00$ 690.00$ 700.00$ 1,400.00$ 380.00$ 760.00$ 600.00$ 1,200.00$ 16 Fitting 6" 90 Degree Bend & Thrust Block 6 EA 1,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 725.00$ 4,350.00$ 800.00$ 4,800.00$ 415.00$ 2,490.00$ 2,400.00$ 14,400.00$ 650.00$ 3,900.00$ 850.00$ 5,100.00$ 17 Fitting 4" 90 Degree Bend & Thrust Block 4 EA 925.00$ 3,700.00$ 700.00$ 2,800.00$ 500.00$ 2,000.00$ 280.00$ 1,120.00$ 2,400.00$ 9,600.00$ 450.00$ 1,800.00$ 600.00$ 2,400.00$ 18 Fitting 10" 45 Degree Bend & Thrust Block 5 EA 1,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 900.00$ 4,500.00$ 1,100.00$ 5,500.00$ 735.00$ 3,675.00$ 2,400.00$ 12,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 1,300.00$ 6,500.00$ 19 Fitting 8" 45 Degree Bend & Thrust Block 32 EA 880.00$ 28,160.00$ 800.00$ 25,600.00$ 800.00$ 25,600.00$ 475.00$ 15,200.00$ 2,400.00$ 76,800.00$ 500.00$ 16,000.00$ 900.00$ 28,800.00$ 20 Fitting 6" 45 Degree Bend & Thrust Block 42 EA 850.00$ 35,700.00$ 750.00$ 31,500.00$ 700.00$ 29,400.00$ 380.00$ 15,960.00$ 2,400.00$ 100,800.00$ 400.00$ 16,800.00$ 800.00$ 33,600.00$ 21 Fitting 4" 45 Degree Bend & Thrust Block 6 EA 760.00$ 4,560.00$ 625.00$ 3,750.00$ 500.00$ 3,000.00$ 260.00$ 1,560.00$ 2,400.00$ 14,400.00$ 450.00$ 2,700.00$ 550.00$ 3,300.00$ 22 Fitting 10" 22.5 Degree Bend & Thrust Block 1 EA 850.00$ 850.00$ 900.00$ 900.00$ 1,100.00$ 1,100.00$ 715.00$ 715.00$ 2,400.00$ 2,400.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,300.00$ 1,300.00$ 23 Fitting 6" 22.5 Degree Bend & Thrust Block 6 EA 800.00$ 4,800.00$ 800.00$ 4,800.00$ 700.00$ 4,200.00$ 355.00$ 2,130.00$ 2,400.00$ 14,400.00$ 600.00$ 3,600.00$ 800.00$ 4,800.00$ 24 Fitting 4" 22.5 Degree Bend & Thrust Block 2 EA 760.00$ 1,520.00$ 800.00$ 1,600.00$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 250.00$ 500.00$ 2,400.00$ 4,800.00$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 550.00$ 1,100.00$ 25 Fitting 8"x6" Concentric Reducer 8 EA 1,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 1,100.00$ 8,800.00$ 580.00$ 4,640.00$ 2,400.00$ 19,200.00$ 700.00$ 5,600.00$ 900.00$ 7,200.00$ 26 Fitting 6"x4" Concentric Reducer 4 EA 900.00$ 3,600.00$ 800.00$ 3,200.00$ 1,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 305.00$ 1,220.00$ 2,400.00$ 9,600.00$ 750.00$ 3,000.00$ 900.00$ 3,600.00$ 27 Fitting 10"x8" Tee & Thrust Block 1 EA 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 1,600.00$ 1,600.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 1,950.00$ 1,950.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,900.00$ 3,900.00$ 28 Fitting 8"x6" Tee & Thrust Block 6 EA 1,500.00$ 9,000.00$ 1,600.00$ 9,600.00$ 1,700.00$ 10,200.00$ 1,295.00$ 7,770.00$ 5,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 1,800.00$ 10,800.00$ 2,900.00$ 17,400.00$ 29 Fitting 8"x8" Crossing 4 EA 1,900.00$ 7,600.00$ 1,600.00$ 6,400.00$ 2,400.00$ 9,600.00$ 1,350.00$ 5,400.00$ 4,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 2,200.00$ 8,800.00$ 2,900.00$ 11,600.00$ 30 10" Butterfly Valve 2 EA 3,600.00$ 7,200.00$ 8,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 7,450.00$ 14,900.00$ 8,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 8,500.00$ 17,000.00$ 31 8" Gate Valve 29 EA 3,250.00$ 94,250.00$ 3,500.00$ 101,500.00$ 2,300.00$ 66,700.00$ 1,310.00$ 37,990.00$ 2,800.00$ 81,200.00$ 2,000.00$ 58,000.00$ 2,400.00$ 69,600.00$ 32 6" Gate Valve 8 EA 2,800.00$ 22,400.00$ 3,500.00$ 28,000.00$ 1,800.00$ 14,400.00$ 950.00$ 7,600.00$ 3,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 1,600.00$ 12,800.00$ 1,800.00$ 14,400.00$ 33 Fire Hydrant Assembly 11 EA 12,500.00$ 137,500.00$ 13,500.00$ 148,500.00$ 11,000.00$ 121,000.00$ 12,500.00$ 137,500.00$ 10,000.00$ 110,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 99,000.00$ 13,500.00$ 148,500.00$ 34 Remove Existing Fire Hydrant Assembly 9 EA 1,250.00$ 11,250.00$ 500.00$ 4,500.00$ 2,200.00$ 19,800.00$ 1,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 27,000.00$ 1,200.00$ 10,800.00$ 1,100.00$ 9,900.00$ 35 Water Sampling Station Assembly 1 EA 4,250.00$ 4,250.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 4,500.00$ 4,500.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 36 Remove Water Sampling Station 1 EA 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,300.00$ 1,300.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 37 1" Water Service Type K Copper Tubing Small (less than10ft) 20 EA 2,400.00$ 48,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 30,000.00$ 2,100.00$ 42,000.00$ 2,350.00$ 47,000.00$ 1,800.00$ 36,000.00$ 600.00$ 12,000.00$ 2,300.00$ 46,000.00$ 38 1" Water Service Type K Copper Tubing Medium (10‐25ft) 29 EA 2,900.00$ 84,100.00$ 2,000.00$ 58,000.00$ 3,100.00$ 89,900.00$ 2,450.00$ 71,050.00$ 4,200.00$ 121,800.00$ 800.00$ 23,200.00$ 3,200.00$ 92,800.00$ 39 1" Water Service Type K Copper Tubing Large (more than 25ft) 33 EA 3,400.00$ 112,200.00$ 2,500.00$ 82,500.00$ 4,500.00$ 148,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 82,500.00$ 5,600.00$ 184,800.00$ 1,000.00$ 33,000.00$ 3,600.00$ 118,800.00$ 40 2" Water Service Type K Copper Tubing & Assembly Small (less than 10ft) 3 EA 2,800.00$ 8,400.00$ 2,200.00$ 6,600.00$ 4,900.00$ 14,700.00$ 2,050.00$ 6,150.00$ 5,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 6,500.00$ 19,500.00$ 41 2" Water Service Type K Copper Tubing & Assembly Large (more than 25ft) 2 EA 3,800.00$ 7,600.00$ 3,500.00$ 7,000.00$ 9,500.00$ 19,000.00$ 4,100.00$ 8,200.00$ 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 3,500.00$ 7,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 42 1" Customer‐Side Water Service Type K Copper Tubing Small (less than 10ft) 53 EA 460.00$ 24,380.00$ 200.00$ 10,600.00$ 310.00$ 16,430.00$ 500.00$ 26,500.00$ 1,200.00$ 63,600.00$ 600.00$ 31,800.00$ 500.00$ 26,500.00$ 43 1" Customer‐Side Water Service Type K Copper Tubing Medium (10‐25ft) 3 EA 615.00$ 1,845.00$ 500.00$ 1,500.00$ 875.00$ 2,625.00$ 1,600.00$ 4,800.00$ 2,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 700.00$ 2,100.00$ 44 1" Customer‐Side Water Service Type K Copper Tubing Large (more than 25ft) 6 EA 855.00$ 5,130.00$ 600.00$ 3,600.00$ 2,700.00$ 16,200.00$ 2,400.00$ 14,400.00$ 4,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 1,100.00$ 6,600.00$ 45 2" Customer‐Side Water Service Type K Copper Tubing Small (Less than 10ft) 3 EA 820.00$ 2,460.00$ 300.00$ 900.00$ 650.00$ 1,950.00$ 800.00$ 2,400.00$ 3,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 1,200.00$ 3,600.00$ 46 2" Customer‐Side Water Service Type K Copper Tubing Medium (10‐25ft) 1 EA 1,100.00$ 1,100.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 1,700.00$ 1,700.00$ 1,600.00$ 1,600.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 47 Water Meter Box ‐ B16 87 EA 345.00$ 30,015.00$ 500.00$ 43,500.00$ 450.00$ 39,150.00$ 400.00$ 34,800.00$ 300.00$ 26,100.00$ 200.00$ 17,400.00$ 250.00$ 21,750.00$ 48 Remove and Dispose of Water Meter Box and Salvage Meter 84 EA 200.00$ 16,800.00$ 100.00$ 8,400.00$ 250.00$ 21,000.00$ 150.00$ 12,600.00$ 200.00$ 16,800.00$ 100.00$ 8,400.00$ 200.00$ 16,800.00$ 49 Connect to Existing Water 4" Main (incl. shut down, tie‐in) 4 EA 7,500.00$ 30,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 32,000.00$ 1,900.00$ 7,600.00$ 3,500.00$ 14,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 48,000.00$ 50 Connect to Existing Water 6" Main (incl. shut down, tie‐in) 10 EA 8,500.00$ 85,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 90,000.00$ 2,700.00$ 27,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 13,000.00$ 130,000.00$ 51 Connect to Existing Water 8" Main (incl. shut down, tie‐in) 1 EA 9,500.00$ 9,500.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 4,600.00$ 4,600.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 14,000.00$ Mellon Engineering, Inc. Precision Engineering, Inc. K.J. Woods Construction Cratus, Inc. JMB Construction, Inc. Ranger Pipelines, Inc.Engineer's EstimatePage 1 of 2
EAST BURLINGAME AVENUE ‐ UTILITY IMPROVEMENTSCity Project No. 83522BID SUMMARYBID OPENING: THURSDAY, June 6, 2019 at 2:00 P.M.ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTIONNo.QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Mellon Engineering, Inc. Precision Engineering, Inc. K.J. Woods Construction Cratus, Inc. JMB Construction, Inc. Ranger Pipelines, Inc.Engineer's Estimate52 Connect to Existing Water 10" Main (incl. shut down, tie‐in) 2 EA 10,500.00$ 21,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 5,100.00$ 10,200.00$ 6,500.00$ 13,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 53 Abandon Existing Water Valve 25 EA 500.00$ 12,500.00$ 250.00$ 6,250.00$ 900.00$ 22,500.00$ 200.00$ 5,000.00$ 200.00$ 5,000.00$ 100.00$ 2,500.00$ 300.00$ 7,500.00$ 54 6" PVC SDR26 Sanitary Sewer Pipe ‐ Open Trench 41 LF 300.00$ 12,300.00$ 350.00$ 14,350.00$ 200.00$ 8,200.00$ 390.00$ 15,990.00$ 225.00$ 9,225.00$ 380.00$ 15,580.00$ 393.00$ 16,113.00$ 55 8" PVC SDR26 Sanitary Sewer Pipe ‐ Open Trench 1830 LF 325.00$ 594,750.00$ 380.00$ 695,400.00$ 220.00$ 402,600.00$ 415.00$ 759,450.00$ 225.00$ 411,750.00$ 400.00$ 732,000.00$ 283.00$ 517,890.00$ 56 8" HDPE DR17 Sanitary Sewer Pipe ‐ Pipe Burst 208 LF 250.00$ 52,000.00$ 250.00$ 52,000.00$ 160.00$ 33,280.00$ 350.00$ 72,800.00$ 175.00$ 36,400.00$ 250.00$ 52,000.00$ 280.00$ 58,240.00$ 57 Remove and Replace and Install New Sanitary Sewer Manhole 6 EA 8,500.00$ 51,000.00$ 8,500.00$ 51,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 84,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 36,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 54,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 58 Install New Sanitary Sewer Manhole 2 EA 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 13,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 5,200.00$ 10,400.00$ 5,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 59 Abandon Sanitary Sewer Manhole 1 EA 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,900.00$ 3,900.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 60 Abandon Existing 6" VCP SS Main 600 LF 18.00$ 10,800.00$ 10.00$ 6,000.00$ 14.00$ 8,400.00$ 15.00$ 9,000.00$ 20.00$ 12,000.00$ 10.00$ 6,000.00$ 10.00$ 6,000.00$ 61 4" Sanitary Sewer Pipe ‐ Replace Lateral 965 LF 180.00$ 173,700.00$ 100.00$ 96,500.00$ 170.00$ 164,050.00$ 65.00$ 62,725.00$ 120.00$ 115,800.00$ 55.00$ 53,075.00$ 260.00$ 250,900.00$ 62 4" Sanitary Sewer Pipe ‐ Replace Customer Lateral 75 LF 181.00$ 13,575.00$ 100.00$ 7,500.00$ 200.00$ 15,000.00$ 100.00$ 7,500.00$ 120.00$ 9,000.00$ 50.00$ 3,750.00$ 210.00$ 15,750.00$ 63 Reconnect SS Lateral 44 EA 1,000.00$ 44,000.00$ 600.00$ 26,400.00$ 350.00$ 15,400.00$ 350.00$ 15,400.00$ 100.00$ 4,400.00$ 200.00$ 8,800.00$ 800.00$ 35,200.00$ 64 Replace Existing 4" Sewer Cleanout 44 EA 1,150.00$ 50,600.00$ 600.00$ 26,400.00$ 1,100.00$ 48,400.00$ 350.00$ 15,400.00$ 500.00$ 22,000.00$ 200.00$ 8,800.00$ 1,500.00$ 66,000.00$ 65 Install 8" SS Pipe Stub (10ft. Min.) and Reconnect Existing Pipes 3 EA 5,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 2,700.00$ 8,100.00$ 4,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 4,500.00$ 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 66 Install 12" SS Pipe Stub (10ft. Min.) and Reconnect Existing Pipes 2 EA 5,500.00$ 11,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 3,300.00$ 6,600.00$ 4,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 1,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 67 Install 8"x6" Eccentric Reducer 3 EA 1,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 500.00$ 1,500.00$ 200.00$ 600.00$ 350.00$ 1,050.00$ 200.00$ 600.00$ 200.00$ 600.00$ 400.00$ 1,200.00$ 68 Install 12"x10" Eccentric Reducer 2 EA 1,200.00$ 2,400.00$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 400.00$ 800.00$ 350.00$ 700.00$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 250.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 69 Install 45 Degree Wye 2 EA 900.00$ 1,800.00$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 100.00$ 200.00$ 350.00$ 700.00$ 200.00$ 400.00$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 70 Temporary Bypass Pumping 1 LS 34,270.00$ 34,270.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 71 Remove and Replace Sidewalk 235 SF 30.00$ 7,050.00$ 15.00$ 3,525.00$ 18.00$ 4,230.00$ 8.00$ 1,880.00$ 20.00$ 4,700.00$ 10.00$ 2,350.00$ 15.00$ 3,525.00$ 72 Remove and Replace Concrete Driveway Section 1400 SF 30.00$ 42,000.00$ 16.00$ 22,400.00$ 25.00$ 35,000.00$ 20.00$ 28,000.00$ 20.00$ 28,000.00$ 15.00$ 21,000.00$ 18.00$ 25,200.00$ 73 Remove and Replace Concrete Valley Gutter 122 SF 40.00$ 4,880.00$ 42.00$ 5,124.00$ 75.00$ 9,150.00$ 40.00$ 4,880.00$ 40.00$ 4,880.00$ 50.00$ 6,100.00$ 18.00$ 2,196.00$ 74 Remove and Preplace Curb & Gutter 12 LF 50.00$ 600.00$ 35.00$ 420.00$ 85.00$ 1,020.00$ 60.00$ 720.00$ 75.00$ 900.00$ 58.00$ 696.00$ 70.00$ 840.00$ 75 Concrete Cap 24 SF 25.00$ 600.00$ 10.00$ 240.00$ 19.00$ 456.00$ 50.00$ 1,200.00$ 20.00$ 480.00$ 45.00$ 1,080.00$ 80.00$ 1,920.00$ 76 Allowance for Additional AC Pavement Lift (4" Max) 1390 SF 8.00$ 11,120.00$ 7.00$ 9,730.00$ 17.00$ 23,630.00$ 8.00$ 11,120.00$ 10.00$ 13,900.00$ 5.00$ 6,950.00$ 5.70$ 7,923.00$ 77 Hand Dig Section (1 Unit = 20 LF) 3 UNIT 3,100.00$ 9,300.00$ 3,500.00$ 10,500.00$ 4,500.00$ 13,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 78 Temporary Service Connections 7 EA 650.00$ 4,550.00$ 2,300.00$ 16,100.00$ 900.00$ 6,300.00$ 1,750.00$ 12,250.00$ 250.00$ 1,750.00$ 2,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 21,000.00$ 79 Allowance for Air Release 7 EA 3,700.00$ 25,900.00$ 4,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 5,100.00$ 35,700.00$ 1,250.00$ 8,750.00$ 4,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 80 Temporary Blow Off Valves 10 EA 4,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 25,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 1,200.00$ 12,000.00$ 3,500.00$ 35,000.00$ 81 2" Washington Park Side Water Service Type K Copper Tubing 220 LF 200.00$ 44,000.00$ 120.00$ 26,400.00$ 190.00$ 41,800.00$ 120.00$ 26,400.00$ 125.00$ 27,500.00$ 200.00$ 44,000.00$ 130.00$ 28,600.00$ 82 2" Plug or Cap & Thrust Block 1 EA 375.00$ 375.00$ 250.00$ 250.00$ 1,100.00$ 1,100.00$ 250.00$ 250.00$ 200.00$ 200.00$ 200.00$ 200.00$ 600.00$ 600.00$ 83 Furnish & Install Duplex Grinder Pump Station 1 LS 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 22,000.00$ 22,000.00$ 84 Furnish & Install all Electrical Work for Duplex Grinder Pump Station 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 49,000.00$ 49,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 85 1‐1/4" HDPE SDR 11 Sanitary Sewer Force Main ‐ Open Cut 215 LF 125.00$ 26,875.00$ 100.00$ 21,500.00$ 145.00$ 31,175.00$ 120.00$ 25,800.00$ 120.00$ 25,800.00$ 200.00$ 43,000.00$ 120.00$ 25,800.00$ 3,793,395.00$ 3,436,504.00$ 3,444,916.00$ 3,744,905.00$ 3,473,165.00$ 3,788,000.00$ 3,838,582.00$ 280,000.00$ 196,200.00$ 171,300.00$ 114,320.00$ 765,000.00$ 168,000.00$ 172,150.00$ 4,080,000.00$ 3,632,704.00$ 3,616,216.00$ 3,859,225.00$ 4,238,165.00$ 3,956,000.00$ 4,010,732.00$ TOTAL Base Bid + Additive #ATOTAL (Bid Item 1‐85)Anza Lagoon Bridge Slip Lining Main SUBTOTAL = BID Additive #APage 2 of 2
East Burlingame Avenue & Anza Lagoon Bridge Utility Improvements
City Project No. 83522
AGREEMENT - 1
AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
EAST BURLINGAME AVENUE & ANZA LAGOON BRIDGE
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 83522
THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame,
County of San Mateo, State of California on ___________, 2019 by and between the
CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and Cratus
Inc., a California Corporation, hereinafter called "Contractor."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of
the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this
Contract; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly
published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2019, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame
awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to
Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for
these improvements; and
WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the
construction of said improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of work.
Contractor shall perform the work described in those Contract Documents entitled:
EAST BURLINGAME AVENUE AND ANZA LAGOON BRIDGE UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 83522.
2. The Contract Documents.
The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following
documents: this Agreement; Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A;
the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions,
addenda, complete plans, profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid documents
AGREEMENT - 2
titled “East Burlingame Avenue and Anza Lagoon Bridge Utility Improvements, City
Project No. 83522” attached as Exhibit C; the State of California Standard Specifications
2010, as promulgated by the California Department of Transportation; prevailing wage
rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law; and all bonds; which
are collectively hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and
obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract
Documents, which are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. All of the above
described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and
not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in
all said documents.
3. Contract Price.
The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work
above agreed to be done, the sum of three million, six-hundred thirty two thousand, seven
hundred and four dollars ($3,632,704), called the “Contract Price”. This price is
determined by the lump sum and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event
authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in
Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the
unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as
provided in the Contract Documents.
4. Termination
At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any
portion of the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice
in writing to Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor
will be granted an adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for
Completion, or both, directly attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a
claim therefor was provided in the Contract Documents.
The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justify termination
of the contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractor’s persistent failure to perform the
work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor’s disregard of Laws or
Regulations of any public body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor’s disregard of the
authority of the Engineer; or (4) Contractor’s violation in any substantial way of any
provision of the Contract Documents. In the case of any one or more of these events, the
City, after giving Contractor and Contractor’s sureties seven calendar days written notice
of the intent to terminate Contractor’s services, may initiate termination procedures. Such
AGREEMENT - 3
termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against Contractor then existing
or that accrue thereafter. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor will not
release Contractor from liability. At the City’s sole discretion, Contractor’s services may
not be terminated if Contractor begins, within seven calendar days of receipt of such
notice of intent to terminate, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure
such failure within no more than 30 calendar days of such notice.
Upon seven calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may, without cause
and without prejudice to any other right or remedy of City, terminate the Contract for City’s
convenience. In such case, Contractor will be paid for (1) work satisfactorily completed
prior the effective date of such termination, (2) furnishing of labor, equipment, and
materials in accordance with the Contract Documents in connection with uncompleted
work, (3) reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination, and (4) fair and
reasonable compensation for associated overhead and profit. No payment will be made
on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue or other economic loss arising out of
or resulting from such termination.
5. Provisions Cumulative.
The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in
limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City.
6. Notices.
All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified
mail, postage prepaid.
Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows:
Mr. Kevin Okada
Senior Engineer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows:
Liam Finnegan
CEO/President
Cratus Inc.
945 Taraval Street #302
San Francisco, CA 94116
AGREEMENT - 4
7. Interpretation
As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes
the plural and vice versa.
8. Waiver or Amendment.
No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is
effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more
waivers of any term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall
not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision.
9. Controlling Law.
This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws
of the State of California.
10. Successors and Assignees.
This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the
parties hereto but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written
consent of the other party.
11. Severability.
If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable
by any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement
shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect.
12. Indemnification.
Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers,
employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims,
suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the
actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its
employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of
the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood
that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as
set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for
any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited
to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements
AGREEMENT - 5
required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this
indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause
shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be
applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting
of five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be
deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties
hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF BURLINGAME,
a Municipal Corporation
By
Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager
Approved as to form:
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
"CONTRACTOR"
By
Print Name:
Company Name: Cratus Inc.
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES
WITH COASTLAND CIVIL ENGINEERING FOR THE
EAST BURLINGAME AVENUE AND ANZA BRIDGE UTIL]TY IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 83522
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 2019,
by and between the Citv of Burlinqame, State of California, herein called the ,,City,,, and
COASTLAND CIVIL ENGINEERING engaged in providing PROFESSTONAL
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTTON services herein called the
"Consultant".
The city is considering conducting activities for consultant engineering services
for construction management and inspection services for the East Burlingame
Avenue and Anza Bridge Utility lmprovements, City project No. 83522.
The City desires to engage a professional engineering consultant to provide
construction management and inspection services because of Consultant's
experience and qualifications to perform the desired work, described in Exhibit A.
AGREEMENTS
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
A
B
1 of Servi . The Consultant shall provide professional engineering
services such as coordinate and conduct construction meetings, perform site visits,
provide site documentation, maintain and store project files, perform daily field
inspections, provide inspection reports, maintain continuous communication with
City staff about project status and any construction issues, monitor project costs,
maintain project on schedule, provide certified payroll and project documents,
provide public relations services, perform closeout activities, and as detailed in
"Scope of Services" of the attached Exhibit A of this agreement.
Page 1 of 8
RECITALS
c.The consultiant represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the
desired work pursuant to this Agreement.
2. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant are to commence u pon
the execution of this Agreement with completion of all work as set forth in Exhibit
A.
3. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall com ply with all applicable laws,
codes, ordinances, and regulations of goveming federal, state and local laws.
Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits,
qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for
Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City
that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all
times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which
are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall
maintain a City of Burlingame business license.
4. Sole Responsibilitv. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging
all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement
5. lnformation/Report Handlinq. All documents furnished to Consultant b y the City
and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this
Agreement are the City's property and shall be delivered to the City upon the
completion of Consultant's services or at the City's written request. All reports,
information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection
with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential
until released by the City to the public, and the Consultant shall not make any of
these documents or information available to any individual or organization not
employed by the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City
before such release. The City acknowledges that the reports to be prepared by
the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a
defined project, and City's use of the information contained in the reports prepared
by the Consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at City's risk,
unless Consultant expressly consents to such use in writing. City further agrees
that it will not appropriate any methodology or technique of Consultant which is
and has been confirmed in writing by Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant.
