HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2019.09.03City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMTuesday, September 3, 2019
STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A
Study Session to Consider Potential Modification of the Downtown Specific Plan and
Zoning Ordinance to Allow Limited Ground Floor and Below-Ground Office Uses
a.
Staff Report
June 12, 2019 EDS meeting minutes
Attachments:
Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the
non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7.
Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and
hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is
optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in
light of the number of anticipated speakers.
All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Project Updatea.
PresentationAttachments:
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.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/29/2019
September 3, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
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.
Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes for August 19, 2019a.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Procure Greenfields, Inc. Fitness
Equipment, Construction Materials, Associated Landscaping, and Site Amenities; and to
Execute an Agreement with Bay Area Paving Co ., Inc. to Install Concrete Pads for the Bay
Trail Fitness Equipment Project, City Project No: 85440
b.
Staff Report
Resolution
Cluster Location Map
Agreement with Bay Area Paving Co., Inc.
Purchasing Agreement with Porter Corp. for Greenfields, Inc.
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter of Opposition Regarding
SB 266, Public Employees’ Retirement System: Disallowed Compensation: Benefit
Adjustments
c.
Staff Report
Resolution
Draft Opposition Letter
Bill Text
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Deletion of One Vacant Office Assistant II and the
Addition of One Administrative Assistant I
d.
Staff Report
Resolution
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Wilsey Ham
for the Burlingame and Glenwood Park Subdivision and Neighborhood Water Main
Improvements, City Project No. 84891, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the
Agreement
e.
Staff Report
Resolution
Professional Services Agreement
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/29/2019
September 3, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to EPS, Inc. dba Express
Plumbing, for the Easton Drive Drainage Improvements, City Project No. 85610
f.
Staff Report
Resolution
Bid Summary
Construction Contract
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Memorializing the City Council ’s August 19, 2019 Action
Regarding an Appeal of the Planning Commission ’s Action of an Application for a Design
Review Amendment to a Previously Approved Project at 25 Arundel Road
g.
Staff Report
Resolution
August 19, 2019 Staff Report
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to a
Professional Services Agreement with Circlepoint to Perform Environmental Review
Services Related to the Proposed Development of a New 150-Unit Apartment Building at
1095 Rollins Road
h.
Staff Report
Resolution
Amendment No. 1
Executed Agreement
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second Amended
and Restated Agreement with the San Mateo Union High School District for the
Burlingame Aquatic Center
i.
Staff Report
Resolution
Agreement
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City’s Participation in United Against Hate Weekj.
Staff Report
Resolution
2017 Resolution
Attachments:
Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Beautification Commissionk.
Staff ReportAttachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/29/2019
September 3, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Open Nomination Period to Fill Three Vacancies on the Parks and Recreation
Commission
l.
Staff ReportAttachments:
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
Adoption of Resolutions Adopting the Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan, General Plan
Amendment, and Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
a.
Staff Report
Resolution - EIR Addendum
Resolution - 2030 CAP and GP Amendment
MIG Memorandum
MIG Response to Comments
2030 CAP – Revised Public Review Draft
EIR Addendum
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – August 12, 2019
Attachments:
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
City Council Direction Regarding a Pilot Project for Dynamic Wayfinding Signage for
Parking Availability
a.
Staff Report
Resolution
Streetline Presentation
Attachments:
Authorization to the City Manager to Submit a Letter of Interest to Bay Area Metro to
Amend the Designated Priority Development Area (PDA) in the City of Burlingame
b.
Staff Report
Existing Priority Development Area (PDA)
2019 Regional Growth Framework Update
North Rollins Road MU District Diagram
Bay Area Metro Interactive PDA Map
PDA Letter of Interest Form
Attachments:
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
Mayor Colson Committee Reporta.
Committee ReportAttachments:
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/29/2019
September 3, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Vice Mayor Beach's Committee Reportb.
Committee ReportAttachments:
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for
public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes are available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting
Monday, September 16, 2019
Candidate Forum - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 6:00 p.m.