6. Compensation. Com pensation for Consultant's professional services shall not
exceed $266.790; and payment shall be based upon City approval of each task.
Billing shall include current period and cumulative expenditures to date and shall
be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by whom at what
Page 2 of I
8
rate and on what date. Also, plans, specifications, documents or other pertinent
materials shall be submitted for City review, even if only in partial or draft form.
7. Availabilitv of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records su pporting this
billing for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work under this
Agreement. Consultant shall make these records available to authorized
personnel of the City at the Consultant's offices during business hours upon written
request of the City.
9. Assiqnabilitv a nd Subcontractinq. The services to be performed under this
Agreement are unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these
services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the City.
10.Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly
given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to:
To City:Kevin Okada, Senior Civil Engineer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
To Consultant:John Wanger, CEO
Coastland Civil Engineering
1400 Neotomas Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address as
Consultant designates in writing to City.
11. lndependent Contractor. lt is understood that the Consultan t, in the performance
of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. As an
independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or
other benefits which accrue to City employee(s). With prior written consent, the
Consultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement by
subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or
assign or transfer interests under this Agreement.
Page 3 of 8
Proiect Manaqer. The Project Manager for the Consultant for the work under this
Agreement shall be Mike Janet, Construction Department Manager.
Consultant agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the
work to be performed under this Agreement- Consultant shall be compensated
for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such
matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is
brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent
performance or wrongdoing.
't2 Conflict of lnterest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibilities
is solely to the City. The Consultant has and shall not obtain any holding or
interest within the City of Burlingame. Consultant has no business holdings or
agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the City or
its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. ln
addition, Consultant warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any
direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the City in the subject of this
Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest
should it discover it has done so and shall, at the City's sole discretion, divest itself
of such interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps
to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this
performance of this Agreement. lf after employment of a person, Consultant
discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would
conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall promptly notify
City of this employment relationship, and shall, at the City's sole discretion, sever
any such employment relationship.
13. Equal Emplovment Opportunitv. Consultant warrants that it is an equal
opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations goveming equal
employment opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its subcontractors do and
neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with
them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation,
ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical
condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the
California Fair Employment & Housing Act.
14. lnsurance
A. Minimum Scope of lnsurance:
Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the
contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and
Page 4 of I
i.
his/her firm to an amount not less than: One million dollars
($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence and two million
dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and
property damage in a form at least as broad as ISO Occurrence Form
cG 0001 .
Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the
contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring himiher
and hisiher staff to an amount not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and
propefi damage.
Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the
contract, professional liability insurance in amounts not less than two
million dollars ($2,000,000) each claim/aggregate sufficient to insure
Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the performance
of the particular scope of work under this agreement.
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions
as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers;
or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of
losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense
expenses.
B. General and Automobile Liability Policies:
The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed
operations of Consultant, premises owned or used by the
Consultant. The endorsement providing this additional insured
coverage shall be equal to or broader than ISO Form CG 20 10 11
85 and must cover joint negligence, completed operations, and the
acts of submntractors. This requirement does not apply to the
professional liability insurance required for professional errors and
omissions.
The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be endorsed to be
primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials,
.
iv
Page 5 of 8
ii.
t.
ii.
employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers
shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute
with it.
.Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall
not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
In addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain Workers'
Compensation insurance as required by Califomia law. Further,
Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant
provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective
employees.
All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty
(30) days' prior written notice by mail, has been given to the City (10 days
for non-payment of premium). Cunent certification of such insurance shall
be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City
Clerk.
Acceptability of lnsurers: lnsurance is to be placed with insurers with a
Best's rating of no less than A-:Vll and authorized to do business in the
State of California.
Verification of Coverage: Upon execution of this Agreement, Contractor
shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates
and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates
and endorsements are to be on forms approved by the City. All certificates
and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before any
work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified
copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
C
D
E
F
Page 6 of 8
15. lndem nification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall save,
keep and hold harmless indemnify and defend the City, its officers, employees,
authorized agents and volunteers from all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or
expenses in law or equity, including but not limited to aftorneys' fees, that may at
any time arise, result from, relate to, or be set up because of damages to property
or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of performing work which
arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the
negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, or any of the
Consultant's officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant. This provision
shall not apply if the damage or injury is caused by the sole negligence, active
negligence, or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees, or
volunteers.
16.Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy
hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may
have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement
constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other
provision of this Agreement.
17.Govemino Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be
governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California. Venue for
any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County
of San Mateo.
18.Termination of Aqreement. The City and the Consultant shall have the right to
terminate this agreement with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen ('15)
days written notice of termination. ln the event of termination, the Consultant
shall deliver to the City all plans, files, documents, reports, performed to date by
the Consultant. ln the event of such termination, City shall pay Consultant an
amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work
delivered to the City bears to completed services contemplated under this
Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event,
compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and
circumstances involved in such termination.
19. Amendment. No modification , waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this
Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the
Consultant.
Entire Aoreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive
statement of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms,
20.
Page 7 of 8
conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this
Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound,
shall be binding on either party.
lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement
as of the date indicated on page one ( 1).
City of Burlingame "Consultant"
BV
Lisa K. Goldman
City Manager
Approved as to form:
nd rneennCivil Eng
"'"6-hn
s
riftt 6a L.u)*fPrint Nam
F-.1ceo
( +.-tu
W. t-tJc
City Attorney - Kathleen Kane
ATTEST:
City Clerk - Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
Page 8 of I
/,,
G-
EXHIBIT A
CIVIL ENGINEERING - CONSIRUCTION MANAGEMENT . BUILDING OEPARTMENT SERVICES
April 23,2019
Mr. Kevin Okada, PE
Senior Engineer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: Proposal for Constructability Review, Construction Management and lnspection
Services for
East Burlingame Avenue and Anza Bridge Utility lmprovements, City
Project No. 83522
Dear Kevin:
Based on our conversations, Coastland is pleased to provide you with this letter proposal to
provide Construction Management (CM) and lnspection services to the City for the East
Budingame Avenue and Anza Bridge Utility lmprovements.
CCIASTLAND
Santa Rosa
1400 Neotomas Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Tel: 707.571.8005
Auburn
11641 Blocker Orive, Ste. '170
Aubum. CA 95603
Tel: 530.888.9929
Pleasant Hill
3478 Buskirk Avenue. Ste. 1000
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Tel: 925.233.5333
www.coastlandcivil.com
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The East Burlingame Avenue and Anza Bridge Utility lmprovement (Project) consists of replacing
the water and sewer services in Burlingame Ave. and the side streets. Work will include trenching
from East Lane to Victoria Rd. to install approximate 3300 feet of new 8" and 1425 feet of 6" water
main, valves, hydrants, water service connections and new water service meters. The new water
main will connection to the existing 10" water main in East Lane and 8" main near Rollins Rd.
Water main and water service connections will be installed on Myrtle Rd., Anita Rd, Arundel Rd.,
Bloomfield Rd., Dwight Rd., Stanley Rd., Channing Rd. and Bancroft Rd. The replacement of the
water main will include locating existing utilities by potholing, temporary service connections,
abandonment of sections of the existing water lines, testing, disinfection and connection to the
existing water system, traffic controls, sidewalk, driveways and landscape restoration, pavement
restoration and striping and markers. The project will also install 7 new sanitary sewer manholes,
2037 feet of 8" sewer pipe and replacing sewer lateral connections from East Lane to Dwight Rd.
The replacement of the sanitary sewer will include bypass pumping, abandonment of sections of
the existing sewer, traffic controls, replacement of sidewalk, driveways and landscaping and
pavement restoration, striping and markers. The other element of the project includes slip lining
the existing '12" steel water line suspended from the Anza Lagoon pedestrian bridge and
connecting the new fusible PVC pipe to the existing 12" water line at both ends of the bridge.
Coastland is cunently installing suspended utilities on two bridge projects. The engineer's
construction estimate is $4,270,000.
SCOPE OF WORK
Coastland's overall approach to performing Construction Management and lnspection focuses on
teaming with City forces to produce a high quality, cost effective project. Our Construction
Manager and lnspector will keep the City informed regarding costs, changes, public relations, and
construction progress. We will coordinate closely with the City and the property owners for the
entire project duration. From the onset of the project, we will establish the lines of communication
City of Burlingame
E. Buriingame Ave. & Anza Bridge Utility lmprovements - CM and lnspection
April 23, 2019
Page 2 of I
and decision making roles with allpro.iect stakeholders. Based on our understanding ofthe project
our scope of services is as follows:
TASK 1 - PRE.CONSTRUCTION MEETING
lmmediately following the Notice to Proceed, our Construction Manager will schedule and
administer the pre-construction meeting. During this meeting we will establish lines of
communication and decision making roles with all project stakeholders. We will also discuss
safety requirements, responsibilities of the project team members, working hours, quality control
procedures, submittal requirements, project schedule, change order and potential claim
procedures, and safety procedures.
Following the pre-construction meeting, Coastland will continue to work with the City team,
contractor, and Coastland's design team to ensure that all project issues are addressed promptly
and that the City's best interests are considered at all times.
TASK 2 - PRE-CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT AND DOCUMENTATION
Coastland will take pre-construction digital photos of the construction site with special attention
given to sensitive areas including any private residences and businesses adjacent to the project.
Documenting the site prior to construction will help mitigate possible disputes between the City,
contractor and property owners within or adjacent to the project limits. These photos will be
logged and filed with the project files.
TASK 3 - PROJECT START-UP
Coastland will assemble project files in accordance with the City's standard format. Coastland
utilizes a centralized system for document conlrol to create, store, organize, track, and link all
project information. Our digital record-keeping will ensure the constant flow of documentation to
a form that quickly and easily identifies trends and critical issues and will help keep the project
moving as it helps document the work.
TASK 4 - DAILY FIELD INSPECTIONS AND DOCUMENTATION
A critical aspect of our services is maintaining close communication with City staff to ensure
scheduling goals are met. To help maintain close communication, Coastland's inspector will be
accessible to the City at all times at the project site and through the use of email and cellular
phones. Coastland's on-site inspector will examine all construction activities to ensure that the
contract work adheres to the contract documents, City standards and the established schedule.
We will maintain records and provide documentation of the work in the form of daily reports,
weekly summary of construction activities, deficiency lists, and progress photographs of
construclion activities. Daily reports will describe the contractor's level of effort, specific work
being done, started, or finished, and relevant points raised by the contractor that may require
consideration and response. We also document proposed change orders and claims, important
conversations, safety issues or accidents, extra work in progress, materials testing performed,
G
Coastland will be responsible for generating pre-construction meeting invitations including the
meeting agenda. Agenda items include lines of communication, public relations, safety,
submittals, change procedures, payments, progress schedules, contract time, requests for
information, and other applicable items. Coastland will prepare and distribute meeting minutes to
all parties.
City of Burlingame
E. Burlingame Ave. & Anza Bridge Utility lmprovements - CM and lnspection
April23,2019
Page 3 of 8
information for "as-built" drawings, quantities for progress payments, environmental concerns and
hazardous materials.
Coastland will provide a digital photo logbook of construction activities, progress, and areas of
concern or interest. The photo log will be compiled on a portable storage device (USB drive) and
will identify the location and date of each photo. The log will be maintained through the duration
of the project to assure continuity from one week to the next and will be submitted to the City at
the close of the project.
G
Coastland will continually review the specifications and plans to ensure the work is of good quality
and meets the requirements of the contract documents. Coastland will immediately report any
deviation from the approved contract documents.
Our inspector will identify actual and potential problems and provide solutions. We will maintain
daily documentation and resolve issues by proposing field changes and avoid any delays.
Our inspector will review the Contractor's traffic control plan to make certain that access is
maintained during construction.
ln summary, our lnspector's responsibilities include.'. Represent the City in ensuring that the terms of the construction contract are followed
throughout the term of the project.. Participate in regular meetings called by the Construction Manager.. Protect the interest ofthe City.. Daily inspection of the contractor's work for conformance to the contract documents, codes,
regulations, and City standards.. Prepare and submit daily inspection reports that document alljob site activities.. Serve as a daily contact for the contractor as to performance of the construction.. Respond promptly to City requests.. Verify construction material quantities.. Monitor traffic control procedures.
' Distribute notifications to impacted public regarding the status of construction.. Document construclion activities with photographs and maintain a photo log.. Respond to calls ftom the public promptly and log any complaints in a timely manner.. Work overtime as needed to assure presence on site during all construction activities.. Document and maintain complete field files containing construction period correspondences,
changes, discussions with contractor, memos, reports, and other pertinent items.
TASK 5 - PROGRESS MEETINGS
Coastland will conduct weekly coordination and progress meetings to focus on completed and
upcoming work, any construction delays, schedule updates, proposed changes, change orders,
contractor's questions, public relations, safety and other concems that are identified by a project
team member. We will work to foster honest, open communication at these weekly meetings
which will help in timely resolution of any disputes and/or potential claims.
TASK 6 - STATUS REPORTS AND DOCUMENTATION
Task 6a - Reports
Complete and accurate record keeping will be an essential component of this project. We will
ensure project documents and certified payroll are complete and correcl sub-contractors are
used. We will keep the City informed and document all construction issues with the following:
City of Burlingame
E. Burlingame Ave. & Anza Bridge Utility lmprovements - CM and lnspeclion
April23,2019
Page 4 of 8
Weekly Statement of Working Days
Progress Meeting Minutes
Field Directive Log
Change order tracking
Regular phone calls and e-mails
ln summary, our Construction Manage/s responsibilities include.'. Continuous communication and coordination with the contractor through regular progress
meetings.. Review and routing of project submittals and RFls-. Prepare project pay estimates and maintain records associated with the project's federal
funding requirements., Accept work performed or, if work is rejected, work with contractor to correct construction
erors.. Prepare and approve Contract Change Orders.. Provide claims management.. Monitor permit and environmental compliance.. Confirm labor compliance.
G
Task 6b - Submittal Management
Coastland will coordinate all submittals and monitor the status of the submittals to assure the
contractor provides timely response. At the pre-construction conference, we will provide the
contractor with a log of all required submittals and due dates. Submittals will be stamped, logged
and distributed to the designer for complete review and approval. Submittals will be filed
numerically and approved copies will be distributed to the City, project members, and the
contractor.
Task 6c - Requests for lnformation (RFI)
Coastland will receive and log all Requests for lnformation (RFl's) from the contractor, and
forward the RFI to the designer. Coastland willtrack the status of all RFI's by generating a weekly
RFI log that lists the "Ball-in-court" status, description, and if an RFI results in a potential change
order.
Task 6d - Change Order Management
ln the event that a change order is required, Coastland will negotiate the changes with the
contractor and prepare documentation. All changes will be approved by the contractor, Coastland
and the City prior to starting work on the change. With the City's approval, Coastland can
negotiate with the contractor to produce the best construction method for the change at the lowest
cost. lf a change order requires input from the design engineer, our Construction Manager will
coordinate with them to ensure it is reviewed. A Change Order Log will be created that will show
Change Order number, description, status, approved date, start and completion dates and cost.
TASK 7 - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Our goal is to ensure that construction and contract administration are performed in compliance
with City requirements and standards, and the project plans and specifications. To accomplish
this goal, our Construction Manager will manage the day{o-day construction activities with the
contractor. He will be accessible to the City at all times. The Construction Manager will be
responsible for keeping the City informed of the progress of the project, changes that may be
needed, pay estimate input and releasing information to the public. ln addition, our Construction
Managerwill complete all contract administration documentalion in a timely, accurate and orderly
fashion.
Coastland will review the contractor's construction schedule for accuracy, reasonableness, and
will verify that it meets the project schedule, order of work, and contract requirements. Progress
schedules will be reviewed weekly to ensure the contractor is meeting the critical dates. lf the
contractor fails to meet critical dates, it will immediately be brought to his attention and remedies
to get back on schedule will be accomplished. Schedule updates may be required once a month
or more. We will negotiate any time extensions for the contractor due to change orders, weather,
or other delays. Coastland will also maintain an as-built progress schedule.
We will monitor traffic control and flagging procedures to ensure construction proceeds smoothly
and public impact is minimized. There may be traffic delays during peak traffic periods.
Accordingly, we will keep all residents and businesses informed on construction status and
impacts through the use of message boards and notification letters. Our Construction Manager
will also make introductions to the affected properties and provide his 24-hour contact phone
number as appropriate. Coastland will ensure that Contractor provides advanced notice to
residents and businesses, as required by the specifications, regarding roadwork and lane
closures.
Coastland will log and respond to questions and concerns from the public in a timely manner and
will record the contractor's activities as they relate to public safety and public convenience.
Additionally, our inspector will accurately document pre-construction conditions with a photo log
to verify the project area is restored to its original form following construction.
G
City of Burlingame
E. Burlingame Ave. & Anza Bndge Utility lmprovements - CM and lnspection
April 23, 2019
Page 5 of 8
. Develop a project punch list and make recommendations for project acceptance.. Prepare As-Built plans.. Maintain an up-to-date construction file crntaining all records associated with the construction
of the project.
TASK 8 - COST AND SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT
Coastland will continually review the construction progress and perform field measurements and
quantity calculations. Each month, Coastland will provide accurate calculations for all work items
completed and accepted to provide progress payment recommendations to the City. Coastland
will review the contractor's progress pay estimate request and schedule of values to assess if
they are reasonable, and will compare this to the field measurements and quantity calculations.
We will continually monitor project costs and keep the City informed regularly.
TASK 9 - PUBLIC RELATIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS
Coastland will ensure every effort is made to keep residents and businesses informed of
construction progress and minimize disruptions due to limited access and excessive noise. Our
Construction Manager will proactively meet with property owners prior to and during construction
to address any concerns from those affected by the project.
TASK IO - POST-CONSTRUCTION MEETING
Following completion of the work, Coastland will organize and conduct the post-construction
meeting. The meeting will document all requirements necessary for final closeout and payment,
and confirm all contract obligations have been met. Recommendations for improvement will be
made and incorporated into future projects. The results of the meeting will be summarized in
meeting minutes.
OPTIONAL TASKS
lf requested by the City, conflict resolution & claim management can be added under an
amendment on a Time & Materials basis.
SCHEDULE
We understand that proper construction management is a priority for the City. Work is anticipated to
@mmence in July, and upon receipt of the Notice to Proceed and is expected to continue for 120
days.
We propose to provide our services on a time-and-materials basis with a not-to-exceed amount.
Our proposal is based on a project duration of 120 working days and part-time construction
management as outlined in our work estimate. We are providing full-time inspection at 40 hours
per week and estimating inspector overtime at 20 hours for typical overrun.
Our proposal also includes factors such as attending meetings, project closeout and vehicle costs.
Based on these items, we estimate the not-to-exceed fee to be $266,790 (see attached yyork
Estimate). lf the contract time extends beyond 120 working days, or the scope or level of services
change, our costs may also increase. Similarly, if the contract time is reduced, charges will
decrease accordingly.
This estimate has been created to show the overall cost for comprehensive Construction
Management and lnspection services on the project. We welcome the opportunity to speak with
you regarding the scope of services. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or
concerns regarding this estimate.
G
City of Burlingame
E. Budingame Ave. E Anza Bridge Utility lmprovements - CM and lnspection
April 23, 20'19
Page 6 of 8
TASK 11 - PROJECT CLOSEOUT
Coastland will verify completion of punch list items, issue notice of completion, prepare
recommendations for final acceptance of the project, review as-builts for accuracy and
completeness, prepare and recommend final payment, and transmit all construction
documentation to the City. At the completion of the project, we will provide the City with the
following:. All contract files and records (hard & electronic files). Annotated joumal of photos and CD of digital photos. As-built project schedule
WORK ESTIMATE
Based on the Scope of Work outlined in our proposal, we have prepared a comprehensive budget
that identifies staffing rates, total hours and costs per task and direct expenses. lnspector rates
are in compliance with current California General Prevailing Wage Rate Determinations.
City of Burlingame
E. Buriingame Ave. & Anza Bridge Utility lmprovements - CM and lnspection
April 23, 2019
Page 7 of 8
Coastland maintains a current DIR registration number (1000014855, exp. 6/30/2019). We
greatly appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Burlingame. Please let me know if you have
questions.
Sincerely,
COASTLAND CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
/1-
'-llnv LUa'vnY,"--tl u
John Wanger, PE
cEo
Mike Janet
Construction Department Manager
G
-)t
City of Burlingame
E. Burlingame Ave. & Anza Bridge Utility lmprcvements - CM and lnspection
April 23,2019
Page 8 of 8
E..r B!,llrlam av.ns ..d A[. E.ldlE ulrk,
rrt.o1.d.L
PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRT,JcION
INSPECTION SERVICES
}IOURS ANO COSI INFORMATTONTASK INFORMATION
ft. a.EIECdon n..UnC
cd!w&dr'b.dri!A44!d6or,
n{ggrg- - _
OilyF.lt F"a.-,. O.o-"rd..
I,r.cr.6. I..nng6 t c@rdM*on
s.tu. R.ro .a Dftur.l.no.
i.ni.rB F d r.t{Bd6n
cn.nF Ord.! I-.Fmnr
CdeEIjo.I-.0.m.1 1
36
sP,
!1oro
1r-.r h _
..d'.E6tffi
c@alr! R.solulon a Clrm tr.es.mrt
Pod Co.*u.no. lr..d.q I
r.ad !.rab a €ir.d! . ^. qe
\tnl.J. Eqdrm.l.rD.d.
s't520
:6
sa2,0
s6r 550 lo 3'9520 59 230
|OTES: Co.!U.nd r.r..v.t lh. rbni to .dru3t ltlifiaLd h6uE shouH lh. Contr.cto. 3chedub .ddltonel crc{. or ov..lln. ro*
'l.dIl,rdlio'r- bEn*E xir-.rdEbr-! kr-delFr !n
!s.jdF!h.aEbi.t..d
G
rG WORK ESTIMATE
l
lrg.rtoT l
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8d
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the 2018 Sidewalk Repair Program by
Golden Bay Construction, Inc., City Project No. 85250
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the 2018 Sidewalk
Repair Program by Golden Bay Construction, Inc., City Project No. 85250, in the amount of
$1,092,241.
BACKGROUND
On March 5, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2018-1949 to update Chapter 12.12 of
the Burlingame Municipal Code “Sidewalk and Park Maintenance.” The updated code authorized
the City to implement sidewalk repairs through the Capital Improvement Program utilizing 100%
City funds with no contributions from property owners based on funding availability. On May 21,
2018, the City Council awarded the 2018 Sidewalk Repair Program to Golden Bay Construction,
Inc., in the amount of $882,986. The project scope consisted of replacing defective sidewalks,
driveways, curb ramps, and curb and gutter in the area shown on the attached map.
DISCUSSION
The 2018 Sidewalk Repair Program has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the
project plans and specifications. The completed work included installation of approximately 52,000
square feet of new sidewalk, 17 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps, 23 curb ramp
upgrades, and 670 linear feet of curb and gutter.
The final project construction cost is $1,092,241, which is 209,055, or 23.7%, above the base
contract award amount and within the Council-approved contingencies. Due to favorable bid
pricing, the City Council had authorized up to 25% in contingencies to perform additional sidewalk
repairs and install curb and gutter and ADA curb ramps by taking advantage of the low-bid prices.
The extra work included sidewalk work on Chapin Avenue and in front of Burlingame High School
as well as improvements on Loma Vista Drive and Columbus Avenue.
Resolution Accepting the 2018 Sidewalk Repair Program July 1, 2019
2
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated final project expenditures:
Construction $1,092,241
Construction Inspection & Testing $61,692
Engineering Design & Administration $46,007
Total $1,199,940
There are adequate funds available in the Capital Improvement Program budget to cover the
estimated final costs.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Project Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS – 2018 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM BY
GOLDEN BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 85250
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this
Council finds, orders and determines as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works has certified the work done by Golden Bay
Construction, Inc., under the terms of its contract with the City dated July 9, 2018, has been
completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 85250.
3. Said work is accepted.
__________________________
Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day
of July, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8e
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the California Drive Roundabout Project
by Redgwick Construction Co., City Project No. 83920
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the California Drive
Roundabout Project by Redgwick Construction Co., City Project No. 83920, in the amount of
$3,430,647.95.
BACKGROUND
On March 19, 2018, the City Council awarded the California Drive Roundabout Project to Redgwick
Construction Co. in the amount of $2,968,082.50. The project, which is located on California Drive
at Bellevue Avenue and Lorton Avenue, was previously a six-legged intersection with complicated
traffic circulation movements.
DISCUSSION
A new roundabout was identified as a solution to address the challenges and conflicts of the
previous configuration after several years of extensive public outreach input into the project design
and feasibility analysis. The roundabout design incorporated community input such as pedestrian,
bicyclist, and motorist safety; overall traffic circulation; and landscape improvements. The project
consisted of the following:
Construction of a two-lane traffic roundabout.
“Complete Streets” components such as Class III bike lanes to improve bicycle access,
median islands, and highlighted pedestrian crosswalks to facilitate pedestrian crossings.
New sanitary sewer main and water main within the improved area, as well as “Green
Streets” sustainable landscaping, and storm drainage management system.
Yield signs and traffic channelizers at all entry approaches of the roundabout to regulate
and deflect traffic into a proper one-way counterclockwise flow.
New sidewalks and ADA access ramps.
New safety street lighting.
New pavement surfacing on California Drive between Oak Grove Avenue and Burlingame
Avenue and on Bellevue Avenue and Lorton Avenue in the project vicinity.
Acceptance of the California Drive Roundabout Project July 1, 2019
2
The project was constructed in multiple stages to minimize impacts to the community as best as
possible and to maintain safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the area.
This project constructed the first multilane traffic roundabout in the city with safety improvement
features intended to reduce speeds, reduce injury crashes, and improve access for pedestrians
and bicyclists. In an effort to educate the public about the use of the roundabout, the City installed
speed feedback signs and provided an informative California Drive Roundabout video that is
available on the web. Staff will continue to monitor the roundabout and make ongoing
improvements as needed based on feedback from the public and in coordination with the Police
Department.
The project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The
final construction cost is $3,430,647.95, which is $462,565.45, or 15.58%, higher than the original
contract award amount of $2,968,082.50. The increase in total construction costs was due to
additional improvements outlined below.
The existing cast iron water main was discovered to be too shallow and in conflict with the
project area and had to be replaced. Heavy equipment and excavation activities increased risk
of premature failure in this 90-year old water main. Approximately 350 linear feet of the existing
4-inch cast iron water main was replaced with 12-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride main. In
addition, the contractor replaced a domestic water and fire service at 401 California Drive and
installed a new fire hydrant.
Replacement of proposed pedestrian railing at the south corner of California Drive and Lorton
Avenue with decorative bollards to further enhance pedestrian safety.
Storm drain system modifications due to unforeseen site conditions and grading.
Traffic control safety measures such as added pavement legends, markings, and striping and
roadway signage.
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated final project expenditures:
Construction Contract $3,430,647.95
Construction Management and Inspection $400,000
Construction Engineering Support $160,000
Contract Administration $110,002
Total $4,100,650
Funding Availability:
There are adequate funds available in the Capital Improvement Program to cover the total project
costs. The project is funded by a combination of a Measure A Grant, Gas Tax, and Measure A
Local Streets & Roads, General Fund, Storm Drain Fee, and Water Capital Improvements Program
as follows:
Acceptance of the California Drive Roundabout Project July 1, 2019
3
CIP 329-83920 - California Drive Roundabout
(Gas Tax, Measure A Grant) $2,745,270
CIP 329-85080 – Annual Resurfacing
(Gas Tax, Local Streets and Roads-Measure A) $ 273,000
CIP 329-83090 – Streetlight Improvements
(General Fund) $ 356,170
FY 2018-19 CIP Water quality Improvements
(Storm Drain Fee) $ 520,000
CIP 326-81230 – Emergency Water Main Replacement
(FY18-19 Water CIP) $ 206,210
Total $4,100,650
Exhibits:
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS – CALIFORNIA DRIVE ROUNDABOUT PROJECT
BY REDGWICK CONSTRUCTION CO.
CITY PROJECT NO. 83920
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, which finds,
orders and determines as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works has certified the work done by Redgwick Construction
Co., under the terms of its contract with the City dated April 16, 2018, has been completed in
accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 83920
3. Said work is accepted.
__________________________
Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day
of July, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
City Clerk
CONTRACTOR: Redgwick Construction Co.DATE:ADDRESS: 21 Hegenberger Court12FOR THE MONTH OF: Oakland, CA 94621 PURCHASE ORDER #14553 ***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ITEM::UNIT:BID:UNIT:BID : QUANTITY : AMOUNT : PREVIOUS : AMOUNT#:ITEM DESCRIPTION:PRICE:QUANTITY:SIZE:AMOUNT : TO DATE : TO DATE : PAID : THIS PMT.***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************GENERAL COMMON ITEMS1:MOBILIZATION: 112,500.00$ : 1 :LS: 112,500.00$ : 1.0 : 112,500.00$ : 112,500.00$ : -$ 2 : LEAD COMPLIANCE PLAN : 1,500.00$ : 1 :LS: 1,500.00$ : 1.0 : 1,500.00$ : 1,500.00$ : -$ 3 : SOIL TESTING : 1,200.00$ : 1 :LS: 1,200.00$ : 1.0 : 1,200.00$ : 1,200.00$ : -$ 4 : PROGRESS SCHEDULE (CRITICAL PATH METHOD) :500.00$ : 1 :LS: 500.00$ : 1.0 : 500.00$ : 500.00$ : -$ 5 : PREPARE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN : 3,500.00$ : 1 :LS: 3,500.00$ : 1.0 : 3,500.00$ : 3,500.00$ : -$ 6 : STORM WATER ANNUAL REPORT : 2,000.00$ : 1 :EA: 2,000.00$ : 0.0 : -$ : -$ : -$ 7 : STORM WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS DAY : 400.00$ : 9 :EA: 3,600.00$ : 0.0 : -$ : -$ : -$ 8 : RAIN EVENT ACTION PLAN :500.00$ : 15 :EA: 7,500.00$ : 0.0 : -$ : -$ : -$ 9 : CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS : 4,500.00$ : 1 :LS: 4,500.00$ : 1.00 : 4,500.00$ : 4,500.00$ : -$ 10 : CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FUNDING SIGN : 1,200.00$ : 2 :EA: 2,400.00$ : 2.0 : 2,400.00$ : 2,400.00$ : -$ 11 : UTILITY POTHOLING : 400.00$ : 10 :EA: 4,000.00$ : 30.0 : 12,000.00$ : 12,000.00$ : -$ 12 : CONSTRUCTION STAKING (CONTRACTOR PROVIDED) : 35,000.00$ : 1 :LS: 35,000.00$ : 1.00 : 35,000.00$ : 35,000.00$ : -$ 13 : RECORD OF SURVEY : 2,500.00$ : 1 :LS: 2,500.00$ : 1.0 : 2,500.00$ : -$ : 2,500.00$ 14 : SURVEY MONUMENT : 1,700.00$ : 1 :EA: 1,700.00$ : 1.0 : 1,700.00$ : -$ : 1,700.00$ 15 : RESIDENT ENGINEER'S FIELD OFFICE : 18,000.00$ : 1 :LS: 18,000.00$ : 1.0 : 18,000.00$ : 18,000.00$ : -$ 16 : CLEARING AND GRUBBING : 25,000.00$ : 1 :LS: 25,000.00$ : 1.0 : 25,000.00$ : 25,000.00$ : -$ 17 : TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM :364,565.00$ : 1 :LS: 364,565.00$ : 1.00 : 364,565.00$ : 364,565.00$ : -$ 18 : PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN (EA) : 2,000.00$ : 2 :EA: 4,000.00$ : 2.0 : 4,000.00$ : 4,000.00$ : -$ 19 : CHANNELIZER (SURFACE MOUNTED) : 38.00$ : 126 :EA: 4,788.00$ : 176.0 : 6,688.00$ : 6,688.00$ : -$ 20 : TEMPORARY RAILING (TYPE K) : 18.00$ : 940 :LF: 16,920.00$ : 982.0 : 17,676.00$ : 17,676.00$ : -$ 21 : CRASH CUSHION (IN-LINE) : 500.00$ : 5 :EA: 2,500.00$ : 0.0 : -$ : -$ : -$ 22 : TEMPORARY SAFETY LIGHTIING : 27,500.00$ : 1 :LS: 27,500.00$ : 0.91 : 25,025.00$ : 13,750.00$ : 11,250.00$ 23 : ROADWAY EXCAVATION (F) :100.00$ : 2,300 :CY: 230,000.00$ : 2,500.0 : 250,000.00$ : 250,000.00$ : -$ 24 : CLASS I DISPOSAL :250.00$ : 100 :CY: 25,000.00$ : 0.0 : -$ : -$ : -$ 25 : CLASS II DISPOSAL : 80.00$ : 100 :CY: 8,000.00$ : 616.0 : 49,280.00$ : 49,280.00$ : -$ 26 : FURNISH AND INSTALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM :114,950.00$ : 1 :LS: 114,950.00$ : 1.00 : 114,950.00$ : 114,950.00$ : -$ 27 : FURNISH AND INSTALL LANDSCAPING AND BIOFILTRATION AREAS : 104,950.00$ : 1 :LS: 104,950.00$ : 1.0 : 104,950.00$ : 104,950.00$ : -$ 28 : PLANT ESTABLISHMENT WORK (TYPE 2, 365 DAYS) : 9,600.00$ : 1 :LS: 9,600.00$ : 1.0 : 9,600.00$ : -$ : 9,600.00$ 29 : REMOVE CONCRETE (CURB AND GUTTER) : 30.00$ : 1,365 :LF: 40,950.00$ : 1,286.5 : 38,595.00$ : 38,595.00$ : -$ 30 : REMOVE CONCRETE (SIDEWALK) : 6.50$ : 6,725 :SQFT: 43,712.50$ : 6,679.5 : 43,416.75$ : 43,416.75$ : -$ 31 : REMOVE CONCRETE (MEDIAN CURB AND PAVING) : 15.00$ : 235 :SQFT: 3,525.00$ : 235.0 : 3,525.00$ : 3,525.00$ : -$ 32 : REMOVE INLET : 1,000.00$ : 2 :EA: 2,000.00$ : 3.0 : 3,000.00$ : 3,000.00$ : -$ 33 : REMOVE PIPE (LF) : 158.00$ : 6 :LF: 948.00$ : 0.0 : -$ : -$ : -$ 34 : MODIFY INLET TO MANHOLE : 3,000.00$ : 1 :EA: 3,000.00$ : 1.0 : 3,000.00$ : 3,000.00$ : -$ 35 : MODIFY INLET (CAP) : 2,000.00$ : 2 :EA: 4,000.00$ : 0.0 : -$ : -$ : -$ 36 : ADJUST MANHOLE TO GRADE (STORM DRAIN) : 1,500.00$ : 4 :EA: 6,000.00$ : 4.0 : 6,000.00$ : 6,000.00$ : -$ 37 : ADJUST MANHOLE TO GRADE (SEWER) : 1,500.00$ : 5 :EA: 7,500.00$ : 5.0 : 7,500.00$ : 7,500.00$ : -$ 38 : ADJUST FIRE HYDRANT TO GRADE : 1,500.00$ : 2 :EA: 3,000.00$ : 1.0 : 1,500.00$ : 1,500.00$ : -$ 39 : FURNISH AND INSTALL UTILITY BOX (CITY-OWNED) : 250.00$ : 6 :EA: 1,500.00$ : 6.0 : 1,500.00$ : 1,500.00$ : -$ 40 : SALVAGE PARKING METER : 150.00$ : 12 :EA: 1,800.00$ : 13.0 : 1,950.00$ : 1,350.00$ : 600.00$ 41 : SALVAGE STREET LIGHT : 600.00$ : 5 :EA: 3,000.00$ : 5.0 : 3,000.00$ : 3,000.00$ : -$ 42 : RELOCATE DECORATIVE STREET LIGHT : 5,200.00$ : 1 :EA: 5,200.00$ : 1.0 : 5,200.00$ : 5,200.00$ : -$ 43 : SALVAGE RRFB SYSTEM : 1,750.00$ : 2 :EA: 3,500.00$ : 2.0 : 3,500.00$ : 1,750.00$ : 1,750.00$ 44 : SALVAGE ROADSIDE SIGN : 55.00$ : 24 :EA: 1,320.00$ : 24.0 : 1,320.00$ : 1,320.00$ : -$ 45 : ADJUST WATER VALVE BOX TO GRADE : 600.00$ : 8 :EA: 4,800.00$ : 8.0 : 4,800.00$ : 4,800.00$ : -$ 46 : REPLACE ROADSIDE SIGN PANEL ON EXISTING POST : 280.00$ : 3 :EA: 840.00$ : 4.0 : 1,120.00$ : -$ : 1,120.00$ 47 : COLD PLANE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT : 5.50$ : 7,220 :SQYD: 39,710.00$ : 7,990.0 : 43,945.00$ : 43,945.00$ : -$ 48 : LOWER AND RAISE MANHOLE : 1,500.00$ : 10 :EA: 15,000.00$ : 10.0 : 15,000.00$ : 15,000.00$ : -$ 49 : LOWER AND RAISE UTILITY COVER : 1,000.00$ : 9 :EA: 9,000.00$ : 9.0 : 9,000.00$ : 9,000.00$ : -$ 50 : AGGREGATE BASE (CLASS 2) : 40.00$ : 1,325 :TON: 53,000.00$ : 1,049.85 : 41,994.00$ : 41,994.00$ : -$ 51 : PAVEMENT FAILURE REPAIR :185.00$ : 500 :TON: 92,500.00$ : 423.21 : 78,293.85$ : 78,293.85$ : -$ 52 : HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A) :147.00$ : 1,900 :TON: 279,300.00$ : 2,323.98 : 341,625.06$ : 341,625.06$ : -$ 53 : 12" PVC C900 PIPE : 165.00$ : 500 :LF: 82,500.00$ : 506.0 : 83,490.00$ : 83,490.00$ : -$ 54 : CHANNEL DRAIN : 400.00$ : 16 :LF: 6,400.00$ : 8.0 : 3,200.00$ : 3,200.00$ : -$ TELEPHONE: CITY PROJECT NO. 83920CITY OF BURLINGAME6/14/2019PAYMENT NO.California Drive Roundabout ProjectApr-19
CONTRACTOR: Redgwick Construction Co.DATE:ADDRESS: 21 Hegenberger Court12FOR THE MONTH OF: Oakland, CA 94621 PURCHASE ORDER #14553 ***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ITEM::UNIT:BID:UNIT:BID : QUANTITY : AMOUNT : PREVIOUS : AMOUNT#:ITEM DESCRIPTION:PRICE:QUANTITY:SIZE:AMOUNT : TO DATE : TO DATE : PAID : THIS PMT.***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************TELEPHONE: CITY PROJECT NO. 83920CITY OF BURLINGAME6/14/2019PAYMENT NO.California Drive Roundabout ProjectApr-1955 : DRAINAGE INLET (TYPE I) : 3,600.00$ : 8 :EA: 28,800.00$ : 8.0 : 28,800.00$ : 28,800.00$ : -$ 56 : DRAINAGE INLET (TYPE GO) : 4,900.00$ : 5 :EA: 24,500.00$ : 4.0 : 19,600.00$ : 19,600.00$ : -$ 57 : STORM DRAIN MANHOLE : 7,900.00$ : 2 :EA: 15,800.00$ : 1.0 : 7,900.00$ : 7,900.00$ : -$ 58 : MINOR CONCRETE (MOUNTABLE CURB) : 2,300.00$ : 10 :CY: 23,000.00$ : 10.0 : 23,000.00$ : 23,000.00$ : -$ 59 : MINOR CONCRETE (CURB AND GUTTER) : 89.00$ : 580 :LF: 51,620.00$ : 896.0 : 79,744.00$ : 79,744.00$ : -$ 60 : MINOR CONCRETE (MEDIAN CURB ON PCC SLAB, TYPE A1-6) : 1,300.00$ : 22 :CY: 28,600.00$ : 22.0 : 28,600.00$ : 28,600.00$ : -$ 61 : MINOR CONCRETE (MEDIAN CURB, TYPE A1-6) : 85.00$ : 695 :LF: 59,075.00$ : 601.0 : 51,085.00$ : 51,085.00$ : -$ 62 : MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK) : 16.00$ : 11,960 :SQFT: 191,360.00$ : 13,175.90 : 210,814.40$ : 210,814.40$ : -$ 63 : MINOR CONCRETE (TRUCK APRON) : 24.00$ : 2,070 :SQFT: 49,680.00$ : 2,079.0 : 49,896.00$ : 49,896.00$ : -$ 64 : MINOR CONCRETE (BUS PAD) : 20.00$ : 2,525 :SQFT: 50,500.00$ : 2,240.0 : 44,800.00$ : 44,800.00$ : -$ 65 : MINOR CONCRETE (CUT-OFF WALL) : 140.00$ : 590 :LF: 82,600.00$ : 607.0 : 84,980.00$ : 84,980.00$ : -$ 66 : MINOR CONCRETE (DEEPENED CURB AND GUTTER) :125.00$ : 416 :LF: 52,000.00$ : 402.50 : 50,312.50$ : 50,312.50$ : -$ 67 : MINOR CONCRETE (STAMPED CONCRETE) : 24.00$ : 1,175 :SQFT: 28,200.00$ : 1,177.0 : 28,248.00$ : 28,248.00$ : -$ 68 : PEDESTRIAN RAILING : 150.00$ : 85 :LF: 12,750.00$ : 0.0 : -$ : -$ : -$ 69 : ROADSIDE SIGN - ONE POST (METAL) : 300.00$ : 50 :EA: 15,000.00$ : 64.0 : 19,200.00$ : -$ : 19,200.00$ 70 : THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 9) : 0.70$ : 2,915 :LF: 2,040.50$ : 2,999.0 : 2,099.30$ : -$ : 2,099.30$ 71 : THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 22) : 2.00$ : 360 :LF: 720.00$ : 511.0 : 1,022.00$ : -$ : 1,022.00$ 72 : THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 25) : 1.00$ : 750 :LF: 750.00$ : 667.0 : 667.00$ : -$ : 667.00$ 73 : THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 27B) : 1.00$ : 1,005 :LF: 1,005.00$ : 1,355.0 : 1,355.00$ : -$ : 1,355.00$ 74 : THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 29) : 3.70$ : 560 :LF: 2,072.00$ : 520.0 : 1,924.00$ : -$ : 1,924.00$ 75 : THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 32) : 3.70$ : 560 :LF: 2,072.00$ : 381.0 : 1,409.70$ : -$ : 1,409.70$ 76 : THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 38) : 1.80$ : 290 :LF: 522.00$ : 1,295.0 : 2,331.00$ : -$ : 2,331.00$ 77 : THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE(DETAIL 38A) : 1.80$ : 1,095 :LF: 1,971.00$ : 1,036.0 : 1,864.80$ : -$ : 1,864.80$ 78 : THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 39A) : 1.00$ : 615 :LF: 615.00$ : 579.0 : 579.00$ : -$ : 579.00$ 79 : THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 40) : 2.00$ : 50 :LF: 100.00$ : 35.0 : 70.00$ : -$ : 70.00$ 80 : THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (WHITE) : 4.20$ : 1,755 :SQFT: 7,371.00$ : 3,798.9 : 15,955.25$ : -$ : 15,955.25$ 81 : PAINT CURB (RED) : 2.50$ : 190 :LF: 475.00$ : 353.0 : 882.50$ : -$ : 882.50$ 82 : PAINT CURB (YELLOW) : 2.50$ : 85 :LF: 212.50$ : 335.0 : 837.50$ : -$ : 837.50$ 83 : OBJECT MARKER (TYPE P) : 65.00$ : 11 :EA: 715.00$ : 9.0 : 585.00$ : -$ : 585.00$ 84 : TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOOP DETECTORS : 650.00$ : 16 :EA: 10,400.00$ : 16.0 : 10,400.00$ : 10,400.00$ : -$ 85 : LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEM :284,883.00$ : 1 :LS: 284,883.00$ : 1.00 : 284,883.00$ : 284,883.00$ : -$ 86 : PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ASSEMBLY : 86,495.00$ : 1 :LS: 86,495.00$ : 1.00 : 86,495.00$ : 86,495.00$ : -$ SUBTOTAL 2,968,082.50$ 3,052,848.61$ : 2,973,521.56$ : 79,302.05$ PROJECT TOTAL2,968,082.50$ 3,052,848.61$ 2,973,521.56$ 79,302.05$ CHANGE ORDERS:CCO UNIT:CCO:UNIT:BID:QUANTITY : AMOUNT : PREVIOUS : AMOUNT#:DESCRIPTION:PRICE:QUANTITY:SIZE:AMOUNT:TO DATE : TO DATE : PAID : THIS PMT.********** * *************************************************************************************************** * ********************** * *************** * ************* * ***************************** * ************** * ************************* ** ******************************* * *******************************CO1 :Installation of New 12" Water Main: 183,192.00$ : 1 :LS: 183,192.00$ : 1 : 183,192.00$ : 183,192.00$ : -$ CO1S1 :Water Main Changes Extra Work: 23,011.32$ : 1 :LS: 23,011.32$ : 1 : 23,011.32$ : 23,011.32$ : -$ CO2 :Furnish and Install 6 new bollards: 58,081.92$ : 1 :LS: 58,081.92$ : 1 : 58,081.92$ : 58,081.92$ : -$ CO3 :Stage 1 Storm Drain System Redesign: 5,712.00$ : 1 :LS: 5,712.00$ : 1 : 5,712.00$ : 5,712.00$ : -$ CO3S1 :Storm Drain System Extra Work: 10,439.80$ : 1 :LS: 10,439.80$ : 1 : 10,439.80$ : 10,439.80$ : -$ CO4 :Misc Stage 1 Traffic Control : 16,244.68$ : 1 :LS: 16,244.68$ : 1 : 16,244.68$ : 16,244.68$ : -$ CO5 :Misc Extra Work Items: 40,924.06$ : 1 :LS: 40,924.06$ : 1 : 40,924.06$ : 40,924.06$ : -$ CO6 :Asphalt Strip Lot O and Striping Items: 40,193.56$ : 1 :LS: 40,193.56$ : 1 : 40,193.56$ : -$ : 40,193.56$ CHANGE ORDERS TOTAL377,799.34$ 377,799.34$ : 337,605.78$ :40,193.56$ DEDUCTIONS:D1::-$ : : : -$ : : -$ : -$ : -$
CONTRACTOR: Redgwick Construction Co.DATE:ADDRESS: 21 Hegenberger Court12FOR THE MONTH OF: Oakland, CA 94621 PURCHASE ORDER #14553 ***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ITEM::UNIT:BID:UNIT:BID : QUANTITY : AMOUNT : PREVIOUS : AMOUNT#:ITEM DESCRIPTION:PRICE:QUANTITY:SIZE:AMOUNT : TO DATE : TO DATE : PAID : THIS PMT.***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************TELEPHONE: CITY PROJECT NO. 83920CITY OF BURLINGAME6/14/2019PAYMENT NO.California Drive Roundabout ProjectApr-19TOTAL DEDUCTIONS-$ -$ : -$ : -$ ********** * *************************************************************************************************** * ********************** * *************** * ************* * ***************************** * ************** * ************************* ** ******************************* * *******************************DATEPREPARED BY: Redgwick3/28/2019SUBTOTAL * ************* * *****************************3,430,647.95$ : 3,311,127.34$ : 119,495.61$ LESS FIVE (5%) PERCENT RETENTION (171,532.40)$ : (165,556.37)$ : (5,974.78)$ CHECKED BY: Lisha Mai3/29/2018*************** * ************* * *****************************----------------------------- : ---------------------------------- : -----------------------------------APPROVED BYSUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS 3,259,115.56$ : 3,145,570.97$ : 113,520.83$ CITY ENGINEER: AMOUNT DUE FROM CONTRACTOR -$ : -$ : -$ APPROVED BY*************** * ************* *****************************----------------------------- : ---------------------------------- : -----------------------------------CONSULTANT: Nick P.3/28/2019TOTAL THIS PERIOD ***************************** 3,259,115.56$ : 3,145,570.97$ :113,520.83$ *************** * ************* * *****************************================= : ==================== : ====================Note:%Total This PO (per FUND)Retention This PeriodPAY THIS PERIOD77%32983920$92,011.62$4,600.58$87,411.0415%32883920$17,924.34$896.22$17,028.128%32985080$9,559.65$477.98$9,081.670%32983090$0.00$0.00$0.00100% TOTAL $119,495.61 $5,974.78$113,520.83Streetlight ImprovementsFUNDDescriptionCalifornia Drive RoundaboutStorm Drain ImprovementsStreet Resurfacing
VICINITY MAP
NTS
SITE
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8f
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks & Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Karen Hager, Management Analyst – (650) 558-7317
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Ray Park Playground Project, City
Project No. 84440
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Ray Park
Playground Project, City Project No. 84440, in the amount of $805,703.18.
BACKGROUND
On February 19, 2019 the City Council awarded the Ray Park Playground Project construction
contract to Suarez and Muñoz Construction, Inc. in the amount of $299,700.
The Ray Park Playground Project included providing all labor and materials required for the
demolition, off-haul, grading and drainage, as well as concrete paving, curbs, play equipment
installation, site furnishings installation, a metal fence at the play area, and other miscellaneous
items.
The procurement and installation of the playground surfacing tiles was purchased under another
contract with SofSurfaces, Inc. through Sourcewell, a procurement option for California local
governmental agencies at a cost of $131,158.22. The playground equipment was purchased from
King County Directors’ Association, a procurement agency that supplies equipment to public
agencies, at a cost of $202,814.12.
DISCUSSION
The project construction has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and
specifications. The final construction cost was $312,408. There were several change orders due to
unanticipated conditions including a large tree root that needed to be removed, a manhole that was
discovered at the site and needed to be covered, and several items requested by the Parks
Department staff to improve the irrigation and to trench a waterline to the field while the site was
already demolished. The change orders added an additional $12,708 to the overall construction
cost.