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda
will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose
Road during normal business hours.
Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/29/2019
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NO:
STUDY
MEETING DATE:
September 3, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Subject: Discussion of Potential Modification of the Downtown Specific Plan and
Zoning Ordinance to Allow Limited Ground Floor and Below-Ground Office
Uses
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is asked to discuss whether it wishes to modify the Downtown Specific Plan and
Zoning Ordinance to allow limited ground floor and below-ground office uses.
BACKGROUND
At its June meeting, the City Council’s Economic Development Subcommittee (consisting of Vice
Mayor Beach and Councilmember Keighran) discussed the possibility of allowing office uses at
the rear of ground floor commercial spaces within Downtown Burlingame. The meeting included
input from commercial brokers and property owners representing a variety of downtown properties
(June 12, 2019 Economic Development Subcommittee meeting minutes attached).
The Downtown Specific Plan promotes a vibrant pedestrian-oriented downtown, with ground floor
retail, personal service, or restaurant uses required in the Burlingame Avenue and Howard Mixed
Use areas. The requirement for ground floor retail and restaurants is integral for promoting
vibrancy and pedestrian activity along building frontages and is not proposed to be changed.
However, for lots that are especially deep (such as depths greater than 100 feet), retail and
services may be viable at the front of the building at the street-front, but may be less viable in the
far rear portions of the property. Whereas in years past retailers typically maintained large back-
of-house storage facilities situated at the rear of deep parcels, modern retailers rarely have a need
for such deep storefronts. The result is that it can be challenging to find a tenant for existing
buildings with especially deep depths.
A potential resolution for this issue could be to continue to require retail or services at the front of
storefronts in the downtown commercial areas, but allow other uses that would otherwise be
restricted to upper floors (such as office uses) to be situated at the rear of the ground floor. Access
to the rear space could be through the rear of the building (if an accessible and protected path of
travel exists behind the building), or from the front through a dedicated corridor.
Downtown Office Uses September 3, 2019
2
DISCUSSION
Should the City Council wish to pursue this strategy, standards would need to be developed for
the minimum depth of a storefront. The Downtown Specific Plan has a design guideline that
specifies commercial spaces should have a depth of at least 40 feet to ensure viability for a range
of potential commercial tenants (Section 5.2.5.5). However staff would suggest further research
if a required standard is developed, as other retail and planning literature suggest s ranges
between 35 and 50 feet are appropriate.
Furthermore, there would need to be consideration of parking standards for any such ground floor
uses. Currently retail, personal, food establishment, and commercial recreation uses located on
the ground floor that are located within the downtown parking sector are exempt from off-street
parking requirements (Code Section 25.70.090 (a)). The basis for this exemption originated when
the City acquired and built public parking lots in the downtown area by way of assessments (60%
of cost) collected from property owners within the Burlingame Avenue Off-street Parking District
(created in 1962). The parking requirements for commercial uses are summarized in Table 1
below:
TABLE 1
COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Parking Requirement
Retail stores 1 space for each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Offices 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Health Services 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Food Establishments 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Commercial Recreation 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area
As such, the parking requirement for offices is more intensive than for retail stores, but less
intensive than for food establishments or commercial recreation.
Finally, although it was not specifically discussed in the June Economic Development
Subcommittee meeting, consideration of office uses could also be extended to below-grade
spaces. Currently within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) District, permitted uses of
below-grade spaces are the same as those allowed on the ground floor, except for the addition
that personal trainer and assessment businesses are also allowed in below-ground spaces. There
are only a handful of buildings downtown that include below-ground spaces, but historically those
properties have encountered difficulty leasing those spaces to conforming retail or food service
tenants. The City Council may want to extend the consideration of office uses to these below-
ground spaces given the difficulty in finding tenants for those spaces in the past.
Should the Council wish to allow limited ground floor office uses, then staff requests that the City
Council authorize the Planning Commission to work with staff to review and consider allowing
office uses at the rear of ground floor commercial spaces as a Conditional Use . In addition, the
City Council may also choose to extend the consideration of office uses to include below-ground
spaces.