Resolution Accepting the Ray Park Playground Project City Project No. 84440 July 1, 2019
2
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated final project construction expenditures:
Landscape Architect/Consultant $ 81,269.50
Geotechnical Testing $ 12,658.00
Suarez & Munoz Construction Contract $ 312,408.00
Surfacing Tile & Installation $ 131,158.22
Playground Equipment $ 202,814.12
Site Furnishings $ 60,964.35
Playground Safety Inspection $ 1,140.00
Plans/Signs/Legal Ads/Misc. $ 3,290.99
Total: $ 805,703.18
There are sufficient funds in the Parks and Trees Capital Improvement budget to cover the final project
costs.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING
IMPROVEMENTS – RAY PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION BY SUAREZ & MUNOZ
CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND SOFSURFACES, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 84440
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, which finds, orders
and determines as follows:
1. The Director of Parks and Recreation of the City of Burlingame has certified the work done,
by Suarez and Muñoz Construction, Inc. and SofSurfaces, Inc. under the terms of their contracts
with the City dated February 19, 2019, has been completed in accordance with the plans and
specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and
Recreation.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 84440
3. Said work is accepted.
__________________________
Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day of July, 2019,
and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________________
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8g
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an
Agreement with PFM Financial Advisors LLC for Financial Advisory Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute
an agreement with PFM Financial Advisors LLC (PFMFA) for financial advisory services.
BACKGROUND
PFM has been providing financial consulting services to the City since 2014. The firm has provided
a variety of services consisting of presenting the City Council with financing alternatives for capital
projects, providing long-term debt analyses, assisting with bond issuance and advanced bond
refunding, and reviewing the City’s Debt and Disclosure Policy. The firm has advised the City’s
Finance staff on a number of issues in regards to long-term municipal financial planning.
In accordance with the best practices promulgated by the Government Finance Officers Association
(GFOA), governmental entities should hire a municipal advisor prior to the undertaking of a debt
financing unless the issuer has sufficient in-house expertise and access to current bond market
information. The GFOA suggests a competitive process, and that issuers review those
relationships periodically. In October, 2014, the City issued an RFP for a Financial Advisor, and
subsequently selected Public Financial Management (PFM), Inc. The agreement provided for a
three-year term with the option to extend the agreement for an additional three-year term upon
mutual agreement by both parties. The firm is currently acting as the City’s financial advisor under
an extension of the original agreement.
DISCUSSION
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and its associated
regulations had significant impact on the municipal market, and in particular, the ways in which
financial advisors conduct day to day business with issuers and underwriters. The services of a
Municipal Advisor are regulated by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) with industry
oversight by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB). In 2016, the MSRB implemented
new conduct standards for municipal advisors and for the underwriters working with them. In
compliance with these rules, municipal advisors are legally required to provide a disclosure
agreement that includes the following information:
Agreement with PFMFA for Financial Advisory Services July 1, 2019
2
• Clearly provides a fee proposal for the services rendered
• Describes the record retention responsibilities
• Creates a Fiduciary Duty to the issuer (City of Burlingame)
• Provides for a Duty of Care and Honesty in all dealings
• Clearly discloses any conflicts of interest
• Clearly discloses any legal or disciplinary actions
Although such provisions were largely included in the original agreement with PFM, financial
advisors have been required to make specific notifications to clients, similar to those issued by
underwriters (the G17 Letters stating that underwriters are NOT acting as a financial
advisor/fiduciary, and that they work at “arms-length” because of conflicts, etc.) The “G-42 Letter”
provides the required disclosures, including (1) a signed statement that PFM is serving in a fiduciary
role as the City’s Municipal Advisor, and (2) A separate “Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest and
Other Information”. Moving forward, PFM will deliver an updated disclosure at the beginning of
each transaction.
As a consequence of the new regulation framework, the PFM Group transitioned its financial
advisory services (registered municipal advisory services) provided by Public Financial
Management, Inc. (“PFM”) to a new operating company, PFM Financial Advisors LLC (“PFMFA”).
This allowed the firm to align their various operating activities (financial advisor, asset management,
swap advisor, etc.) into separate legal entities that are registered with the appropriate regulatory
agencies.
Due to the special expertise, and Bob Gamble's significant knowledge about prior bond issues and
other financing mechanisms of the City of Burlingame, along with the excellent customer service
and sound and practical plans and implementation of debt financings, staff intended to extend the
current contract with PFM. However, due to the updated disclosure requirements and the legal
name change of the firm, staff recommends a new contract with PFMFA be approved.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City budgets individually for all bond issuance costs as part of the debt issuance charges.
Other financial consulting services are budgeted largely within the City’s Finance Department
budget.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH PFM FINANCIAL ADVISORS,
LLC. (PFMFA) FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously emphasized the desire for cost-control
measures and the recovery of more costs for certain City services; and
WHEREAS, in 2014, City staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the services of
a Financial Advisor; and
WHEREAS, Public Financial Management (PFM) was selected as the best qualified to
provide the needed services as the City’s Financial Advisor; and
WHEREAS, due to revisions in the regulatory framework promulgated by the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board, the PFM Group transitioned its financial advisory services to a
new operating company, PFM Financial Advisors, LLC (PFMFA); and
WHEREAS, due to the very fine financial consulting services provided under the current
contract, staff recommends a continuance of a contractual relationship with PFMFA as the City’s
Financial Advisor.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
The City Manager is authorized to execute the agreement with PFMFA substantially in the form
attached as an Exhibit to this Resolution.
_____________________________
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 Burlingame City Council held
on the 1st day of July, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
PFM FINANCIAL ADVISORS LLC
AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES
This agreement (“Agreement”), made and entered into this 1st day of July, 2019, by and
between the City of Burlingame (“Client”) and PFM Financial Advisors LLC (hereinafter called
“PFM”), sets forth the terms and conditions under which PFM shall provide services.
WHEREAS, Client desires to obtain the services of a financial advisor to develop and
assist in implementing Client’s strategies to meet its current and long-term operations, financial
obligations, capital financing needs and render assistance in respect to debt transactions; and
WHEREAS, PFM is capable of providing the necessary financial advisory services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above mentioned premises and intending to
be legally bound hereby, Client and PFM agree as follows:
I. SCOPE OF SERVICES
PFM shall provide, upon request of the Client, services related to financial planning,
budget and strategic advice and planning, policy development and services related to debt
issuance, as applicable and set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement. Client acknowledges and
agrees that most tasks requested by Client will not require all services provided for in Exhibit A
and as such the specific scope of services for such task shall be limited to just those services
required to complete the task. Any material changes in or additions to the scope of services
described in Exhibit A shall be promptly reflected in a written supplement or amendment to this
Agreement. Services provided by PFM which are not specifically referenced in the scope of
services set forth in Exhibit A of this Agreement shall be completed as agreed in writing in
advance between the Client and PFM. Upon request of Client, PFM or an affiliate of PFM may
agree to additional services to be provided by PFM or an affiliate of PFM, by a separate
agreement between the Client and PFM or its respective affiliate.
II. WORK SCHEDULE
The services of PFM are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of this
Agreement and a request by the Client for such service.
III. REGISTERED MUNICIPAL ADVISOR; REQUIRED DISCLOSURES
1. PFM is a registered municipal advisor with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “SEC”) and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB”),
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 15Ba1-2. If Client has designated PFM as
its independent registered municipal advisor (“IRMA”) for purposes of SEC Rule 15Ba1-
1(d)(3)(vi) (the “IRMA exemption”), then services provided pursuant to such designation shall
be the services described in Exhibit A hereto, subject to any limitations provided therein. PFM
shall not be responsible for, or have any liability in connection with, verifying that PFM is
independent from any other party seeking to rely on the IRMA exemption (as such independent
status is required pursuant to the IRMA exemption, as interpreted from time to time by the SEC).
Rev. 28.10.2018 - 2 -
Client acknowledges and agrees that any reference to PFM, its personnel and its role as IRMA,
including in the written representation of Client required under SEC Rule 15Ba1-1(d)(3)(vi)(B)
shall be subject to prior approval by PFM. Client further agrees not to represent that PFM is
Client’s IRMA with respect to any aspect of a municipal securities issuance or municipal
financial product, outside of the scope of services without PFM’s prior written consent.
2. MSRB Rules require that municipal advisors make written disclosures to their
clients of all material conflicts of interest, certain legal or disciplinary events and certain
regulatory requirements. Such disclosures are provided in PFM’s Disclosure Statement
delivered to Client together with this Agreement.
IV. FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMPENSATION
For the services provided under this Agreement, PFM’s professional fees shall be paid as
provided in Exhibit B to this Agreement and Client shall pay expenses and fees for other services
not set forth in Exhibit A as provided below.
1. Reimbursable Expenses
In addition to fees for services, and subject to prior approval by the City, PFM will be
reimbursed for necessary, reasonable, and documented out-of-pocket expenses incurred,
including travel, meals, lodging, telephone, mail, and other ordinary cost and any actual
extraordinary cost for graphics, printing, data processing and computer time which are incurred
by PFM. Upon request of Client, documentation of such expenses will be provided.
2. Other Services
Any services which are not included in the scope of services set forth in Exhibit A of this
Agreement will be subject to separate, mutually acceptable fee structures.
V. TERMS AND TERMINATION
This Agreement shall be effective from July 1, 2019 until June 30, 2022 (the “Initial
Term”) and shall automatically renew for additional 1 year periods (each a “Renewal Term” and
together with the Initial Term, the “Term”, unless terminated in writing by either party upon
thirty (30) days written notice to the other party.
Upon any such termination, PFM will be paid for all services performed and costs and
expenses incurred up to the termination date.
VI. ASSIGNMENT
PFM shall not assign any interest in this Agreement or subcontract any of the work
performed under the Agreement without the prior written consent of the Client; provided that
upon notice to Client, PFM may assign this Agreement or any interests hereunder to a municipal
advisor entity registered with the SEC that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is
under common control with, PFM.
Rev. 28.10.2018 - 3 -
VII. INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED TO PFM
All information, data, reports, and records in the possession of the Client or any third
party necessary for carrying out any services to be performed under this Agreement (“Data”)
shall be furnished to PFM and the Client shall, and shall cause its agent(s) to, cooperate with
PFM in its conduct of reasonable due diligence in performing the services, including with respect
to the facts that are necessary in its recommendation(s) to the Client in connection with a
municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product and/or relevant to the Client’s
determination whether to proceed with a course of action. To the extent Client requests that
PFM provide advice with regard to any recommendation made by a third party, Client will
provide to PFM written direction to do so as well as any Data it has received from such third
party relating to its recommendation. Client acknowledges and agrees that while PFM is relying
on the Data in connection with its provision of the services under this Agreement, PFM makes
no representation with respect to and shall not be responsible for the accuracy, adequacy or
completeness of such Data.
VIII. NOTICES
All notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing, sent by registered United
States mail, with return receipt requested, addressed to the party for whom it is intended, at the
designated below. The parties designate the following as the respective places for giving notice,
to wit:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Attention: Carol Augustine, Finance Director
PFM FINANCIAL ADVISORS LLC
50 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attention: Robert Gamble, Managing Director
IX. TITLE TRANSFER
All materials, except functioning or dynamic financial models, prepared by PFM
pursuant exclusively to this Agreement shall be the property of the Client. Subject to the
exception described above, upon termination of this Agreement, at Client’s reasonable request no
later than three (3) years after the termination of this Agreement PFM shall deliver to the Client
copies of any deliverables pertaining to this Agreement.
X. PFM’S REPRESENTATIVES
1. Assignment of Named Individuals
Rev. 28.10.2018 - 4 -
The professional employees of PFM set forth below will provide the services set forth in
this Agreement; provided that PFM may, from time to time, supplement or otherwise amend the
team members set forth below.
Robert Gamble, Managing Director
Sarah Hollenbeck, Managing Director
Christine Choi, Director
Nicholas Jones, Senior Managing Consultant
Kevin Dong, Senior Analyst
Alexander Laine, Analyst
2. Changes in Staff Requested by the Client
The Client has the right to request, for any reason, PFM to replace any member of the
advisory team. Should the Client make such a request, PFM shall promptly suggest a substitute
for approval by the Client.
XI. INSURANCE
PFM shall maintain insurance coverage with policy limits not less than as stated in
Exhibit C.
XII. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Except to the extent caused by willful misconduct, bad faith, gross negligence or reckless
disregard of obligations or duties under this Agreement on the part of PFM or any of its
associated persons, neither PFM nor any of its associated persons shall have liability to any
person for (i) any act or omission in connection with performance of its services hereunder; (ii)
any error of judgment or mistake of law; (iii) any loss arising out of any issuance of municipal
securities, any municipal financial product or any other financial product, or (iv) any financial or
other damages resulting from Client’s election to act, or not to act, contrary to or, absent
negligence on the part of PFM or any of its associated persons, upon any advice or
recommendation provided by PFM to Client.
XIII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY
PFM, its employees, officers and representatives at all times shall be independent
contractors and shall not be deemed to be employees, agents, partners, servants and/or joint
venturers of Client by virtue of this Agreement or any actions or services rendered under this
Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to give any person,
other than the Parties hereto, their successors and permitted assigns, any legal or equitable rights,
remedy or claim under or in respect of this Agreement or any provisions contained herein. In no
event will PFM be liable for any act or omission of any third party or for any circumstances
beyond PFM’s reasonable control including, but not limited to, fire, flood, or other natural
disaster, war, riot, strike, act of terrorism, act of civil or military authority, software and/or
equipment failure, computer virus, or failure or interruption of electrical, telecommunications or
other utility services.
Rev. 28.10.2018 - 5 -
XIV. APPLICABLE LAW
This Agreement shall be construed, enforced, and administered according to the laws of
the State of California. PFM and the Client agree that, should a disagreement arise as to the
terms or enforcement of any provision of this Agreement, each party will in good faith attempt to
resolve said disagreement prior to pursuing other action.
XV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; SEVERABILITY
This Agreement represents the entire agreement between Client and PFM and may not be
amended or modified except in writing signed by both parties. For the sake of clarity, any
separate agreement between Client and an affiliate of PFM shall not in any way be deemed an
amendment or modification of this Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any
provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision.
XVI. EXECUTION; COUNTERPARTS
Each party to this Agreement represents and warrants that the person or persons signing
this Agreement on behalf of such party is authorized and empowered to sign and deliver this
Agreement for such party. This Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each
of which shall be an original and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the
same document.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Client and PFM have executed this Agreement as of the
day and year herein above written.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
By:
Name, Title
Date:
PFM FINANCIAL ADVISORS LLC
By:
Name, Title
Date:
Rev. 28.10.2018 - 6 -
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. Services related to the Financial Planning and Policy Development upon request
of the Client:
Assist the Client in the formulation of Financial and Debt Policies and
Administrative Procedures.
Review current debt structure, identifying strengths and weaknesses of structure
so that future debt issues can be designed to maximize ability to finance future
capital needs. This will include, but not be limited to, reviewing existing debt for
the possibility of refunding that debt to provide the Client with savings.
Analyze future debt capacity to determine the Client’s ability to raise future debt
capital.
Assist the Client in the development of the Client’s Capital Improvement Program
by identifying sources of capital funding.
Assist the Client with the development of the Client’s financial planning efforts
and process by assessing capital needs, identifying potential revenue sources,
analyze financing alternatives such as pay-as-you-go, lease/purchasing, short-term
vs. long-term financings, assessments, user fees, impact fees, developer
contributions, public/private projects, and grants and provide analysis of each
alternative as required as to the budgetary and financial impact.
Review the reports of accountants, independent engineers and other project
feasibility consultants to ensure that such studies adequately address technical,
economic, and financial risk factors affecting the marketability of any proposed
revenue debt issues; provide bond market assumptions necessary for financial
projections included in these studies; attend all relevant working sessions
regarding the preparations, review and completion of such independent studies;
and provide written comments and recommendations regarding assumptions,
analytic methods, and conclusions contained therein.
Develop, manage and maintain computer models for long-term capital planning
which provide for inputs regarding levels of ad valorem and non-ad valorem
taxation, growth rates by operating revenue and expenditure item, timing,
magnitude and cost of debt issuance, and project operating and capital balances,
selected operating and debt ratios and other financial performance measures as
may be determined b y the Client.
Conduct strategic modeling and planning and related consulting.
Attend meetings with Client’s staff, consultants and other professionals and the
Client.
Rev. 28.10.2018 - 7 -
Undertake financial planning and policy development assignments made by the
Client regarding financings, and financial policy including budget, tax, cash
management issues and related fiscal policy and programs.
Assist the Client in preparing financial presentations for public hearings and/ or
referendums.
Provide special financial services as requested by the Client.
2. Services Related to Debt Transactions (Includes short term financings, notes,
loans, letters of credit, line of credit and bonds); provided that if the transaction is competitive,
the services of the financial advisor will be modified in advance in writing to reflect that process.
Upon the request of the Client:
Assist in assembling the financing team.
Develop RFPs for services and help evaluate proposals as required.
Analyze financial and economic factors to determine if the issuance of bonds is
appropriate.
Develop a financing plan in concert with Client’s staff which would include
recommendations as to the timing and number of series of bonds to be issued.
Assist the Client by recommending the best method of sale, either as a negotiated
sale, private placement or a public sale. In a public sale, make recommendation
as to the determination of the best bid. In the event of a negotiated sale, assist in
the solicitation, review and evaluation of any investment banking proposals, and
provide advice and information necessary to aid in such selection.
Advise as to the various financing alternatives available to the Client.
Develop alternatives related to debt transaction including evaluation of revenues
available, maturity schedule and cash flow requirements.
Evaluate benefits of bond insurance and/or security insurance for debt reserve
fund.
If appropriate, develop credit rating presentation and coordinate with the Client
the overall presentation to rating agencies.
Review underwriter’s proposals and submit a written analysis of same to the
Client.
Assist the Client in the procurement of other services relating to debt issuance
such as printing, paying agent, registrar, etc.
Rev. 28.10.2018 - 8 -
Identify key bond covenant features and advise as to the financial consequences
of provisions to be included in bond indentures, resolutions or other governing
documents regarding security, creation of reserve funds, flow of funds,
redemption provisions, additional parity debt tests, etc.; review and comment on
successive drafts of bond governing documents.
Review the requirements and submit analysis to bond insurers, rating agencies
and other professionals as they pertain to the Client’s obligation.
Review the terms, conditions and structure of any proposed debt offering
undertaken by the Client and provide suggestions, modifications and
enhancements where appropriate and necessary to reflect the constraints or
current financial policy and fiscal capability.
Assist in the preparation of documents, including preliminary and final official
statements, and coordinate with Client’s staff and other advisors as respects the
furnishing of data for offering documents, it being specifically understood that
PFM is not responsible for the inclusion or omission of any material in published
offering documents.
As applicable, advise the Client on the condition of the bond market at the time of
sale, including volume, timing considerations, competing offerings, and general
economic considerations.
Assist and advise the Client in negotiations with investment banking groups
regarding fees, pricing of the bonds and final terms of any security offering, and
make recommendations regarding a proposed offering to obtain the most
favorable financial terms based on existing market conditions.
Arrange for the closing of the transaction including, but not limited, to bond
printing, signing and final delivery of the bonds.
PFM will provide as needed non-transaction services related to matters such as
post-issuance disclosure and compliance, and monitoring of potential legislative
issues that may affect the City’s financing alternatives.
Rev. 28.10.2018 - 9 -
EXHIBIT B
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
1. Fixed Rate Transaction Fees
For services in Exhibit A in connection with a debt issuance, PFM will be compensated a fixed
transaction fee as specified below, which would be contingent upon the successful closing of the
financing. Such transaction fees are to be paid from the proceeds of the financing and are
contingent upon the closing of the issuance. If there are material changes to the complexity of the
financing or other unanticipated circumstances, a different fee may be negotiated by mutual
written agreement between PFM and the District. Such fee will be paid at the time of bond
issuance from bond proceeds unless otherwise determined by mutual agreement of the two
parties.
Transaction Amount Fee
Up to $10,000,000 $45,000
$10,000,000 - $25,000,000 $52,000
$25,000,000 - $40,000,000 $57,000
$40,000,000 and up $62,000
We would also charge for out-of-pocket expenses and would propose capping these at $1,000 per
transaction.
2. Non-Transaction Fees
For services to be provided on an hourly basis, PFM proposes to charge based on the rates shown
in the table below:
Professional Hourly Rate
Managing Director $350
Director $325
Senior Managing Consultant $300
Senior Analyst $250
Analyst $225
In addition to our fees, we would expect to be reimbursed for our out-of-pocket expenses,
including travel, mileage, parking, meals, postage and express mail delivery services, telephon e,
photocopying, outside graphics fees, etc. Appropriate expense documentation and third party
receipts would be provided with each invoice.
Rev. 28.10.2018 - 10 -
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE
PFM Financial Advisors LLC (“PFM”) has a complete insurance program, including
property, casualty, comprehensive general liability, automobile liability and workers
compensation. PFM maintains professional liability and fidelity bond coverages which total $35
million and $10 million, respectively. PFM also carries a $10 million cyber liability policy.
Our Professional Liability policy is a “claims made” policy and our General Liability
policy claims would be made by occurrence.
Deductibles/SIR
Automobile $250 comprehensive & $500 collision
Cyber Liability $50,000
General Liability $0
Professional Liability (E&O) $1,000,000
Financial Institution Bond $75,000
Insurance Company & AM Best Rating
Professional Liability (E&O) Endurance American Specialty Insurance; (A+; XV)
XL Specialty Insurance Company; (A; XV)
Continental Casualty Company; (A; XV)
Starr Indemnity & Liability Company; (A; XIV)
Financial Institution Bond Federal Insurance Company; (A++; XV)
Cyber Liability Indian Harbor Insurance Company (A; XV)
General Liability Great Northern Insurance Company; (A++; XV)
Automobile Liability Federal Insurance Company; (A++; XV)
Excess /Umbrella Liability Federal Insurance Company; (A++; XV)
Workers Compensation& Employers Liability Great Northern Insurance Company; (A++; XV)
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8h
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Subject: Letter From the Mayor to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
the Association of Bay Area Governments Regarding a Potential Office
Space Cap in Burlingame
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
regarding a proposal they are considering regarding capping office space in Burlingame and other
communities.
BACKGROUND
MTC and ABAG are engaged in a comprehensive planning effort, known as Horizons, “to look not
just at transportation and housing but also economic development, resilience and the effects of
emerging technologies.” As part of this initiative, the agencies have developed various strategies
for further study, including a cap on office space in cities with jobs-to-housing ratios greater than or
equal to 2.0.
On June 17, 2019, the City Council was asked to provide authorization for the Mayor to work with
staff to send a letter to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Councilmembers expressed interest in reviewing the letter once
it had been drafted, prior to it being sent.
DISCUSSION
The attached excerpt from a recent MTC and ABAG report shows the proposal to cap office space
in Burlingame and ten other cities with jobs-to-housing ratios greater than or equal to 2.0.
Burlingame’s ratio is listed as 2.0.
Mayor Colson has worked with staff to address the attached letter to MTC and ABAG expressing
the City’s concerns about this proposal.
Letter From the Mayor to MTC and ABAG July 1, 2019
2
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibits:
Letter to Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Futures Round 2 Strategy Details
Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.burlingame.org/enews
The City of Burlingame
Donna Colson, Mayor CITY HALL — 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7200
Emily Beach, Vice Mayor BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 566-9282
Ann Keighran www.burlingame.org
Ricardo Ortiz
Michael Brownrigg
July 1, 2019
Mr. Brad Paul
Metropolitan Planning Commission
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
RE: Horizons Initiative Strategy V-7: Office Caps
Dear Mr. Paul:
Burlingame residents and officials understand that a healthy, diverse, and economically dynamic region depends on our collective
ability to address our planning and land use challenges. We understand that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and
the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are focused on land use and transportation issues, as demonstrated by the
Horizons initiative, which is exploring the pressing issues and possible challenges Bay Area residents may face through 2050. Having
just completed a new General Plan Update that carefully balances land uses, population growth, and employment, the City of
Burlingame has demonstrated its commitment to planning for the future in a thoughtful, carefully considered manner.
In this context, we must express our strong objections to Horizons Futures Strategy V-7 “Place Office Caps in Job-Rich Locations,”
which would impose an office space cap on Burlingame and ten other Bay Area jurisdictions that have jobs-to-housing ratios greater
than or equal to 2.0. The premise for such a proposal is to develop strategies to move more jobs closer to transit and into housing-
rich communities. However, the approach and methodology of the proposed office space cap is flawed in a number of respects:
In Burlingame, only 17 percent of the jobs base is office related. The majority of our jobs are in the hospitality, auto, and
retail sectors and serve to diversify our economic base. Many jobs are also tied to proximity to San Francisco International
Airport, a medical center, and senior care facilities. It would be neither practical nor feasible to relocate jobs related to the
airport to other areas, as their existence is dependent on proximity to the airport – and indeed, the airport is dependent on
these jobs being in close proximity as well.
The City has been approving and building housing to accommodate existing jobs and future growth by rezoning land
presently dedicated to commercial uses. This increase may offset jobs, as existing employment uses are replaced with new
housing development.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
July 1, 2019
Page 2
The City of Burlingame is well-served by transit, with two Caltrain stations, two high-ridership regional SamTrans routes, and
close proximity to the Millbrae multimodal BART/Caltrain station. The methodology of designating municipalities for office
space caps based entirely on jobs-to-housing ratios greater than or equal to 2.0 ignores this important consideration, and is
counter to the objective of situating jobs close to transit.
The 2.0 jobs-to-housing ratio is arbitrary, ignores economic cycles, and is based on outdated data (2016 US Census/ACS).
Such an arbitrary approach makes it difficult to plan investments in the long-term, given it takes many years to plan and
finance projects but employment levels can vary from year to year.
The 2.0 jobs-to-housing ratio methodology ignores variations in employment as employers grow, downsize, or experience
changes in their business structure. For example, Virgin America used to be one of Burlingame’s largest employers, with
more than 3,000 jobs added during the previous economic recession. When it merged with Alaska Airlines in December
2016, however, those jobs were relocated out of the area.
The arbitrary 2.0 jobs-to-housing ratio methodology ignores geography and the possibility that new office development will
simply shift to neighboring jurisdictions rather than relocate to low-job areas elsewhere in the Bay Area. For example, while
the 2.0 ratio methodology would impose office space caps on Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Mountain View, it would not impose
caps on neighboring Redwood City or Sunnyvale. While a cap would be imposed on Burlingame, no such cap would be
imposed on neighboring San Mateo, Foster City, or Millbrae. There is no reason to believe that new office development
seeking to locate in a municipality with an office space cap would not simply pursue development in a neighboring jurisdiction,
rather than seek locations further afield elsewhere in the Bay Area.
In mixed-use developments, the inclusion of office space can help support the viability of residential units, particularly lower-
income units in need of subsidy. Using office rents to subsidize deeper levels of housing affordability can help municipalities
meet their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) obligations for lower-income households.
In closing, we believe the office space cap described in Horizons Initiative Strategy V-7 is flawed in the arbitrary nature of how it would
be applied, its disregard of crucial geographical considerations such as needing to locate jobs in proximity to airports and hospitals,
and its failure to account for the presence of transit facilities. Instead, we would like to emphasize the following with regard to any
future regional plans for balancing land use and transportation issues:
If necessary, support Horizons Strategy PBA-8, “Apply VMT-Based Commercial Development Fee,” which would charge a
fee on new commercial development in areas that have high employment-related VMT and in areas that are not near transit.
This could be useful in developing a more robust transportation network, including important last -mile transportation
improvements.
Provide accommodations for localities that have been proactive in planning for new housing, as Burlingame has
demonstrated with its recent General Plan Update. The new plan accommodates adding nearly 3,000 new housing units by
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
July 1, 2019
Page 3
2040, representing a population increase of more than 23 percent. Adjusted for population, this would be equivalent to San
Francisco adding 86,000 new units, San Jose adding 101,000 new units, or Oakland adding 41,000 new units.1
Reward successful local efforts with additional funding to help municipalities provide homes at lower affordability levels and
emphasize incentives rather than punishments.
The City of Burlingame recognizes that there is a housing shortage in California, and that too many people have to endure lengthy
commutes to reach employment. However, we feel strongly that any punitive measures such as office space caps must be carefull y
considered in their methodology and how they are applied. Given the flaws in Horizons Futures Strategy V-7, we believe an approach
that focuses on sound land use and transportation planning would be more effective and successful. We believe that it is crucial that
the hard work of local municipalities be recognized, and that accommodations be provided for responsible governments that are
planning housing and employment in a proactive, meaningful manner.
Sincerely,
Donna Colson Emily Beach
Mayor Vice Mayor
Ann Keighran Ricardo Ortiz
Councilmember Councilmember
Michael Brownrigg
Councilmember
c: State Assembly Member Kevin Mullin
State Senator Jerry Hill
Seth Miller, League of California Cities
City of Burlingame City Council
1 Based on US Census 2017 population estimates of 30,686 for Burlingame, 884,363 for San Francisco, 1.035 million for San Jose, and 425,195
for Oakland.
Regional Advisory Working Group Agenda Item 3
June 4, 2019 Attachment B
Page 1 of 17 June 2019
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
ATTACHMENT B
FUTURES ROUND 2 STRATEGY DETAILS (June 2019)
Attachment A highlights a suite of strategies that will be advanced for further analysis in Futures
Round 2. This attachment provides additional details on each strategy as we move into the second
round of Futures, where we go beyond Plan Bay Area 2040 strategies to address the region’s major
challenges in an era of uncertainty.
In Clean and Green and in Back to the Future, 28 strategies will be added to those from Plan Bay
Area 2040 (which were included in Futures Round 1); these Futures feature higher-growth and
higher-resource conditions. Underlying all the strategies will be a combination of new revenues that
would prioritize non-regressive revenue sources to ensure fiscal constraint across all four topic
areas (economic development, housing, transportation, and resilience).
A subset of these strategies (16 in total) will also be explored in Rising Tides, Falling Fortunes –
where economic conditions are significantly weaker. To help keep track of which strategies are left
out of Rising Tides, Falling Fortunes, the ‡ symbol is used to represent strategies that are only being
incorporated into Clean and Green and Back to the Future.
The remainder of this document includes:
- Strategy Descriptions
- Sketch-Level Budgets
- Select Strategy Maps
Strategy Descriptions
Economic Development: Improve Economic Mobility
In the first round of Futures analysis, all three Futures saw the middle class continue to shrink. A set
of four economic development strategies are aimed at increasing the upward mobility opportunities
and providing greater support for low-income households. Despite the Rising Tides, Falling Fortunes
Future having the greatest economic challenges of the three, only two of the four strategies (as
marked by the ‡ symbol) are included in that Future due to the high cost of the remaining
strategies.
V-6 Provide Portable Benefits for Part-Time and Freelance Workers
Given that many freelance (“gig economy”) workers do not have traditional employment
benefits, this strategy emulates existing regulations inside and outside the region that
require businesses to provide benefit options to freelance workers. No significant public
revenues are recommended to support the program; rather, the regulation would require
businesses impacted to set up the necessary benefits to support workers. To model some of
the impacts of the policy, staff plan to apply an increased cost to businesses in sectors that
have a greater share of freelance workers to reflect the cost in complying with this strategy.
The economic model also has an employer benefit contribution input that can be adjusted
higher to reflect the strategy.
Agenda Item 3
Regional Advisory Working Group Agenda Item 3
June 4, 2019 Attachment B
Page 2 of 17 June 2019
V-5 Create Incubator Programs in Economically Challenged Communities
Incubator programs would promote the creation of businesses by low- and moderate-income
people in communities with fewer job opportunities. New revenues would support technical
assistance for establishing the foundation of new businesses, including access to workspaces,
mentorship, and financing. Staff are exploring ways to use the economic and land use models
to study the strategy, but off model research and calculations will likely be used to
understand the benefits of the strategy.
D-2 ‡ Expand Childcare Support for Low-Income Families
Childcare costs in the Bay Area continue to increase, with the cost of childcare increasing
from $1,000 per month in 2014 to $1,500 per month in 2018. To offset this financial burden
and open career growth opportunities for low-income households, a 50 percent childcare
subsidy will be studied for low-income households. To model the strategy, staff will include
the cost of strategy in the form of new taxes (described in more detail toward the end of the
attachment) and apply financial benefits to low-income households. Additionally, the labor
force participation will increase to reflect the observed effect of childcare cost reductions
resulting in higher rates of maternal employment.
V-1 ‡ Expand Construction Workforce Programs
There are many existing apprenticeship and certificate programs to expand the region’s
construction workforce – a critical need in higher-growth Futures. This strategy uses new
revenue to expand these programs and provide a subsidy for new construction workers who
work in the region for the first three years of their career, as they increase their base salary
with additional experience. The strategy is sized to support the addition of 1,000 new
construction workers annually. Staff will add these new jobs on an annual basis and expect
to see a 30,000 increase in the construction sector labor by the year 2050. Staff are still
exploring if this strategy will have any significant impact on construction labor costs in the
region, but initial research does not show a significant change.
Economic Development: Shift the Location of Jobs
Many stakeholders are interested in understanding how strategies can be used to move more jobs
closer to transit and into housing-rich communities. In Plan Bay Area 2040, a VMT-based commercial
development fee was used to discourage new commercial construction outside of transit-rich areas
and commercial development caps were placed in two Bay Area cities. The new approach builds off
these two policies but goes further to study the effect of heightened strategies.
PBA-8 Apply VMT-Based Commercial Development Fee
The vehicle mile traveled (VMT) based commercial development fee remains in effect to
shift new employment centers toward transit-rich locations, potentially with minor
modifications to the fee levels. Plan Bay Area 2040 and Futures Round 1 analysis have shown
this fee to be effective in directing new employment development near transit. The policy
charges a fee on new commercial development in areas that have high employment related
VMT and in areas that are not near transit.
V-7 Place Office Caps in Job-Rich Locations
Plan Bay Area 2040 and Futures Round 1 analysis included an office space cap in two Bay
Area cities. The strategy was ineffective in moving jobs to low-job areas in the region given
its limited geographic implementation. To study the effect of a more expansive strategy,
staff have developed a modified strategy to be applied in cities with jobs-to-housing ratios
greater than or equal to 2.0. Cities affected by this strategy include: Colma, Brisbane, Menlo
Regional Advisory Working Group Agenda Item 3
June 4, 2019 Attachment B
Page 3 of 17 June 2019
Park, South San Francisco, and Burlingame in San Mateo County; Palo Alto, Santa Clara,
Mountain View, Milpitas, and Cupertino in Santa Clara County; and Emeryville in Alameda
County. The goal of the strategy is to see where jobs would choose to relocate if limitations
would put in place in job-rich areas. Staff acknowledge the critique that an office space cap
may have the unintended consequence of relocating jobs out of the region rather than to
other Bay Area jurisdictions. While the land use modeling will not capture this potential,
additional off-model research will be prioritized to understand this unintended consequence.
Housing: Spur Housing Production
To improve the region’s ability to meet its housing needs, the Priority Development Area (PDA)
framework is being expanded to increase housing construction at all income levels around all major
transit stops and in high-resource communities. Large catalyst sites, often aging malls or aging
office parks, are also identified and offer additional locations for housing production in the region.
Similar to how PDAs have been treated in past Plans, all of these growth geographies will be
assigned higher densities, with transit-rich areas assigned higher densities than areas with more
modest levels of transit service. Building upon the PDA strategy from Plan Bay Area 2040, all these
growth areas will be eligible for development streamlining.
PBA-1 Assign Higher Densities to Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
This strategy will change slightly from Futures Round 1 analysis to reflect the recently
adopted Regional Growth Framework Update, which established two PDA categories. The
first PDA category, Transit Rich PDAs, includes area within a half mile of rail stations, ferry
terminals, and frequent bus service (15-minute headways or less). The second, Connected
Community PDAs, includes areas with basic bus service (30-minute headways). The PDA
geographies are expanded by Strategies A-7 and D-9 which will include all PDA-eligible
locations.
PBA-2 Streamline Development in all Growth Areas
A range of modeled incentive strategies – development subsidies, streamlining, reduced
parking requirements – were included in Plan Bay Area 2040 to increase the feasibility of
building in PDAs. Staff is proposing a revision for Futures Round 2 to eliminate market-rate
development subsidies and to also expand the streamlining and reduced parking
requirements to sites across the broader set of growth areas included below. The intent of
this change is to be more consistent about incentives and streamlining across all geographies
identified.
A-7 Allow Diverse Housing around all Major Transit Stops
This strategy allows a diverse range of housing within a half-mile (an approximately ten-
minute walk) of all rail stations, ferry terminals, and bus stops with 15-minute peak period
service – places eligible for designation as Transit-Rich PDAs. Specific density maximums will
vary based on transit frequency and capacity. For many areas already designated PDAs,
particularly those with recently adopted plans, this strategy will involve little to no change,
while in others it will provide an opportunity to build a greater variety of housing at a higher
intensity.
D-9 Allow Affordable Housing in Areas of High Opportunity
This strategy increases the variety and affordability of housing that can be built in High
Resource Areas within a half-mile of bus stops with 30-minute peak period service. High
Resource Areas are places defined by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) as providing the greatest opportunity for health and upward mobility.
9
Table: Office Cap Locations
(Strategy V-7)Bay Area Cities with Jobs-Housing Ratio >= 2.0
1 San Mateo County Colma 6.8
2 Santa Clara County Palo Alto 3.5
3 Alameda County Emeryville 3.2
4 San Mateo County Brisbane 3.1
5 San Mateo County Menlo Park 2.9
6 Santa Clara County Santa Clara 2.5
7 Santa Clara County Mountain View 2.4
8 San Mateo County South San Francisco 2.2
9 Santa Clara County Milpitas 2.1
10 Santa Clara County Cupertino 2.0
11 San Mateo County Burlingame 2.0
Definition: Place office development
caps in eleven cities with many more
jobs than residents –most of which are
located in above-average VMT per worker
locations.
Coordinated with: VMT Commercial
Development Fee (Strategy PBA-8),
which charges a fee on commercial
development outside of transit-rich
areas.
Source: California DOF; LEHD WAC (2016)
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8i
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Subject: Set Public Hearing Date for an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s May 28,
2019 Action Denying an Application for Design Review Amendment for
Changes to a Previously Approved First and Second Story Addition to an
Existing Split-Level House at 25 Arundel Road
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council set the date of the public hearing on the appeal for August
19, 2019.
BACKGROUND
At its regular meeting of May 28, 2019, the Planning Commission denied a request for changes to
a previously approved application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an
existing split-level house. The appeal period following the Planning Commission’s action ran until
5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 7th. The applicant filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s action on
June 6th (see attached letter).
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibit:
Appeal Letter
RECEIVED
J une 5,2019
JUN 0 6 Zt]u
CITY CLERK'S O !cE
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
CITY OF BURLING
Dear City Official,
I am writing to appeal a ruling made by the Planning Commission ("the Commission") during the May
28th commission meeting. During the meeting a decision was made to not allow us to use fiber cement
siding and corner edging for the renovation work we are completing at our 1929 house in Lyon Hoag.
The decision we feel lacked sufficient basis and wlll result in us having to procure wood siding which we
feel is not as durable as the fiber cement product we prefer, not as environmentally friendly, requires
more maintenance (wood requires frequent repainting over the long term versus fiber cement) and,
most importantly, not as safe as the fiber cement product (wood is more flammable). The Commission
cited the lack of corner edges on homes in and around our neighborhood when, in fact, the opposite is
true as many homes on our street and around the neighborhood do have corner edges to which there is
sufficient evidence of. (The fiber cement siding requires the use of corner edges especially for houses as
old as the one we own (1929) and where mitered corners are more difficult to implement and may be
compromised over time given the age of the house) lt is for the very reason of ensuring our house will fit
into the neighborhood that drove our decision to use the fiber cement siding (w/corner edges) that we
selected and have since procured. We have been aware of the revisions necessary to our original plans
which calls for wood but between seeing existing and new homes with similar siding/edges approved
and being informed that the change to fiber cement siding should not be controversial, we went ahead
and procured the fiber cement siding but did not install it. The Commission's decision to not allow the
use of fiber cement siding (w/corner edges) seemed to be based purely on one commission member's
personal opinion and their citing of inaccurate facts about homes in our neighborhood. lt also seems
inconsistent with what has been recently approved and constructed within our neighborhood. lt is for
these reasons why we are seeking an appeal.
Thank you,
anning F. Chen
Owner,25 Arundel Road - Burlingame
\
Re: Appealof siding decision for 25 Arundel Road home renovation
We will not be available for the July 1't hearing because we have plans to be out of town that entire
week. We would like to be included in the August 19th hearing. Furthermore, once the hearing date is
set, we will prepare supporting information for our appeal.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9a
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Mike Matteucci, Police Chief - (650) 777-4123
Subject: Special Event Permit Discussion and Determination
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the safety and traffic implications of closing down
southbound lanes of Bayshore Highway in front of 1333 Bayshore Highway, the Hyatt Regency, for
a private wedding procession, and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
The Burlingame Police Department receives all Special Event Permit applications when an
applicant wishes to close any portion of a street, sidewalk, or City property. The Police Department
then distributes the application to other affected City Departments and solicits feedback on the
application, including asking for provisions or restrictions for the event that would ensure the safety
of participants, and mitigate effects on traffic flow. Per the provisions of the Standards of Review,
City Council approval is required when the Police Department determines that a street closure will
substantially interfere with the conduct of a considerable number of residents/ businesses on the
street to be closed and/or if the closure would result in a significant disruption of the orderly and
efficient flow of traffic through any portion of Burlingame.
DISCUSSION
In April of 2019, Ms. Nisha Patel, a Santa Cruz resident, called Police and Public Works staff to
inquire about shutting down Bayshore Highway between 1800 Bayshore Highway, the SFO Airport
Marriott, and the Hyatt Regency. At that time, staff advised this would be an enormous undertaking
and offered various alternatives, including: conducting the procession on the Bay Trail, which runs
the entire distance between the two hotels; conducting the procession on the sidewalk between the
two locations; and conducting the procession along the private driveway that runs the entire
perimeter of the Hyatt. None of these alternatives would require a permit, and they would minimally
impact traffic on Bayshore Highway. Ms. Patel was insistent on closing down Bayshore and was
advised that a Special Event Permit application would need to be completed and submitted and,
per the provisions of the process, such a shutdown would likely require City Council approval.
In May of 2019, Patel submitted a Special Event Permit application, requesting the closure of
southbound lanes of Bayshore Highway for her nephew’s wedding procession of 300-700+
attendees on Sunday, September 8th. The application describes the procession as “a religious
component of Hindu weddings.” The requested shut down would occur between 9:30 AM and
10:00 AM. This shutdown was limited to the southbound lanes directly in front of the Hyatt, between
the north and south driveways of the hotel. Bayshore Highway at this location is a five-lane arterial
Special Event Permit Discussion and Determination July 1, 2019
2
thoroughfare, with two northbound lanes and two southbound lanes, separated by a two way left
turn lane in the middle. Ms. Patel’s application was incomplete, as it lacked a certificate of insurance
for the event. She specified on her application that she would obtain insurance once the event
application was approved.
Special event permits have been issued for street closures. Historically, however, these shutdowns
have been for community events open to the public and/or non-profit organizations. This event is
private in nature, and the participants appear limited to those invited to the wedding.
Staff has concluded that such a shutdown would substantially interfere with businesses on the
street closed, and would result in a significant disruption in the traffic flow.
Staff has identified several concerns with this event, all of which would need to be addressed and
remedied by the applicant before the event permit is issued, should the City Council wish to
consider approving this event permit.
Traffic Control Plan: the applicant will need to hire a professional engineer to develop a
traffic plan that would re-route southbound vehicle traffic at this location in a safe manner
for all motorists, while simultaneously ensuring the safety of participants walking in the
procession on Bayshore Highway. These plans will need to be stamped and submitted to
the Engineering Division and Police Department no less than 30 days prior to the event. No
more than two lanes of southbound traffic are allowed to be closed. Furthermore, the
sidewalk must remain open to the public, and emergency vehicles will need to have access
to the hotel preserved.
Safety Equipment: the applicant will need to rent/ purchase all necessary equipment in
order to safely close the specified section of roadway. To this end, either K-rails (Jersey
barriers) or water fillable traffic barriers will need to be placed throughout the distance of
the procession, to protect those participants walking on Bayshore Highway in the
procession.
Staffing for Traffic Control: as this is a private event (not open to the public), staff
recommends that the applicant be required to hire traffic control personnel from a California
State Licensed (CSLB) traffic control company for the duration of the event.
Insurance: the applicant will need to obtain an insurance certificate for this event before
the application is reviewed by affected City departments, not upon approval as indicated on
their initial application.
Encroachment and Permit Fees: the applicant will need to remit payment for
encroachment fees associated with the roadway shutdown, as assessed by the Engineering
Division of Public Works, and remit payment for the Special Event Permit application, which
was not submitted as required upon initial submission to the Police Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
The impact will be limited to staff hours required to review the application and traffic control plan(s)
as submitted by the applicant, and providing feedback/restrictions to the Police Department for
inclusion in the final event permit once approved.
Exhibits:
Special Event Permit Submitted by Applicant
Letter to Council from Applicant
Photos from Applicant
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9b
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Vacation of an existing 10-Foot Wide
Public Utility Easement at 1568 Alturas Drive
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the vacation of an
existing 10-foot wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) at 1568 Alturas Drive.
BACKGROUND
There is an existing PUE located within the private property of 1568 Alturas Drive. The PUE was
offered for dedication and accepted by the City as shown on Parcel B, 2563 Official Records 569,
of San Mateo County recorded on December 23, 1953. The PUE provides the City and other utility
companies the rights to access the easement for maintaining, operating, modifying and upgrading
public utility facilities.
The owner of the property has requested that the City vacate the easement. Vacating the easement
will provide the property owner flexibility in constructing landscape improvements on the property.
The City is authorized to vacate the PUE pursuant to the Streets and Highway Code, Chapter 3,
Section 8300 et seq. Per the code, the PUE may be vacated when the City administratively sets a
public hearing, publishes the notice in a local newspaper, and posts the notices as required.
Streets and Highways Code Sections 8320-8325 outline the procedure for a general vacation of a
PUE. Per the codes, a resolution is needed to approve the vacation, as well as notification that all
entities who may have an interest in the easement be notified of this request. The property own er
has satisfied this request, and has received letters acknowledging the request from PG&E, AT&T,
and Comcast. A copy of the letters is included in the exhibits.
No private or public utilities are located in the PUE, and to staff’s knowledge, there are no future
plans for private or public utilities to be located in the PUE. The area proposed for vacation is shown
in the attached plat and legal description (Exhibit A to the resolution). The plat and legal description
has been reviewed by the City’s surveyor and is found to be technically correct. Notices have been
posted and published as required by the Code. Vacation of the PUE is not in conflict with any
portion of the City’s General Plan. Given that the PUE has not been used by the City, and no
utilities oppose its vacation, staff does not have any objections to the vacation of the PUE.
Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Vacation of an existing July 1, 2019
10-Foot Wide Public Utility Easement at 1568 Alturas Drive
2
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no known fiscal impact related to this action.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Plat and Legal Description (Exhibit A of Resolution)
Letters of Consent from Utility Companies
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
VACATING A 10-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AT 1568 ALTURAS
DRIVE
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section
8300, et seq., is authorized to vacate public utility easements under certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, that certain 10-foot wide public utility easement at 1568 Alturas Drive, more
particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto, is not needed for present or prospective public
use; and
WHEREAS, that certain 10-foot wide public utility easement has no existing City facilities;
and
WHEREAS, Comcast, Pacific Gas and Electric, and AT&T have no objection to the
vacation of that certain 10-foot wide public utility easement; and
WHEREAS, vacation of the public utilities easement is not in conflict with any portion of
the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing to consider the vacation of that certain 10-foot
wide public utility easement was published for at least two successive weeks prior to the July 1,
2019 public hearing in a newspaper that is published in the City of Burlingame and is designated
for the publication of notices, and at least three copies of the public notice were posted in the
vicinity of the public utility easement to be vacated, pursuant to Section 8322 and 8323 of the
Streets and Highways Code; and
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2019, the City Council held a hearing on the proposed vacation of
that certain 10-foot wide public utility easement and heard evidence and testimony from all
persons interested.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. Vacation of that certain 10-foot wide public utility easement further described in Exhibit A
to this Resolution is in conformity with the City’s General Plan and with the relevant sections of
the California Streets and Highways Code.
2. That certain 10-foot wide public utility easement is unnecessary for present or prospective
public purpose.
3. The City Council vacates that certain 10-foot wide public utility easement, as more
particularly described in Exhibit A.
4. The City Council authorizes and directs the City Clerk to record a certified copy of this
resolution, attested by the City Clerk under seal, with the San Mateo County recorder’s office.
5. Commencing with the date of recording of this resolution, that certain 10-foot wide public
utility easement shall no longer be a public utility easement.
____________________
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 1st day of July,
2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________
City Clerk
at&t5005ExecutiveParkwaySanRamon,CA94583May2,2019Michaeli.WaltersP.L.SC/OHomeownerAssociateLanSurveyor1568AlturasDrive,Burlingame,CA94010L&BP2170204ClRE:AbandonmentofPublicUtilityEasementLocation:1568AlturasDrive,BurlingameAPN025-364-350,RecordedinBook23630.R.569,SanMateoCountyDearMr.Waiters:AT&Thasreviewedyourrequesttoabandonthe10’PublicUtilityEasementattheaboveaddress.DavidClark(AT&TDesignEngineer)hasverifiedthattherearenoAT&Tfacilitiesatthislocation.AT&TapprovestheabandonmentofsaidPUE.Pleasecontactmeshouldyouhaveanyadditionalquestions.AgustinArteaga,PWC/ROWManagerAT&TCalifornia5005ExecutiveParkway,3N550GSanRamon,CA94583Sin’
Daily Journal
Advertising
Receipt
Kevin Okada
City ol Burlingame
501 Primrose Rd
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Cust#:
Adfl:
Phone:
Date:
0210376s-000
0273/,852
(650)558-7230
06/07/19
Ad taker: SMD Salesperson Classification: 203
Description Stop lns.CosvDay Surcharges
01 San Mateo Daily Journal
C€ntered Lines
Bord€r
Payment Reference:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
1568 Alturas Drive Public Utility Easement Vacation
06/17119 04t24t19 2 312.00
Total:
Tax:
Net:
Prepaid:
624.00
0.00
0.00
624.00
0.00
624.00
0.00
The Burlingame Crty Council will review the public utiliy easement vacation oI 1568 Alturas Drivs
at a regular session on Monday, July 1 , 2019 at 7:00 PM in the Crty Council Chambers, 501
Primrose Road. The Council will provide an opportunity for public comment regarding the request
lrom ths property owner to abandon the public utility easoment.