Downtown Office Uses September 3, 2019
3
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibit:
June 12, 2019 Economic Development Subcommittee meeting minutes
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee
MINUTES
Conference Room A
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California
Wednesday, June 12, 2019 – 8:15a.m.
1
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Vice Mayor Emily Beach and Councilmember Ann Keighran
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan, Community
Development Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner, City Manager Lisa Goldman (CM),
Assistant to the City Manager Nil Blackburn (ACM)
Members of the Public Present: Ryan Guibara (property owner), Mark Hudak (attorney), Ron Karp
(property owner), Jenny Keleher (President, Downtown Business Improvement
District (DBID)), Greg Terry (broker)
READ AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM MAY MEETING
Approved.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Ground-Floor Office Space in Downtown Zoning Districts:
CDD Gardiner presented an overview of the topic. The issue is whether to consider allowing non-retail
uses (such as office) in the rear portions of ground floor spaces in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial
and Howard Mixed Use zoning districts. There are some large vacant storefronts in the 1400 block of
Burlingame Avenue which could be difficult to market for retail use, but could be subdivided to create
smaller retail spaces in the front of the storefronts and non-retail/office uses in the rear. Subdivided
spaces would still need to be able to provide accessible egress per building code requirements.
Members of the public expressed concern that amendments may be focused only on particular blocks,
rather than more broadly, so would be too restrictive to be effective.
Subcommittee members noted that the middle blocks on Burlingame Avenue are more active, whereas
the outer blocks (particularly the 1400 block) are less active and could benefit from a wider range of
uses. Subcommittee members also inquired how office uses would affect parking and commercial
vibrancy, how rear spaces would be accessed, and if there would be sufficient interior lighting.
Members of the public offered the following comments:
Subdividing spaces with different uses could make the retail spaces more viable. Many spaces
are narrow and deep, in a “bowling alley” configuration, but retailers only want to lease the front
portions.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
(DRAFT)
June 12, 2019
2
Offices should be exempt from providing parking since the parking requirements are less intense
than restaurants or commercial recreation.
Office staff go out for lunch, go out for breaks, and pick up items for dinner. Parking demand is
complementary to retail and restaurant demand; offices use less parking in evenings and
weekends, which is when retail and restaurant parking demand increases.
Could result in retail space in the front being leased quicker.
It is difficult to lease out the largest spaces. The City should be open to changes for the largest
spaces that might sit unleased for an extended period of time.
Offices could have skylights, windows in the back, and other investments that would not
otherwise happen if the space was limited to storage or retail.
WeWork and other transient uses want a place to come in and work, take clients to lunch, and
get coffee. Such a use could be ideal for the back of a J. Crew or Anthropologie space. Should
be more open and nimble and flexible to keep up with the environment.
There could be cut-throughs or corridors from the front to access the spaces in the rear.
Subcommittee members inquired how allowing office uses at the rear of large spaces could be allowed
without it being considered “spot zoning,” and how to ensure the total amount of office space is kept to
a reasonable amount. CDD Gardiner responded that options could include specifying that regulations
apply only to spaces of a particular minimum size, and that there be minimum depths for the retail
portion of the spaces.
Members of the public offered the following comments:
One broker mentioned that he has a space measuring 53 feet wide by 190 feet deep, and that
it would be difficult to subdivide into parallel halves. Each space would measure 25’ x 190’ which
would be unmarketable.
Concern that the retail market is saturated, and subdividing retail spaces into smaller retail
spaces will create competition with other vacant small storefronts. One broker mentioned that
he has a vacant 700 square foot space being marketed, but all inquiries have proposed
businesses that would duplicate others already on Burlingame Avenue. Concerned this would
cannibalize the market.
It takes time for businesses to build up their customer base. Takes one to 1 ½ years lead-up for
a business to develop a customer base.
Subcommittee members asked what uses are in demand irrespective of zoning, and what options do
property owners want to see that are not available currently.