6lc +. V^
Zc-rz.
1
ll you ar6 unable to attend, please provide your comments in writing to the Public Works
Deparlment, Oirector ol Public works, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. You may also
bring your wfitten comments to Burlingame City Hall, Publb Works counter located on the second
flooi, fax comments to (65C) 585-9310 Attn: Limana Ciluentes, or email
lcifuentes@burlingame.org. Comments need to be received no later than '12:00 PM, on June 27,
20'19.lol - Latb -z'?-o - Sotf
RECEIVE:T
JUN 2 0 2019
Dspt. ol Publlc VJo{ks
Clty d &rlktgsne
Total Due 624.
San Mateo Daily Journal
1720 S. Amphlett Blvd.
Suite 123
San Mateo, CA 9,1402
Phone: (650) 344-5200
Fax: (650) 344-5290
Start Total
ffi,iltffi91H?:,3,ffi?I
STATE OF CALI.ORNIA
uounty of San Maaeo
The. undemigned declares: Tlhereinafter ni"n,iorJ, ' Ji"",
t 'rat at all times
Tl_l-.ii:f 6:u,liJil,i.,l,J,.,:#"rx"r#i["J
m?: [:ti:F ii*.J,fl :il,#,fl 1T,?,lT
l:$"[Ti{:i,r *l,#i'J' i#..":"#*.*s
;;'rfl ,:gT{t*[fr,.,H[,:,#i.r,,l
ffy:#*ru;::r:r#r+;:,"H,::ihin
Ir.riilfiorljiiffralty or perjury that the foregoing
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF BURLINGAME
day of 19.
JPU
this
CITY OF BI'RUI{GATE
OTrcE OF P{.IBUC HEARII{G
'15G8 Altura6 Drtye Publlc Lrullty Easemenl Vaca on
Tlte Burlingame City Council will roview the public utjlity ease-
mgnt vacation of 1569 Alturas Drive at a reoular sesi*rn onilqday, July 1, 2019 at 7:OO PM in h€ CihT Council Cham-
bers, 5O'l Primrose Rosd. Tlre Council will proi ij€ an oroortu-
nity to. BJblb comrnenl regardirE th€ requsst from the property
owrEr lo abandon tt|€ public utility eas€rner .
[ ]tu 8re unable lo atterd, please govid€ your cornm€ots irwdirE to the Public Woks DepatuErfl. Director ot R-drb
Works, 5O1 Primros6 Road, Burlingarne, CA 9,m10. You rlay
8lso tring your ryrittgn commonts to &Jrlingame City HaI, R-*t
lic Wori(s couflt€r located on the s€cood floor, tax <irnnrents to(650) 68$931 0 Atln: Lilliana CifiJsntes, or fital
kiirnbs@furfingams.qg. Cornm€ots n€€d to be l€cei'rsd m
lsbr tlan 12:m ru, ofl Jurcn.N19.
A deiflion d tho Puuic t tility Eas€neflt prDgc€d b be v&
cabd and a r€iBfenge to a msp c€n be buM on tho City's
u,€bpago af w.hxlhgaflE.org.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NO:
10a
MEETING DATE:
July 1, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Subject: Discussion of Affordable Housing Fund Programs
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the future use of Residential Impact and
Commercial Linkage Fees for various housing programs.
BACKGROUND
Affordable housing impact fees are used to support and build new homes for lower -income
residents. The fees can be charged to developers of new residential projects and used for land
purchase, construction costs, or site rehabilitation related to providing workforce housing.
On June 19, 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing commercial linkage fees
for new commercial development in Burlingame, and on April 1, 2019 it adopted residential impact
fees for new residential development in Burlingame. Over time, these fees will provide a dedicated
source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame.
DISCUSSION
Use of the Impact Fees: Local funding may be used in a variety of ways to support affordable
housing. Funds from commercial linkage and residential impact fees are required to be spent on
affordable workforce housing (not housing for generally non-working populations, such as
seniors).
As the commercial linkage and residential impact fees have been established, the City Council
has discussed a number of options for use of the fees to support workforce housing. To continue
the discussion, staff has consulted with Bill Lowell, who has experience with the County of San
Mateo Department of Housing (DOH), as well as the Home for All initiative. Attached to this staff
report is a memo from Mr. Lowell providing an overview of potential housing fund policies and
programs, including information on the approaches of other jurisdictions.
Potential Revenues: For new commercial development, the adopted linkage fees are $7.00 per
square foot for new retail development, $12.00 per square foot for new hotel development, $18.00
per square foot for office projects of 50,000 square feet or less, and $25.00 per square foot for
office greater than 50,000 square feet. For developers who utilize prevailing wages or area
Discussion of Affordable Housing Fund Programs July 1, 2019
2
standard wages, the fees are $5.00 per square foot for new retail development, $10.00 per square
foot for new hotel development, $15.00 per square foot for office of 50,000 square feet or less,
and $20.00 per square foot for office greater than 50,000 square feet. Over time, these fees will
provide a dedicated source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame.
Table 1 outlines the revenues that could be generated by proposed commercial projects currently
under review or approved, which either had applications deemed complete after the adoption of
the commercial linkage fees (applications deemed complete prior to adoption would not be subject
to linkage fees), or were submitted after the commercial linkage fees were adopted.
TABLE 1:
PROPOSED PROJECTS SUBJECT TO COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES
JULY 2019
Project Application Square Feet
Linkage Fee
Base With Prevailing / Area
Wage
1499 Bayshore Highway – under review
Hotel 258,865 $3,106,380 $2,588,650
Restaurant 12,700 $88,900 $63,500
250 California Drive – approved
Office 44,118 $794,124 $661,770
Top Golf – under review
Restaurant/Retail
Entertainment 71,074 $355,3701 $355,370
Total $4,344,774 $3,669,290
For new residential development, the adopted residential impact fees vary from $14.00 to $45.00
per square foot, depending on residential density (units per acre), whether a project is rental or
for sale/ownership, and whether prevailing/area wages are utilized:
TABLE 2:
ADOPTED RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE STRUCTURE2
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
1 Prevailing/Area Wage to be used per agreement. A portion of the fees noted here will offset other community benefits
as negotiated in the term sheet adopted previously by Council.
2 Rental Multifamily with total of 10 units or fewer are exempt; For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) with total of 6 units
or fewer are exempt. 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.
Discussion of Affordable Housing Fund Programs July 1, 2019
3
Residential projects also have an “in-lieu” option where the developer can choose to provide an
affordable unit or units on site in lieu of submitting the impact fee:
For Rental Multifamily projects, the project must provide at least ten percent (10%) of the
units on site to be affordable to moderate income households (in this instance 80% - 120%
AMI) for a period of 55 years in order to waive the residential impact fee.
For Sale Multifamily (Townhome/Condominium) projects, the project must provide ten
percent (10%) of the units on site to be affordable to above-moderate income households
(in this instance 120% - 150% AMI, with the price set at the 135% AMI level) for a period
of 55 years in order to waive the residential impact fee.
Given the number of variables (residential densities, rental vs. ownership, use of prevailing
wages, and potential for on-site units to be provided in lieu of fees), estimating potential residential
impact fees presents wide ranges of possible outcomes. In the near term (within the next five
years), staff estimates that there could be potentially 400 to 600 new units that have been
discussed in conjunction with the update of the General Plan, based on property owner input, and
factoring the residential densities proposed in the Draft General Plan. Over the course of the
General Plan, up to 2,951 net new units are projected through the year 2040.
Table 3 below provides rough estimates of the range of potential fees that could be collected,
working with the assumption that applications for 400 to 600 new units may be contemplated in
the near term (approximately five years). For purposes of the estimate, the assumption is an
average unit size of 850 square feet. The estimate provides a range of potential fees based on:
Lowest fee - $14.00/sq ft for a rental project 50 units/acre or less with prevailing/area wage
Medium/Average fee - $23.50/sq ft based on an average of all fee levels
High fee - $30.00/sq ft based on prevalence of higher density rental projects and/or for
sale/condominium projects
TABLE 3:
ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL NEAR-TERM HOUSING IMPACT FEES
Units
Floor Area
(assuming 850
sf/unit)
Housing Impact
Fees – Low
($14.00/sf)
Housing Impact
Fees –
Medium/Average
($23.50/sf)
Housing Impact
Fees – High
($30.00/sf)
400 340,000 $4,760,000 $7,990,000 $10,200,000
600 510,000 $7,140,000 $11,985,000 $15,300,000
This Space Intentionally Blank
Discussion of Affordable Housing Fund Programs July 1, 2019
4
Table 4 below includes three scenarios that adjust for the in-lieu option, whereby some or most
projects would choose to provide an affordable unit or units on site in lieu of submitting the impact
fee. These scenarios are hypothetical, as it is not possible to forecast what proportion of new
projects would choose the in-lieu option; the scenarios are presented for informational purposes.
TABLE 4:
ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL NEAR-TERM HOUSING IMPACT FEES
Units
Number of
On-Site
Affordable
Units
Provided
Through In-
Lieu Option
Housing
Impact Fees
Low
($14.00/sf)
Housing
Impact Fees
Medium /
Average
($23.50/sf)
Housing
Impact Fees
High
($30.00/sf)
400 Units
25% projects utilize in-lieu option 10 $3,570,000 $5,992,500 $7,650,000
50% projects utilize in-lieu option 20 $2,380,000 $3,995,000 $5,100,000
75% projects utilize in-lieu option 30 $1,190,000 $1,997,500 $2,550,000
600 Units
25% projects utilize in-lieu option 15 $5,355,000 $8,988,750 $11,475,000
50% projects utilize in-lieu option 30 $3,570,000 $5,992,500 $7,650,000
75% projects utilize in-lieu option 45 $1,785,000 $2,996,250 $3,825,000
FISCAL IMPACT
In the near term, commercial linkage fees of up to $4,344,774 (or $3,669,290 if utilizing prevailing
wages) might be collected if projects currently under review are approved and built.
Estimating residential impact fees is challenging given the number of variables. In a low-end
scenario where most projects are low-density and provided in-lieu units on site, a range between
$1,190,000 and $1,785,000 could be anticipated. In an alternative scenario with higher-density
projects and fewer in-lieu units provided on site, a range between $7,650,000 and $11,475,000
might be anticipated.
With both commercial linkage fees and residential impact fees, revenues are directed into a
dedicated housing fund to be used for the creation and support of affordable workforce housing
in the city.
Exhibits:
Memorandum – Options for Affordable Housing Trust Fund Policies
Attachment A: Potential Priority Goals/Strategies
Attachment B: Homelessness Prevention Programs
Attachment C: Use of NOFA Process
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: July 1, 2019
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Lowell, Consultant to the City of Burlingame
SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND POLICIES
The City of Burlingame is examining options for utilization of its Affordable Housing Fund (AHF).
Additionally, the City needs to determine a process for distribution.
Currently, 16 of the 21 jurisdictions in San Mateo County have ordinances that provide
mechanisms for generating affordable housing funds such as: in-lieu fees for new housing
development, dedicated hotel occupancy taxes, and impact fees on new housing and/or
commercial development. In general, the enabling ordinances provide a very brief description of
examples of potential uses, but no direction for eligibility or prioritization of uses.
Among all of the jurisdictions in San Mateo County, only Redwood City has adopted a policy
regarding the allocation of affordable housing funds. East Palo Alto has included spending goals
and targets in its adopted housing strategic plan. The County includes priorities in its annual
NOFA process to award its affordable housing funds. Indeed, a wider search around the Bay Area
and the remainder of the state finds only a few policies, and these tend to be in large jurisdictions
that are also entitlement areas for Federal CDBG and HOME funds and which historically may
have received significant amounts of redevelopment funds. Their policies reflect the need to
address funding that derives from a variety of sources that operate within differing regulatory goals
and restrictions.
As part of the research conducted for this report, I spoke with Armando Sanchez, Executive
Director of HEART, and Josh Abrams at Baird and Driscoll/21 Elements. They both cautioned
against adoption of overly specific policies at the Council level and instead suggested that small
and medium size cities consider adopting “guiding principles” combined with eligible uses. This is
similar to what Redwood City adopted. Such principles and eligible uses leave sufficient flexibility
to respond to emerging opportunities, evolving community needs and changing market conditions.
Policy examples from other jurisdictions:
Redwood City deposits housing impact and linkage fees into the City’s Affordable Housing
Fund to be used to increase and preserve the supply of housing affordable for extremely
low, very low, low and moderate income households. The City currently issues a Notice
of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) and Request for Proposals (“RFP”) each December for
its federal Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”), Home Investment Partnership
Options for Affordable Housing Trust Fund Policies
July 1, 2019
Page 2
Funds (“HOME”), its local Human Services Financial Assistance (“HSFA”), and its
Affordable Housing Fund. A discussion is provided in the June 25, 2018 staff report (Item
7A begins on page 575).
East Palo Alto deposits its housing impact fees into the City Affordable Housing Fund. The
monies in the Affordable Housing Fund and all earnings from investment of the moneys in
the Fund are designated exclusively to provide housing affordable to extremely low
income, very low income, lower income, and moderate income households in the city,
consistent with the goals and policies contained in the City's Housing Element and
Housing Strategic Plan. . The City Council establishes guidelines for expenditure of
monies in the affordable housing fund.
The County of Sonoma’s Fund for Housing Policy explains requirements for projects to be
considered and outlines eligible types of assistance. For example, Sonoma County
requires a 55-year term of affordability and requires that at least 20 percent of units in an
aided affordable housing development be for residents who earn less than 80 percent of
AMI (with the remainder for those earning less than 120 percent of AMI).
The City of West Hollywood’s ordinance on establishing their affordable housing fund
contains specific rules on how the funds can be spent. Noteworthy among the
requirements is that 60 percent of units in any supported development must be for low- or
moderate-income residents (and 20 percent must be for low-income residents) and that
only non-profit housing developers are eligible to receive financing from the fund.
The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency handles the City of Sacramento’s
affordable housing funds. According to the agency’s Multifamily Lending Policies,
applications for a variety of new affordable housing construction and rehabilitation projects
are allowed. The policies lay out underwriting rules for projects, explains preferences
(such as for projects near transit or in areas with a low proportion of poverty), and explains
the details of project requirements (the city funds can only go to support projects with a
maximum of 80 percent AMI affordability, while the Sacramento County funds will go to
projects for tenants at 50 percent of AMI or below.
The Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department publishes regulations
for its affordable housing fund work. Its rules do such things as define eligible permanent
supportive housing.
The City of San Jose has adopted policies to govern its affordable housing expenditures.
This policy is notable for including a hard cap of $140,000 per unit in subsidy. The staff
report linked to in this memo also does a good job of explaining the available sources of
affordable housing funds the city had available and how the city’s funds could be used to
help the distinct groups in need of public assistance (retired very low-income seniors, low-
income workers, etc.).
Options for Affordable Housing Trust Fund Policies
July 1, 2019
Page 3
The City of Berkeley’s Housing Trust Fund Guidelines state requirements such as a 55-
year term of affordability and a 20% set aside for very low-income populations in funded
projects. It also illustrates internal funding priorities by, for example, capping the portion
of the overall fund that can be used for pre-development assistance at any given time.
The County of Napa’s policy for its affordable housing trust fund outlines the application
process and outlines eligible uses.
Developing a Process for the Distribution of Funds
Distribution options include formal competitive processes such as a Notice of Funding Availability
(“NOFA”), less structured competitive processes such as a Request for Proposals (“RFP”)
designed to bring forth creative proposals that can be further developed by the applicant and the
city, and an over the counter process.
NOFA Process – A formal NOFA is useful when a significant amount of funding is available for a
well-defined purpose that is expected to be of interest to several providers wanting to compete
for the funds. This formal process is extremely time consuming for all parties and assumes a fixed
time schedule. An example is the County’s Department of Housing which issues a NOFA once
every year for developers of large affordable multi-family projects.
RFP Process – The less formal RFP is typically used for services, but could also be used for
development related expenses. The relative informality of the RFP enables the city and applicant
to develop the service or project together.
Over–the-Counter Process – An OTC process provides maximum flexibility. Applications can be
received at any time and, within guidelines and eligibility criteria, for any type of proposed use.
Appropriate city oversight can be protected by setting financial limits on the size of programs that
can be approved by the City Manager vs. items that require Council approval.
If and when the City is able to consider a larger tax credit project, I recommend that the City
piggyback onto the County’s competitive process. I have spoken to Department of Housing staff,
and there was great interest in sharing the results of their process with interested cities. Other
than large tax credit projects, I recommend that the City maintain its flexibility to respond to
projects and programs by utilizing RFP and OTC processes.
Menu of Burlingame Priority Goals/Strategies – Attachment A
Attachment A provides a compilation of potential priority goals and strategies that could be used
in developing a process for allocation of affordable housing funds.
Homelessness Prevention Activity Detail – Attachment B
Attachment B provides a summary of research related to homelessness prevention activities
conducted with Jessica Silverberg, Human Services Manager of San Mateo County’s Center on
Homelessness, and Bart Charlow, CEO of Samaritan House. “Homelessness prevention” is the
preferred term for emergency assistance to workforce households experiencing unanticipated
Options for Affordable Housing Trust Fund Policies
July 1, 2019
Page 4
short-term income disruptions, as previously discussed by the City Council and listed in the
Residential Impact Fees Ordinance. This research leads to the conclusion that, in the social
services field, funding for homelessness prevention activities is the most efficacious and
underfunded area related to affordable housing preservation.
Use of NOFA Process – Attachment C
The County of San Mateo Department of Housing uses its annual affordable housing funding
NOFA process to set priorities for the year. The complete document is quite long and is on their
web site. The segment outlining strategic priorities and preference criteria for scoring is available
in Attachment C.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Menu of Potential Burlingame Priority Goals/Strategies
Attachment B: Summary of Initial Research on Homelessness Prevention Programs
Attachment C: Use of NOFA Process
Attachment A
Potential Burlingame Priority Goals/Strategies
Examples of Strategies
Availability - Creation and preservation of the greatest number of affordable housing units
Affordability - Increase the percentage of affordable units at the most deeply affordable levels
Local Critical Work Force – Increase ability to provide housing at affordable levels for teachers
and other school personnel, emergency and law enforcement personnel and/or city employees
Supportive – Increase ability to serve high-risk populations such as senior or disabled or
homeless households
Prevention - Increase housing security for renters and homeowners at risk of homelessness
through the use of emergency aid
Leverage – Favor uses that have the ability to supplement project funding with other local, state
and federal sources
Examples of Eligible Uses
Land purchase (directly or by funding a developer of affordable housing to purchase)
Pre-development expenses for construction of affordable housing
Permanent funding for affordable housing development (local layer to leverage larger funders –
could explore tagging onto the County NOFA process)
Creating deeper levels of affordability (at either 100% affordable or inclusionary developments)
Preservation of existing affordable housing stock (rehab loans with deed restrictions or funding
of a purchase by a not-for-profit)
Financing of ADU development that will be deed restricted for low income renters
Funding to local service providers for homelessness prevention
Coordination of opportunities with local public entity land owners (CalTrain, SamTrans,
Peninsula Health Care District, schools districts)
Attachment B
Summary of Initial Research on Homelessness Prevention Programs
1. The San Mateo County Human Services Agency (HSA) contracts with all eight core
service agencies located around the county, including Samaritan which is the largest
agency and covers all of central county plus East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The core
service agencies serve as the front door for residents needing assistance with free or
low cost resources for food, homeless shelters, emergency financial assistance, info &
referral services, WIC and CA public assistance enrollment. Agencies may also provide
other services, e.g. Samaritan runs a system of primary care health clinics and has
extensive case management services.
2. The core agencies and HSA share a case management and data base system known as
Clarity. Samaritan administers the system countywide for the agencies and HSA. This
enables the service providers to, among other things, see who is receiving what services
and where. This enables an agency such as Samaritan to identify Burlingame residents
receiving services.
3. Emergency financial assistance, commonly known as "homelessness prevention," can
provide payments for rent, utilities and other items that prevent a household from losing
their home. The logic for providing the assistance is that keeping a family housed
prevents the onset of a tremendous number of other costly and debilitating problems.
Also, once homeless, finding another home in San Mateo County is an
enormous challenge.
4. Unfortunately, the county's main source of homelessness funding from HUD, Continuum
of Care funding, does not allow prevention as an eligible activity. The county uses
approximately $450,000/year of Measure K funds and $450,000 of CSBG, another
federal program, to fund prevention activities. The range of activities has complicated
accounting, eligibility and case management requirements. Because Samaritan is a
very experienced and competent agency, the County contracts with them to provide all
of the prevention activities countywide.
5. Samaritan cobbles together other funding from such sources as Season of Sharing,
Housing Industry Foundation, Community Legal Services of EPA, and St Vincent de
Paul.
6. Samaritan will provide financial and statistical data to the city in order to help the city to
understand the scope of the issues and funding requirements. An initial, very
approximate estimate of the average cost of assistance during a single episode is
$1,700. There was a feeling that this was moving quickly to the $2,000-3,000 range.
1
Attachment C
San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) NOFA 6.0
The County’s sixth Affordable Housing Fund NOFA (“AHF 6.0 NOFA,” or “NOFA”) includes a
combination of funding from the County and HACSM, detailed in Section III (A). This funding will
be targeted to projects that provide or help preserve affordable rental housing opportunities for
extremely low-, very low-, and low-income San Mateo County residents, and projects that
provide affordable homeownership opportunities for low-income San Mateo County residents,
through the development of new affordable multifamily rental housing and homeownership units,
and through the re-syndication and rehabilitation of existing deed-restricted affordable
multifamily rental housing stock.
DOH’s strategic priorities for this funding assistance include the following:
• Expand housing opportunities through construction of new affordable multifamily housing
developments;
• Target AHF funds to very low- and extremely low-income affordable housing units;
• Maintain existing deed-restricted affordable rental housing in conjunction with re-
syndication of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), to support the Project, for
health and safety reasons and/or to extend the useful life of the improvements when
such repairs are beyond the Project’s capital improvement budget;
• Create more extremely low-income and/or supportive housing for homeless households
and those at imminent risk of homelessness, including housing opportunities for at-risk
former foster youth, persons with serious mental health challenges who are homeless or
at-risk of homelessness, and other clients of County services in need of affordable
housing;
• Encourage the creation of affordable multifamily projects containing larger units (2- and
3-bedroom);
• Create more housing within walking distance of services, amenities, and transit –
particularly where doing so leverages Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities
(AHSC) funding;
• Build system capacity among affordable housing providers and supportive services
providers
DOH’s strategic priorities for the AHF 6.0 funding assistance serve to further San Mateo
County’s (“County”) Fair Housing Goals set forth in the San Mateo County Regional
Assessment of Fair Housing, approved by HUD in November 2017. The 2017 Assessment of
Fair Housing, including its goals, metrics, and milestones, can be found at
https://housing.smcgov.org/assessment-fair-housing.
Eligible Project Types:
New Construction Multifamily Rental Projects - Up to $19,034,615
Eligible Multifamily Re-syndication-Rehabilitation Projects - Up to a total of $2,000,000
Eligible Multifamily New Construction Affordable First-Time Homeownership Projects - Up to a
total of $1,000,000
2
Preference Criteria:
The city (if the Project is located in an incorporated city or town) or County (if the Project is
located in the unincorporated County) has provided a commitment to:
i. Provide city funds (if the Project is located in an incorporated city or town); or
ii. ii. Grant the Project one or more cost-saving incentives, such as fee reductions or
waivers, by-right zoning, density bonus, parking requirement reduction, or other such
cost-saving incentives. Note that the County seeks to leverage AHF funds to create
affordable housing and is unlikely to fund applications that include large fees payable
to local jurisdictions when the subsidy needed to pay such fees could otherwise be
used to fund development of additional affordable housing.
Provision of city-, County-, or other Publicly- or Privately-owned land for the Project at a below-
market-rate or at zero cost to Developer.
Scoring:
The following preference criteria also described in Section VI, Qualification and Preference
Criteria, will be used to help evaluate Project applications:
1. The Project is ready for occupancy sooner than four (4) years for Multifamily New
Construction Affordable Rental Projects, and three (3) years for Multifamily
ReSyndication-Rehabilitation Projects, from the due date for NOFA application
submission. Projects that could otherwise close but for a small gap funding award
provided under this NOFA will garner additional preference consideration. Readiness will
be gauged by the status of planning and land use entitlements and permits, the degree
to which other funding commitments have been secured, completion of architectural
drawings, the anticipated date for 9% tax credit financing applications or 4% tax
credit/tax-exempt bond applications (if applicable), and the anticipated development
schedule submitted as part of the application. [Note: Staff may refer to previous funding
applications submitted to DOH for the Project to check for discrepancies between
previous applications and this current application in information presented regarding
readiness.] (15 points)
2. The City (if the Project is located in an incorporated city or town) or County (if the Project
is located in the unincorporated County) has provided a commitment to: a. Provide City
funds (if the Project is located in an incorporated city or town); b. Grant the Project one
or more cost-saving incentives, such as fee reductions or waivers, by-right zoning,
density bonus, parking requirement reduction, or other such cost-saving incentives. Note
that the County seeks to leverage AHF funds to create affordable housing and is unlikely
to fund applications that include large fees payable to local jurisdictions when the
subsidy needed to pay such fees could otherwise be used to fund development of
additional affordable housing. (10 points)
3. Provision of city-, County-, or other publicly- or privately-owned land for the Project at a
below-market-rate or at zero cost to Developer. (10 points)
3
4. The Developer uses all reasonable efforts to partner with a local jurisdiction or transit
agency and submit an application for Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
(AHSC) funds to support development of the Project, enhance walkability, increase
access for biking, and improve linkages to public transportation. Note that DOH staff are
aware that some sites may not be competitive for AHSC funds. If an Applicant does not
plan to apply for AHSC funding, the Applicant must provide a statement describing its
reasoning for not submitting an application. Those that do plan to apply will have the
opportunity to describe the current status of discussions with their local
jurisdiction/transit agency partner(s), the amenities planned for inclusion in the
application, and the timeline and status of the application. Projects that do not compete
for AHSC funds but nonetheless County of San Mateo – Department of Housing –
Notice of Funding Availability – July 2018 Page 38 of 51 seek to enhance area
walkability, increase bicycle access or improve linkages to public transportation will also
receive scoring preference for such amenities. (5 points)
5. The Project provides strong leverage for County funds and limits the amount of County
subsidy required by attracting additional non-County funding sources, including donation
or below-market-rate sale of land from other quasi- or nongovernmental entities, and by
controlling costs. (15 points)
6. A larger proportion (percentage) of Project units described in Section VI(A)(1) is targeted
to any of the following: households with incomes at or below 35% of AMI, residents who
are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness (as defined by DOH in this NOFA or
by HUD or VA definitions in the case of homeless Veterans), frail elders leaving nursing
or long-term care facilities or needing specialized services in order to remain in an
independent living situation, or FFY households, or other clients of County service
agencies. (10 points)
7. Project is within easy walking distance of services, amenities, and transit. (10 points)
8. The Project’s 30-year operating cash flow indicates a Services budget greater than $500
per unit per annum (PUPA), and the Project provides high-quality services appropriate
for the needs of the tenant population served, in connection with the more robust budget;
physical space for service amenities is available within the development; and service
amenities will be of a regular and ongoing nature and provided to tenants free of charge
(except for day care services or any charges required by law). (5 points)
9. The Project includes a greater proportion of units for larger families (two- and three-
bedroom units, or larger). (5 points)
10. The Project will serve a greater number of households (i.e. larger unit count). (5 points)
11. Funding provided under this NOFA will allow Project to close within one year from the
date of this NOFA close and Applicant has made best efforts to obtain all other sources
of gap financing. (10 points)
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 10b
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Subject: Update on the New Community Center Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the update for the new Community Center and
provide direction regarding the inclusion of the additional underground parking spaces, a sprung
wood floor in the Community Hall, the green roof on Kids Town, and the indoor/outdoor platform in
the Community Hall.
BACKGROUND
Since 2012, City staff, in collaboration with Group 4 Architecture, the Citizens’ Advisory Committee
(CAC), and community members, has been working on developing plans for a new Community
Center in Washington Park. The work included the development of a Master Plan for the active
areas of the park and identified the site locations of the park amenities (Community Center Master
Plan) and conceptual designs of the proposed building within the Master Plan. The City Council
approved the Community Center Master Plan on July 7, 2014.
Since that time, the City Council has held study sessions, and the City has gathered input through
an Advisory Committee, at Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission meetings,
as well as at community meetings and public events. Information about the process and public
outreach plan can be found at
https://www.burlingame.org/parksandrec/facilities/projects/community_center_conceptual
_plan.php
At the July 2, 2018 Council meeting, the City Council chose to move forward with the pavilions style
building, a 35,700 square foot Community Center with parking under and adjacent to the new
center. The project also includes a new relocated playground, picnic area, and basketball court,
and an indoor and outdoor stage. The tennis courts, Lions Club building, ballfields, and Parking Lot
X will remain unchanged. The July meeting was followed by a City Council study session on
September 17, 2018 where staff and Group 4 presented a Schematic Design progress update and
received input and direction on the project scope and budget, including add alternates, selection of
the underground parking option, approval of the early site package, and approval of the exterior
material palette.
Update on the New Community Center Project July 1, 2019
2
At the September 20, 2018 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting and the September 24, 2018
Planning Commission meeting, City staff and Group 4 presented a schematic design progress
update, including relaying the input that the Council provided at its study session.
On November 5, 2018, the City Council unanimously approved the schematic design and phasing
for the new Community Center.
Environmental Review
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project, including the evaluation of the removal of protected
sized trees in Washington Park. The draft IS/MND determined that there would be no environmental
impacts identified that could not be mitigated to less than significant levels. As mandated by State
Law, the minimum public review comment period for this document was 20 days. The community
was notified of the draft document through a mailing to the CEQA Document Notification List and
properties within 300 feet of the Recreation Center, posting in the newspaper and on the City
website, posting 24”x36” signage in three locations in Washington Park, and placing hard copies
at the Recreation Center, City Hall, and the Library. During this public review period for the IS/MND
(September 13, 2018 to October 3, 2018), the City received no public comments. Since the
Community Center is a municipal facility rather than a development project, City Council took action
and adopted the IS/MND and the Mitigated Monitoring Report Program (MMRP) at the December
03, 2018 City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION
Project Updates
Early Site Package
To provide uninterrupted community access to the playground, the project team developed an early
site package. The early site package includes the construction of the relocated children’s
playground and sports court and a new picnic area. Information about the public process can be
found here: https://www.burlingame.org/parksandrec/special_detail_T20_R25.php.
Construction for the early site package began on June 17 and is scheduled to be completed by the
end of December 2019, before the start of construction of the new Community Center and parking
package.
Parking
The new surface parking lot with vegetated landscape and trees will take the place of the existing
facility location, while the new building will be located immediately to the west of the new lot, closer
to the greater Washington Park and other civic amenities. The surface lot will provide a transitional
buffer between the new building’s activities and the single-family residences along the eastern edge
of the park. A vegetated sound wall between the parking lot and residential homes will be built to
mitigate vehicular noise impact from the surface lot. The parking lot will also include a designated
pick-up and drop-off zone immediately adjacent to the entry plaza. To accommodate tour bus trips
associated with recreation programming, the section of Burlingame Avenue directly in front of the
Community Center may be zoned for bus loading and unloading during specific timeframes.
Update on the New Community Center Project July 1, 2019
3
The underground parking is located partially under the building and partially under the surface lot.
There will be a lobby at the underground parking level that will allow visitors access from the parking
garage up to the street level of the surface lot and into the Community Center lobby when the center
is open.
A total of 84 parking spaces is required for the project and accommodated by the design. An add
alternate to provide an additional seven spaces in the garage is included in the budget update
section of this report.
Exterior Building Design
To ensure the design adheres to the City Council’s direction and is sensitive to the community’s
vision, an Advisory Committee was formed to provide additional input into the development of the
exterior and interior building design.
During the Schematic and Design Development phases, City staff and Group 4 met with the
Advisory Committee on August 22, 2018, September 19, 2018, October 10, 2018, and October 22,
2018 to review:
Exterior design, elevations, massing, and building materials
Site design and landscape features
Interior feature elements (lobby lounge/stair feature and Kid’s Town)
Floor and ceiling finishes and interior and exterior lighting
A complete description from each Advisory meeting can be found in the Community Center staff
report from the November 5, 2018 Council meeting:
http://burlingameca.legistar1.com/burlingameca/meetings/2018/11/1312_A_City_Council_18-11-
05_Meeting_Agenda.pdf
Floor Plan and Building Systems
Since the November 5, 2018 City Council meeting, staff and Group 4 have worked collaboratively
to refine the floor plans, building systems, and design, including holding a series of technical
meetings and Integrated Design Workshops to allow for direct dialogue between City staff from
multiple departments and the design team.
Project Budget
Refining the project budget has been challenging in the current climate of escalating construction
costs. On November 5, 2018, staff presented the City Council with the new Community Center
project budget, which included Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E), associated sitework, and
parking and was broken down into the following categories: hard costs, soft costs, project
contingency, and escalation. The project hard costs include local prevailing wage construction
costs based on a design-bid-build procurement process with competitive bidding for all sub-trades
of the construction work, general contractor’s job site management costs, general contractor’s
insurance, bonding costs, and general contractor’s profit. The project soft costs include allowances
for engineering and design fees, construction management, permit fees, inspections, and testing.
The project contingency allowance is calculated at 10% of the project hard costs and 5% of the
Update on the New Community Center Project July 1, 2019
4
project soft costs, and the escalation allowance is calculated at 5% per annum on the project hard
costs estimated to the midpoint of construction. The estimate was $51,900,000.
With escalating construction costs, the project team has been working diligently to re-evaluate and
align the project scope with the goal to reduce the project cost to $50,000,000. The team has
utilized the following strategies to reduce the project budget for the base building option:
Site Features:
o Reducing extent of concrete seat walls
o Eliminating retaining wall and seatwall around the Community Hall lawn
o Eliminating enhanced site lighting
Building Exterior:
o Removing the green roof on Kids Town
o Reducing extent of glazing
o Removing motorized operable windows
Building Features:
o Removing selected skylights
o Removing elevator #2
o Strategically scoping the extent of the equipment supported by the emergency
generator
o Removing the Community Hall indoor/outdoor platform
o Removing the enrichment classroom operable partition
Building Finishes:
o Removing the sprung wood flooring in the Community Hall
o Replacing porcelain tile in the lobby areas with stained concrete
o Replacing wood slat ceilings with wood-look metal slat ceilings
o Reducing wood slat/wood-look ceiling in the Community Hall; replacing with large
format acoustical ceiling tile.
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment:
o Reducing FF&E costs by re-using existing furniture and equipment where feasible
Garage Features:
o Removing additional parking spaces not required to meet Planning requirements
The new Community Center base building option budget, estimated in June 2019 for construction
from March 2020 through March 2022, is $50,388,500, attached as Exhibit A.
The photovoltaic panel system is necessary to achieve Zero Net Energy and is expected to reduce
ongoing operational costs. The cost to install is estimated at $1,289,000. While City staff has been
working on a variety of methods to defer the upfront costs of installation, a solution has not been
determined at this time. In addition, the new Community Center will be used as an
evacuation/resource center in the event of an emergency, which requires the installation of a
generator at a cost of $190,000. Lastly, the indoor/outdoor platform is a key element of the
Community Hall and has a cost of $67,000.
Staff recommends that the photovoltaic panel system, emergency generator, and Community
Room indoor/outdoor platform be included in the project, for a total project budget of $51,934,500.
Update on the New Community Center Project July 1, 2019
5
In addition, in order to move forward with the construction documents, staff needs direction tonight
from the City Council on certain items due to the structural requirements that need to be included
in the construction documents. They include:
1. Sprung wood floor in the Community Hall - $120,000
2. Seven additional underground parking spaces - $470,000
3. Green roof on Kids Town - $160,000
The other features included in the enhancement options can be included as alternates in the bid
package and can be decided upon at a later date and/or as funds become available.
To ensure the cost estimate is valid, the City has retained an independent third-party cost estimator
to do a peer review of the cost estimate. The third-party peer review includes: reviewing unit pricing
to make sure it is appropriate given the overall project scope; making sure there are no typos and
the calculations are correct; reviewing mark-ups and making sure they make sense for the project
size, local market, schedule, and delivery method; spot checking the top 10-20 line items to ensure
accurate quantities; and reviewing schedules to make sure all items are included in the estimate.
FISCAL IMPACT
In November 2017, the voters of Burlingame approved Measure I, a ¼ cent sales tax measure that
will generate an estimated $1.75 million to $2 million annually. At the January 27, 2018 goal-setting
session, the City Council discussed the City Manager’s recommended expenditure plan for the
Measure I funds, which included an annual pledge of $1 million toward debt service on the issuance
of lease revenue bonds. The City Council approved the recommendation on February 20, 2018.
The City Council approved an additional $1 million annual General Fund transfer in the 2018-19
fiscal year budget, also intended to fund the debt service, to allow for a lease revenue bond
issuance of approximately $30 million for the Community Center project.
As the total costs of the entire project are expected to exceed the amount of the bond issuance,
the City will need to rely on additional resources to fund the project. To the extent the costs exceed
the available bond proceeds and any other resources dedicated to the project, funds will be pulled
from the Capital Investment Reserve.
Exhibits:
Project Budget
Community Center Renderings
Project Budget Hard Cost Soft Cost
Hard + Soft Cost
Subtotal Project Contingency Escalation
Contingency +
Escalation Subtotal
11/5/18
CITY COUNCIL
TOTAL
7/1/19
CITY COUNCIL
TOTAL W/
REDUCTIONS
10%8.75%
NEW COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT
Building, Associated Sitework, Parking
Building $25,486,000 $4,519,600 $30,005,600 $2,548,600 $2,230,100 $4,778,700 $33,958,324 $34,784,300
Sitework $4,072,000 $722,000 $4,794,000 $407,200 $356,300 $763,500 $5,276,132 $5,557,500
Underground Parking $6,729,000 $1,193,200 $7,922,200 $672,900 $588,800 $1,261,700 $10,633,867 $9,183,900
SUBTOTAL $36,287,000 $6,434,800 $42,721,800 $3,628,700 $3,175,200 $6,803,900 $49,868,323 $49,525,700
Furniture, Equipment, Technology
FF&E $427,500 $76,000 $503,500 $43,000 $37,500 $80,500 $1,403,833 $584,000
Technology $50,000 $9,000 $59,000 $5,000 $4,400 $9,400 $393,277 $68,400
Signage $153,000 $28,000 $181,000 $16,000 $13,400 $29,400 $224,428 $210,400
SUBTOTAL $630,500 $113,000 $743,500 $64,000 $55,300 $119,300 $2,021,538 $862,800
TOTAL BASE PROJECT BUDGET $51,889,861 $50,388,500
STAFF RECOMMENDED ADD ALTERNATES TO INCLUDE
Emergency Generator $292,000 $190,000
Photovoltaic Panel System (on building)$1,794,600 $1,289,000
Community Room Indoor/Outdoor Platform $67,000
SUBTOTAL $2,086,600 $1,546,000
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET W/ STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS $53,976,461 $51,934,500
OTHER ADD ALTERNATES (incl. contingencies, escalation, soft costs)
ADDITIONAL SCOPE ITEMS: (DIRECTION REQUESTED AT 7/1 CITY COUNCIL)$750,000
Green Roof on Kids Town $170,200 $160,000
Sprung Wood Floor @ Community Room $120,000
Garage Parking Additional 7 spaces $470,000
ENHANCEMENTS/UPGRADES (ABILITY TO BE DECIDED AT A LATER DATE)$1,630,000
Operable Partition- Enrichment Classroom $51,000
Community Room Indoor/Outdoor Platform $67,000
Site Lighting Upgrades $80,000
Building Lighting Upgrades $130,000
Building Finishes Upgrade $330,000
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment $620,000
NO LONGER BEING CONSIDERED
Elevator #2 $471,400
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 10c
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Adoption of an Amendment to the Disposition and Development
Agreement for Lots F and N
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider and adopt a resolution amending the disposition
and development agreement for Lots F and N to reflect prior Council direction.
BACKGROUND
Recognizing the need for both more affordable housing and better parking solutions in the
downtown area, the Council requested proposals for development of Lots F and N. After a
careful review process, the City negotiated a disposition and development agreement (DDA) with
Pacific West Communities, Inc., in 2016. The DDA anticipated that the City would retain
ownership of the ground under Lot N, on which a public parking garage would be built. Lot F
would be dedicated to an affordable housing project, with associated parking. The DDA was
entered into prior to the full community planning process and before Council made certain key
determinations about the project. The DDA therefore was drafted to allow various alternative
development scenarios, anticipating that both the deal terms and the project itself would be
refined during the planning process.
During the intervening interval, the project has gone through Planning Commission and
environmental review and secured approvals for both the garage and housing components.
Additionally, Council has reviewed various aspects of the project and given direction on key
items, including making the determination that Lot F should be sold to the developer, with a
possibility of repurchasing the land at the end of the affordability covenant.
DISCUSSION
With design and environmental review complete, the project has now submitted to the City for
construction plan check by the concerned departments. The developer anticipates being able to
break ground on the at-grade parking garage this autumn, provided that it can secure timely bids
under relevant requirements for building a public facility. Because the housing project requires
grading below ground level, it can break ground as soon as the weather permits in the spring.
DDA Amendment for Lots F and N July 1, 2019
2
Staff anticipates bringing further refinements to the DDA to Council after the summer break.
However, the attached amendment is necessary to reflect the Council’s key direction on the
question of the sale of Lot F: it captures both the initial sale and the option to repurchase. In
order to secure bond financing – the application for which is due during the Council’s break – the
developer needs to show that Lot F will be transferred by grant deed. The attached amendment
will allow the project to proceed on schedule during the summer.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct impact on the City General Fund from adopting the proposed amendment to
the DDA, as the transfer of Lot F was already anticipated in the Council’s long -term forecasts for
the City.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Proposed Amendment to DDA
Amendment to DDA
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSTION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC WEST COMMUNITIES, INC. REGARDING CITY LOTS
F AND N
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that City Parking Lots F and N could be
developed to provide for both affordable housing and better parking for the downtown area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered various proposals and ultimately entered into a
disposition and development agreement with Pacific West Communities, Inc. in 2016 for
development of Lots F and N; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development has since secured development entitlements
through the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, Council has given direction on certain key terms for the project, including that
Lot F should be sold to the developer with the possibility of repurchasing the land at the end of
the affordability covenant; and
WHEREAS, the original disposition and development agreement should be amended to
reflect this direction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that:
1. The Council approves an amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement
entered into with Pacific West Communities, Inc. on June 13, 2016, in the form
attached to this Resolution.
2. The City Manager is authorized to execute that amendment on behalf of the City.
____________________________
Mayor
Amendment to DDA
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 1st day
of July, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
City Clerk
OAK #4834-6531-6763 v6 -1-
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement (“First
Amendment”) is entered into effective as of July ___, 2019 (“Effective Date”) by and between
the City of Burlingame, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and Pacific West
Communities, Inc., an Idaho corporation (“Developer”). City and Developer are hereinafter
collectively referred to as the “Parties.”
RECITALS:
A. City is the owner of certain real property bound by Park Road and Lorton
Avenue, referred to as Lot F (“Housing Property”) and real property bound by Lorton Avenue
and Highland Avenue, referred to as Lot N (“Garage Property”). The Housing Property and
Garage Property are both currently developed as surface parking lots available to the public.
B. City and Developer are parties to that certain Disposition and Development
Agreement dated June 13, 2016 (“DDA”) which provides, among other things, for City to either
ground lease or convey a fee interest in the Housing Property to Developer for the development
of a multi-family, affordable rental Housing Development consisting of approximately 144 units,
including a pocket park and on-site parking and for the parties to concurrently develop a separate
approximately 368 space Garage Development (for a net increase of 162 spaces over those lost
through the development) on the Garage Property, subject to the terms, covenants and conditions
set forth in the DDA.
C. As provided in Section 2.1 of the DDA, Developer and City have reached
agreement on the method for transferring an interest in the Housing Property to facilitate
development of the Housing Development and have mutually concluded that City’s conveyance
to Developer of a fee interest in the Housing Property, subject to a right of reverter upon
occurrence of certain events, is preferable to a ground lease structure.
D. City and Developer now desire to amend the DDA to delete all references to
ground lease or ground rent, as well as confirm that the Housing Property will be disposed of by
way of a fee sale and that the City will have the additional option to repurchase the Housing
Property and Housing Development in the future upon expiration of the Affordable Housing
Covenant.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the
parties herein contained, the City and Developer agree as follows:
AGREEMENTS:
1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and hereby incorporated herein.
2. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the DDA.
OAK #4834-6531-6763 v6 -2-
3. Amendment of Section 2.1. Section 2.1 of the DDA is hereby amended and restated in
its entirety to read as follows:
“2.1 Purchase and Sale. Subject to the terms, covenants and conditions of this
Agreement, Developer shall purchase from City and City shall sell to Developer the
Housing Property with the conveyance to be effectuated via delivery and recordation of
the Grant Deed.”
4. Amendment of Section 2.2. Section 2.2 of the DDA is hereby amended and restated in
its entirety to read as follows:
“2.2 Purchase Price; Note and Deed of Trust; Developer Deposit. The total
purchase price for the Housing Property shall be equal to the appraised fair market value
of the Housing Property based on its highest and best use in accordance with Applicable
Laws as of the date of the Development Approvals (“Purchase Price”), as outlined
below. Within thirty (30) days following the Effective Date of this First Amendment,
City and Developer shall meet and confer and agree upon (i) a set of appraisal
instructions governing the preparation of a self-contained appraisal report of the Housing
Property, and (ii) an MAI appraiser to undertake and complete the appraisal assignment.
The Parties shall endeavor to cause said appraisal to be completed by the selected
appraiser within sixty (60) days of the approval of the appraisal instructions. Developer
shall pay all fees, costs and expenses of the appraisal. The fair market value of the
Housing Property, as determined by said appraisal, shall be the Purchase Price for the
Housing Property.
Payment of the Purchase Price at Closing shall be made in the form of a
promissory note (“Note”) in the amount of the Purchase Price in favor of City. The Note
shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit G, and shall be secured by a
deed of trust (“Deed of Trust”) recorded against the Housing Property, substantially in
the form attached hereto as Exhibit H.
Concurrent with the opening of Escrow in accordance with Section Error!
Reference source not found., Developer shall deposit One Hundred Thousand and
00/100 Dollars ($100,000.00) into Escrow with the Escrow Agent (“Developer
Deposit”). At Closing Developer shall be entitled to a credit in the amount of the
Developer Deposit as against the Garage Development Escrow Deposit. In the event that
this Agreement is terminated prior to Closing and Developer is not in Default as provided
in this Agreement, Developer shall be entitled to a refund of the Developer Deposit.”
5. Deletion of References to Ground Lease, Ground Rent and Ground Leasehold Interest.
All references in the DDA to “Ground Lease”, “Ground Rent”, “ground leasehold interest” are
hereby deleted and replaced with Grant Deed, Purchase Price or fee interest, as applicable.
6. Amendment of Section 4. Section 4 of the DDA is hereby amended to add a new Section
4.5 to read as follows:
OAK #4834-6531-6763 v6 -3-
“4.5 Repurchase At Expiration of Affordable Housing Covenant. City shall have
the additional right to repurchase the Housing Property and all improvements to be
constructed thereon at the expiration of the Affordable Housing Covenant by forgiving
any unpaid balance on the Promissory Note provided by Developer to City at the time of
Developer’s purchase of the Housing Property. If such Promissory Note has been repaid
in full, City may repurchase the Housing Property, and all improvements thereon, at the
expiration of the Affordable Housing Covenant for the then appraised fair market value
of the Housing Property, including improvements thereon, based on the continuing use of
such property and improvements as an affordable housing development with levels of
affordability consistent with those set forth in the Affordable Housing Covenant. Such
right to repurchase shall be subordinate and subject to and be limited by and shall not
defeat, render invalid or limit: (i) any mortgage, deed of trust (including, without
limitation, any assignment of rents and leases) or other security instrument made by an
Institutional Lender (defined below); or (ii) any rights or interests provided in the DDA
for the protection of the holder of such mortgages, deeds of trust or other security
instruments. As used herein “Institutional Lender” means any one or more of the
following, who is not an affiliate of the Developer: a savings bank, a savings and loan
association, a commercial bank or trust company or branch thereof, an insurance
company, a governmental agency, a real estate investment trust, an employees’ welfare,
benefit, pension or retirement fund or system, or an investment banking, merchant
banking or brokerage firm. City shall provide notice to Developer of its intent to exercise
its repurchase option under this provision at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to
the expiration of the Affordable Housing Covenant.”
7. Deletion of Exhibit F. Exhibit F to the DDA (Ground Lease Terms) is hereby deleted.
8. Replacement of Form of Grant Deed (Exhibit C). Exhibit C (Grant Deed) to the DDA is
hereby deleted and replaced with Exhibit C-1 attached hereto and incorporated herein.
9. Ratification of DDA. The DDA, as amended by this First Amendment, is hereby ratified,
confirmed and approved in all respects. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions
of this First Amendment and the provisions of the DDA, the provisions of this First Amendment
shall govern.
10. Entire Agreement. This First Amendment sets forth the entire understanding of the
parties in connection with the subject matter hereof. There are no agreements between City and
Developer relating to the Housing Property or Garage Property other than those set forth in
writing and signed by the parties. Neither party hereto has relied upon any understanding,
representation or warranty not set forth herein, either oral or written, as an inducement to enter
into this First Amendment.
OAK #4834-6531-6763 v6 -4-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been entered into by and between
Developer and City as of the date and year first written above.
CITY:
City of Burlingame, a California municipal
corporation
By: ______________________________
Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Kathleen A. Kane, City Attorney
DEVELOPER:
Pacific West Communities, Inc., a Idaho
corporation
By: _________________________
Caleb Roope
Its: President and CEO
OAK #4834-6531-6763 v6 EXHIBIT C-1
EXHIBIT C-1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
AFTER RECORDATION MAIL TO:
Pacific West Communities, Inc.
430 E. State Street, Suite 100
Eagle, Idaho 83616 Attention:
Caleb Roope, [Title]
This document is exempt from the payment of a
recording fee pursuant to Government Code §§
6103, 27383
(Space Above This Line for Recorder’s Use Only)
GRANT DEED (With Covenants and Option to Repurchase)
For valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
the City of Burlingame, a California municipal corporation (“Grantor”), hereby grants to
[Developer Name], a California [type of entity] (“Grantee”), the real property (the “Property”)
located in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, California, and more particularly
described in Attachment No. 1 attached hereto and incorporated in this grant deed (“Grant
Deed”) by reference.
Grantee expressly covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns and all
persons claiming under or through it, that as to the Property and any improvements constructed
or to be constructed thereon, or an y part thereof, or alterations or changes thereto, Grantee and
all such successors and assigns and all persons claiming under or through it, shall own, transfer,
use, devote, operate and maintain the Property and the improvements thereon, and every part
thereof, to the uses specified and in accordance with and subject to the terms of that certain
Disposition and Development Agreement between Grantor and Grantee dated as of July 13,
2016, as amended by the First Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement dated
July __, 2019 (collectively, the “DDA”), and the agreements, option to repurchase and covenants
set forth in this Grant Deed. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have
the meanings provided in the DDA.
It is intended and agreed that the covenants and agreements, including Grantor option to
repurchase, set forth in this Grant Deed shall be covenants running with the land and that they
shall be, in any event and without regard to technical classification or designation, legal or
otherwise, to the fullest extent permitted by law and equity, (i) binding for the benefit and in
favor of Grantor, its successors and assigns, as beneficiary for the entire period during which
such covenants shall be in force and effect, without regard to whether the Grantor is or remains
an owner of any land or interest therein to which such covenants relate; and (ii) binding against
Grantee, its successors and assigns to or of the Property and any improvements thereon or any
part thereof or any interest therein, and any party in possession or occupancy of the Property or
the improvements thereon or any part thereof. The agreements and covenants herein, including
OAK #4834-6531-6763 v6 EXHIBIT C-2
Grantor option to repurchase, shall be binding on Grantee itself, each successor in interest or
assign, and each party in possession or occupancy, respectively, only for such period as it shall
have title to or an interest in or possession or occupancy of the Property or part thereof. The
Grantor and such aforementioned parties, in the event of any breach of any such covenants or
exercise by Grantor of its option to repurchase, shall have the right to exercise all of the rights
and remedies, and to maintain any actions at law or suits in equity or other proper proceedings to
enforce the curing of such breach or to enforce the option to repurchase. The covenants
contained in this Grant Deed, including the option to repurchase, shall be for the benefit of and
shall be enforceable only by the Grantor, its successors and assigns and such aforementioned
parties.
No violation or breach of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, provisions or limitations
contained in this Grant Deed or the DDA shall defeat or render invalid or in any way impair the
lien or charge of any mortgage, deed of trust or other financing or security instrument
encumbering the Property as permitted by the DDA; provided, however, that any successor of
Grantee to the Property shall be bound by such covenants, conditions, restrictions, limitations
and provisions, whether such successor’s title was acquired by foreclosure, deed in lieu of
foreclosure, trustee’s sale or otherwise.
Grantee hereby grants to Grantor two options to repurchase the Property hereby conveyed
by Grantor and all improvements subsequently constructed thereon as follows:
A. The first option to repurchase shall be applicable until such time as Developer
achieves Final Completion of the Housing Development and the terms of such option to
repurchase shall be as set forth in Section 5.4 of the DDA, which provisions are incorporated
herein by this reference thereto. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, the Grantor’s
rights and interests under Section 5.4 of the DDA, and the Grantee’s obligations under Section
5.4 of the DDA, shall terminate as to the Property upon Final Completion of the Housing
Development as evidenced by the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by City. Upon Final
Completion of the Housing Development, the Grantor shall have no further right to enforce any
repurchase rights under Section 5.4 of the DDA with respect to the Property.
B. The second option to repurchase the Property and all improvements thereon may
be exercised by Grantor at the expiration of the Affordable Housing Covenant by Grantor
forgiving any unpaid balance on the Promissory Note provided to Grantor at the time of
Grantee’s purchase of the Property or, if the loan evidenced by such Promissory Note has been
repaid by Grantee in full, Grantor may repurchase the Property at the expiration of the
Affordable Housing Covenant for the then appraised fair market value of the Property, including
improvements thereon, based on the continuing use of such property and improvements as an
affordable housing development with levels of affordability consistent with those set forth in the
Affordable Housing Covenant. Such right to repurchase shall be subordinate and subject to and
be limited by and shall not defeat, render invalid or limit: (i) any mortgage, deed of trust
(including, without limitation, any assignment of rents and leases) or other security instrument
encumbering the Property made by an Institutional Lender (defined below); or (ii) any rights or
interests provided in the DDA for the protection of the holder of such mortgages, deeds of trust
or other security instruments. As used herein “Institutional Lender” means any one or more of
the following, who is not an affiliate of Grantee or any successor to Grantee: a savings bank, a
OAK #4834-6531-6763 v6 EXHIBIT C-3
savings and loan association, a commercial bank or trust company or branch thereof, an
insurance company, a governmental agency, a real estate investment trust, an employees’
welfare, benefit, pension or retirement fund or system, or an investment banking, merchant
banking or brokerage firm. Grantor shall provide notice to Grantee of its intent to exercise its
repurchase option under this provision at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the
expiration of the Affordable Housing Covenant.
By its execution of this Grant Deed, Grantee has acknowledged and accepted the
provisions hereof.
In the event of any express conflict between this Grant Deed and the DDA, then the
provisions of this Grant Deed shall control.
This Grant Deed may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE.
OAK #4834-6531-6763 v6 EXHIBIT C-4
GRANTOR:
City of Burlingame, a California municipal
corporation
Date: _______________________, 202_ By:
Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager
[SIGNATURE MUST BE NOTARIZED]
ATTEST:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kathleen A. Kane, City Attorney
GRANTEE:
[Developer Name], a California [type of entity]
Date: _______________________, 202_ By:
Caleb Roope, Its [Title]
[SIGNATURE MUST BE NOTARIZED]
OAK #4834-6531-6763 v6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
[to be inserted]
OAK #4834-6531-6763 v6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION – HOUSING PROPERTY
TO BE INSERTED
1
Memorandum
AGENDA NO: 11a
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Mayor Donna Colson
Subject: Committee Report
June 5, 2019
Climate Ready SMC Collaborative Convening #4
Turning the Tide: Connecting for Resiliency
Sponsored by Supervisor Dave Pine and Supervisory Don Horsley
Sea Level Rise Projections -
o State SLR - 2100
o 100 year event occurs every 1-5 years
A small change in SLR combined with wave and storm action, creates flooding
Over 1 billion people will live in a coastal zone for 2050
3 feet of SLR - 600,000 exposed to flood
Over $150 billion infrastructure and economic development at risk
Coastal Vulnerability Approaches - Climate Ready
Storms matter when we look at future impacts - rivers, waves, storms all impact and need
to build a consistent seamless impact and projection.
CoSMos Framework - Global, Regional and then Local scale to create a flooding
predication for all 40 scenarios - and socio-economic impact if we do nothing.
Shoreline change predictions also included and cliff retreat.
Vulnerability Assessment -
Closing the Gaps - debris flow and landslides etc. and model that!
Precipitation and Riverine Flooding
Figure out changes for future flooding
Web-based Visualization Tool - Conversation for Table
Conversations and Values - Need to shape conversation around shared values rather than too much
science and then we can also tap into innovation and solutions rather than fear based conversation.
Colson Committee Report July 1, 2019
2
Frameworks - Regular and then rampant CO2 emissions. Another one is to envision a heat-
trapping blanket.
Session 2 = Adaptation Atlas
Where do we think about areas that might be that we can think strategically about fixes.
All of this documentation is available on Climate Ready SMC
The Proposal for the Flood Control District
Prepare Flood and Sea Level Rise Investment Plan
Conduct public engagement
ID reliable funding source
No disruption of MOU projects during this Start-UP
o Continued County Funding and Staffing
Schedule - Proposal and Endorsement. AB 825 Mullin and it is targeted to form this on Jan 1,
2020.
Trying to get an agency developed that will focus on this and work as a region.
ABAG Generally Assembly Meeting -
1. Working on the new RHNA numbers for 2050 and the new updated Plan Bay Area 2050 -
officially begins later this summer and will involve the entire team. Note - City of
Burlingame will need to be very active in this work. New ABAG.CA.Gov website - easier
to use and navigate on mobile devices.
2. New governance - ABAG/MTC MOU will work on this fall - there will be 12 from each
side
3. Terese McMillian - new ED and is working on the and forward budget for next fiscal year.
4. Two Action Items -
1. Minutes - Approved last year
2. Budget - Question - CASA Compact - if you agree to the budget are you agreeing
to the overarching philosophy of CASA? Answer was NO that would not impact it.
3. Budget passed unanimously.
Friday, June 8, 2019
Attended Leadership Council session on Housing in SMC with Matt Franklin of Mid-
Peninsula Housing to discuss CASA Compact and also implications for County and cities
like Burlingame.
Scoot Wiener Non-Profit Housing Forum - How do we build housing in Bay Area and
work with our non-profit community? Staff did a great job hosting and it was a full and
packed room.
Colson Committee Report July 1, 2019
3
Monday, June 10, 2019
Peninsula Clean Energy Executive Committee Meeting
1. Update on Staffing - Offers out for a few positions - total 22 people once these are
hopefully accepted. Identified about 9-12 positions we will need to bring on in next year or
so. Need accounts manager to work with top commercial accounts and second,
administrative assistant position. Then about 7-9 additional people to work on the
marketing (Marketing Director) and thinking about PR, Chief of Staff type position - type
of position for Jan and we need a couple of data analytics professionals and we need some
folks who can do this. We need JR Leg Reg analyst, need junior compliance and then
energy program specialist, and DER we may need second DER person here. Once we get
to this level, we are potentially running out of space and may add in the next building.
2. Rate Changes - PGE issued another May 1 rate change - that was not the PCIA change, but
a random change - this change will likely happen on July 1. We should implement the rate
change and would add $300,000 per month to our bottom line. Then no more rate changes
until beginning of next year.
3. Update on Merced - Bringing the information to the M/CAG and so looks like they are on
target to move forward. We have offered to assist with their feasibility analysis - same as
Sonoma Clean Energy has offered. Options include going on their own or even coming
with us. Know in September the aggregate load that will move to DA.
4. Reach Codes - LOI - From Burlingame and Portola Valley have submitted and County is
right behind. We also have San Mateo, Brisbane letters.
5. CAC - Two vacancies - Emily and Landis are leaving due to moves or job related conflicts.
Applications open to June 11.
6. Leslie - CARE - 32,000 CARE customers. We discussed about $100 rebate to CARE or
$3.2 million and maybe an additional $50,000 - $100,000 for messaging and promotion.
Waited until we had better understanding of our financial system and also how do we push
credits back and deal with accounting which is what has been happening - issue is with
PGE mainly - that they had a credit, but in fact the funds were not coming to us and it went
both ways on accounting and we are implementing a fix.
7. Vast majority 70% are not enrolled in CARE and may be eligible and 200% of federal
poverty level - rule making order with Cal CCA - and working with CPUC and CCAs to
provide solutions. Disconnections are attributable certain charges and not others. If you get
too far in arrears you can be disconnected. You can pay minimum avoid disconnection fee.
Arrearage Management Programs (AMP) being considered for implementation. CPUC
goal of reducing disconnections - this is probably best. Combine with Federal Grants
LIHEAP - Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and Grants to community
groups supporting customers facing disconnections. Working with these directly maybe
better than a massive rebate.
Audit/Finance -
1. June 2020 contract with Calpine is up and working with SV CCA as well to get a group
rate negotiated.
2. Review of budget items and 2019/2020 revenues and expenses.
3. Cost for PCC1 is going up due to demand and RA is also going up higher than projected.
Colson Committee Report July 1, 2019
4
Library Board Interviews - Five candidates for 2 open positions
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
1. HCDC Learning Opportunity - Attended session with County Staff to understand how
HCDC fits into the county housing landscape. Discussed the total numbers for the HCDC
funded projects and how to integrate those into the broader housing conversation. The staff
presented an overview to the Committee on several projects so we could learn about the
work being done on-site - featured three projects in County.
2. Chamber Lunch - Discussion and update on State Housing laws, upcoming Burlingame
Housing projects and developments, changes to zoning and other impactful considerations.
3. Meeting Bill Chaing PGE - Update on fire protocol for electricity shut down due to high
winds, humidity and dry conditions - heat is not necessarily a factor. Also, excited to work
with us on Rollins Road Specific Plan and Community Center. Important to keep him
updated on our work so that we can let PGE know our future demand load and delivery
expectations. Setting up a meeting with Margaret to review community center timing.
Groundbreaking Ray Park Playground
Special thanks to Park and Recreation staff that managed to get this work done prior to the
Bill Sue Tournament so there will be hundreds of children on this over the weekend.
June 18, 2019
HLC and Menlo Spark - Joint meeting on Green Building Codes
SFD Gas adds minimum $25,000 per house in California
CA is the second largest user of gas in the country - 90% in most of CA, and that compares
to 1/4 in the rest of the country.
Half of the climate change we experience is from leaked methane
In NYC - Mixed use ground floor all electric restaurants and they are desirable. Gas
moratorium in NYC and so the restaurants need to go electric.
80% of gas bill is infrastructure - and the gas does not cost much. It is the infrastructure
that creates a problem.
PGE trading off the gas company part of the company for no liability with fires
Tiny homes - 9 units per acres - 290 SF $135K to build and $465 SF without land. Eureka
- building 550SF per apartment get 84 units acre attend cost is $315 PSF to build.
Farm worker housing at Spring Lake in Yolo County - UN world habitat awards and was awarded
with all electric facility and 100% solar power and made more money than it cost them.
Lower utility bills and must be able to raise the rent to make sure you payoff the leveraged
debt to pay for the upgrades. Zero carbon benefits the bottom line.
Homeless Housing in Colorado - added solar and could double the size of the system and could
elevate the solar array. Since 2011 solar has dropped 80% savings is substantial.
Colson Committee Report July 1, 2019
5
Electric blowers reduce sound by 25% and fires are much less common in electric
batteries. Mist lit with LEDs is what looks just like flames in electric heater blowing heat
at you. So no need to do this with gas.
Building an efficient home -
HVAC - can use quiet ad efficient heat pumps assuming 1,000 SF development. Central V
Individual cheaper
All Electric heat pumps - not large lift to go from 60-85 degrees. Option Hayward Heat Pro
to heat the pools
Provided all materials to staff for future reference
June 19, 2019
MTC bus tour group - informative session with all cities on Peninsula showcasing the
work that we are doing to get housing built.
June 20, 2019
Home For All joint meeting of the Steering Council and H4A Work Groups business
report on the 2018-19 Work Plan
Two goals at first - Close JHG at 24:1 and second was to meet RHNA obligation of 16,500
units at all levels of affordability
We have closed this gap to 12:1 for 2010 to 2017, and second RHNA 2014-2022 - first
three years - permitted 42% of total RHNA, but mostly above moderate income and need
to work on the very low, low, and moderate income.
C/CAG - Completed see attached slide.
2nd Units have really risen to 263 in 2018 and continue to elevate as option
Goal of this group is to get 16,500 units built by 2023 to close the JH gap
Total County Commitment of $65 mm for the next two years
HUD $38 mm funding for the Gateway project in Millbrae and the LightTree in EPA both
first time allocations for SMC
HFA- Funding, housing policy, land, community support
$110 million county 5,500 units preserved or built
Policies - Density housing bonus, inclusionary zoning, commercial or residential impact,
reduced parking and ADU legislation
Major Initiative has been the community engagement program
Effective Messaging was also a goal - how do we talk about housing?
Revised from the workgroups to a more nimble structure to cover emerging
issues...Proposed Task Forces: Housing Funding, Housing Parking and Traffic, School
Districts Workforce, Housing and Climate Readiness, Second Units, Housing Stability
Ongoing Initiatives - Community Engagement and Learning Network, Second Unit One-
Stop Shop, Legislation and Policy, Planning Commission Network
Effie has the snapshot data to share with Sacramento, constituents and others to get the
word out
Colson Committee Report July 1, 2019
6
Monday, June 24, 2019
Climate Action Plan Meeting - CEC
Concerns about level of public input and opportunity to set a more aggressive target and
we as the city can do better than that.
Two out of our control - PCE and CalTrain so to reach goal look at the other 18 and focus
on the top 5/6.
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Attended Community Center Ground Breaking
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Lunch with City Manager and Kevin Kreitsch new GM for Hyatt
Meeting Boys and Girls Club advisory team
1
Memorandum
AGENDA NO: 11b
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2019
To: City Council
Date: July 1, 2019
From: Vice Mayor Emily Beach
Subject: Committee Report
Thursday, 6/13/19
League of California Cities Environmental Quality Policy Committee, Sacramento. See
summary notes at end of this report.
Friday, 6/14/19
Received update on Burlingame Shoreline Park Proposal from SPHERE Institute.
Sunday, 6/16/19
San Mateo County Transportation Authority Measure A & W Strategic Plan outreach
booth at Burlingame Farmer’s Market. Many community members offered comments and
helped prioritize infrastructure needs on story-board posters.
Monday, 6/17/19
El Camino Real Site Walk Visit with Caltrans officials
o Seven members of Caltrans including project managers, landscape architects, and
engineers walked pilot section of El Camino Real with City Leaders, including CM
Goldman, Public Works Director Murtuza, Arborist Disco, Beach & Brownrigg.
o City will likely re-convene ECR Citizen Task Force this fall to meet with Caltrans
and discuss pilot section.
o First public scoping community meeting hosted by Caltrans may take place within
next 6-9 months.
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, 6/18/19
Two constituent meetings: topics included ferry station/Hovercraft opportunities and youth
employment
Wednesday, 6/19/19
Burlingame Rotary Club Luncheon; thanks to outgoing President Marc Friedman
Thursday, 6/20/19
Commute.org Board of Directors Meeting
o Approved 2019-20 work plan and budget
o SMCTA Strategic Plan and Mobility Action Plan presentation
Broadway BID Meeting
Beach Committee Report July 1, 2019
2
o Listened to Broadway Business owner’s opinions about Broadway Grade
Separation Project and Broadway Caltrain service. BID strongly favors return of
Broadway weekday Caltrain Service as frequent/robust as possible. Addressed
their questions about Grade Separation design, funding strategies, timing, Caltrain
Business Plan, service options.
Friday-Saturday, 6/20-21/19
League of California Cities Board of Directors Meeting, Ontario. See summary notes at
end of this report.
Monday, 6/24/19
C/CAG Congestion Management and Environmental Quality Committee
o Storm Water Program Update: compliance with state goals evaluated County-
wide, so C/CAG targeting key projects that will most effectively move the needle.
Other ways cities can help: require green infrastructure on all planning projects;
also implement green streets.
o VMT (vehicle miles travelled) SB 743 update: consultant explained how
jurisdictions need to update CEQA guidelines by July 2020 when all need to use
VMT standard instead of LOS (level of service.) Cities/lead agencies have
discretion how we model VMT. C/CAG studying ways to streamline and
standardize county-wide. Cities still need to set their own thresholds.
o Highway 101 Mobility Action Plan Update and learning:
78% vehicles on Highway 101 carry only one person!
Drivers must plan 25-55% additional time to ensure on-time arrival at
destination
Mobility Action Plan exploring strategies to significantly increase vehicle
occupancy rates and reduce congestion throughout the US 101 corridor;
prioritize equity-based, non-infrastructure improvements to increase access,
support the economy, and enable social mobility.
Three constituent meetings. Topics included bike/ped infrastructure, Bayfront land use,
and minimum wage.
Meeting with SamTrans Board Member. Invited me to brainstorm ways to improve 70%
bus on-time reliability and achieve 85% target, particularly on major thoroughfares like El
Camino Real.
Peninsula Health Care District Town Hall meeting
o 50-60 attendees; mostly advocating for more affordable housing
o Elected members and representatives from Hillsborough, San Mateo, Burlingame,
Congresswoman Speier’s office, Supervisor Pine’s office.
o Wellness Community Update: Board extended ENA with developer and directed
them to explore new ways to include more affordable housing; will know more in
August when the extension expires. Developer estimates total usable acreage on
site is now 4.5 acres for Wellness Community.
o Strategic Plan Update: assessing needs, open for public comment on website;
considering new program funding for youth mental and physical health, speakers
series, anti-vaping, memory loss.
Beach Committee Report July 1, 2019
3
Tuesday, 6/25/19
Community Center Ground Breaking; great job staff and Mayor Colson.
Watershed University Webinar regarding AB691: How the State Lands Commission will
work with local jurisdictions to proactively plan for sea level rise on public trust lands.
League of California Cities Highlights from June 13 Policy Committee Day and State Board
Meeting June 20-21
State Budget Highlights: Many new housing dollars approved in budget; implementing language
not finished yet. Money in proposed budget for:
Moderate income housing - big infusion of $/tax credits: $1 billion
Homelessness $650M
Planning $250m – Cities should take advantage of these funds!
Infill infrastructure grant program shows governor is hearing cities’ concerns; competitive
infrastructure improvement funding available (competitive basis) for residential or mixed
use developments: $500m
Housing Legislation Update
League closely monitoring trailer bills – concerned there is still a push to tie funding to housing
production: e.g. fines, SB1 infrastructure funds, etc. Expect next cycle of RHNA numbers much
higher for all Cities
SB 50 / AB 1279 (sister bills) both tabled for this year. Anticipate these bills will move again in
January so League staff is working on reasonable housing bill of its own to propose.
SB 592 (Weiner) some misinterpret this bill as “SB50 resurrected” -- League suggests it’s not.
Key differences:
Does not change local land use standards / zoning
Introduces compensatory damages (not just in bad faith.) In other words, if a project is
rejected by a City and judge rules in favor of developer, then Cities in danger of increased
exposure to fines/legal fees.
Other Housing ideas/bills of concern League is monitoring:
Proposal to freeze City fees before project scope is fully defined
Major density bonus law enhancements for 100% affordable (proposal for 80% density
bonus height plus 4 concessions) and projects near major rail transit (proposal to allow
unlimited density, 3 additional stories over existing zoning, plus 4 concessions.)
o Discussed perverse incentive under current density bonus law for Cities to zone
lowest possible amount. Generally, 4-5 stories = developers’ sweet spot because
no steel construction required. League exploring safe harbor from extra density
bonus if Cities zone 4-5 stories ourselves.
SB2 (Atkins) Planning Grants signed into law back in 2017– important revenue stream “free
money” to update housing planning documents; also may be used to hire staff support at
processing counter. Funding released and cities can apply. This could help Burlingame. Second
half of funding next year will include direct allocation/community formula.
League Board of Directors Approved at June 21-22 Meeting
all policy positions recommended by League Policy Committees
Beach Committee Report July 1, 2019
4
Nominating Committee’s Slate for 2020 Executive Board
Legal Update
Recent California Supreme Court Decision strongly upholds City’s taxing authority (ability to
impose taxes collected by third party) and even extends this right to other state agencies, like State
University-owned parking lots. Although this case specifically dealt with parking, decision
language is broad and extends to TOT and other areas, possibly short-term rentals.
Federal Budget Update
Congress/President passed and signed $19 billion disaster relief package (CA eligible for
$12.6 billion; including Paradise)
Although Senate moving very slowly, House spending bills propose more funding for:
o health, education, and defense
o transportation and housing
o rail grade crossings and EV infrastructure
Supreme Court Update
Decision on citizenship question on census coming soon.
Small Cell Update
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo ‘s HR530 proposes to nullify FCC order that pre-empts
cities’ land use authority on small cells
Meanwhile, AB1699 Streamline Act (opposite of HR530) moving through State Senate
and proposes to codify FCC order. Removes local control.
League’s Environmental Quality Policy Committee Highlights
Presentation from Director of Policy at CalRecycle
International Recycling Markets dried up everywhere; gone are the days when US put
cargo on a ship and called it recycling.
Recycling no longer revenue-generating; either loss or zero value. Cardboard now has ½
value in 2018; plastics have negative value (need to pay to get rid of them)
Estimate California needs 100 new facilities to meet goals of SB1383; will require huge
investment
Solutions include – many being explored through legislative process
Massive public education campaign
Programmatic changes (what can be recycled, what cannot)
Legislation, state wide and local
Massive investment in recycling infrastructure / facilities
Single use ordinances
Pressure on manufacturers to own “end-of-life” for products
Reduce packaging
Processing locally rather than shipping miles away
Tax producers
Consumers pay extra for packaging
Beach Committee Report July 1, 2019
5
Environmental Quality Policy Committee Action Summary:
Approved new language for League’s CCA Policy; supporting local control and
transparency for CCA’s
Opposed AB56 (Garcia)
Supported AB 1583 (Eggman) state imposed generator fee; proposed to:
Reauthorize two of the state's most successful recycling market development programs.
Eliminate a confusing legislative mandate to include the "chasing arrows" / "recycling
symbol" on all plastic products, whether or not they are recyclable.
Establish a Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling
(including local governments and private sector recyclers) to identify uniform product
redesign suggestions to produce products that can actually be recycled.
Update: bill pulled from committee –future legislation needs to address.