Members of the public offered the following comments:
There needs to be a more cosmopolitan mix of uses to support each other.
There should be an attempt to mix up viable uses. Retail demand drops after 6:30 or 7:00 p.m.
regardless. Some office staff would still be working, so it could actually be a benefit.
The trend in retail is wider storefronts with less depth. The shade store on Burlingame Avenue
is the perfect size shop. Stores are becoming more like showrooms, with less stock on site.
Office could use the space that is underutilized in the back. It is not displacing productive retail
space; it is replacing storage space, or vacant space.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
(DRAFT)
June 12, 2019
3
New uses should focus on experience and entertainment. Examples include Lucky Strike, or a
music hall.
Subcommittee members suggested that they would like to keep the entertainment uses in mind,
rather than relying entirely on offices. Terrapin Crossroads in San Rafael was mentioned as an
example with indoor/outdoor food venues, a beer garden, and entertainment.
Subcommittee members also suggested that bringing more people downtown through housing could
be more effective than offices given the timing of residents patronizing businesses.
CM Goldman noted that offices could help support retail, and that smaller office spaces would have
less impact compared to large office parks. It can be part of an approach that emphasizes being able
to live and work in the same community.
Members of the public made the following comments:
Office tenants look for retail, food, and transportation to be nearby.
Some office tenants are locating in Downtown San Mateo because there is office space
available, and there are lots of restaurants nearby.
Subcommittee members noted that Downtown Redwood City has become a popular destination for
offices. Redwood City is vibrant from offices as well as entertainment and housing, and has a good
balance.
Members of the public made the following comments:
There is 350,000 square feet of office space in Downtown Burlingame. That is much less
space than Downtown San Mateo, Palo Alto, etc.
$4.00 per square foot is the lowest end of retail rents. At that rate, a 2,500 square foot store
would have a rent of $10,000 per month. You don’t want rent to be more than 10% of gross
sales, so the operation would need to be a $1 million operation to work. It is hard to make the
economics work with that rent.
The more typical rents range from $6.00 per square foot up. Even if rents came down 20% it
would be hard for the economics of a business to sustain such rents.
Concern that the post office project would add too much retail space, which could cannibalize
retail space in the rest of Downtown. Would prefer to see entertainment uses on the first floor,
rather than more retail.
Subcommittee members concluded by saying they were open to having the proposal considered by
the full City Council. CM Goldman suggested a study session could be scheduled in September.
Vacant Property Maintenance Document:
EDS Relihan presented the revised Property Maintenance document. The reformatted document
focuses on photos of well-maintained and well-presented storefronts. Captions below each photo
provide explanations.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
(DRAFT)
June 12, 2019
4
Subcommittee members were supportive of the revised document. They liked the visuals and that the
emphasis was kept positive, and suggested that it should focus on good examples (rather than “what
not to do” examples).
The document will be provided to property owners and managers in the future where there are
maintenance issues.
Façade Improvement Pilot Program:
EDS Relihan will be presenting the Façade Improvement Pilot Program to the Broadway BID on June
20th. The intent is to receive input on the timing of soliciting and receiving grant applications.
Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center:
EDS Relihan reported that he had sent letters to invite the businesses and property owners to attend
the EDS meeting, and had visited businesses in person. He noted that some businesses said it would
be difficult for them to attend the EDS meeting given the time of day. No businesses or property owners
from Burlingame Plaza attended the EDS meeting.
CM Goldman noted that there are no vacancies at Burlingame Plaza.
Subcommittee members noted that in the recent improvements installed in the southern portion of the
shopping center, there are no bike racks. It was noted that Commute.org offers a 50% match up to
$5,000 for bike racks, lockers, and repair stations. Both the City and property owners are eligible. A
member of the public suggested that this information could be included as part of a future invitation.
Subcommittee members suggested that the item be re-agendized with focus on land use and zoning
changes that have been adopted for the North Burlingame Mixed Use area, which includes Burlingame
Plaza. The focus should be on the land owners. If the time of the meeting is an obstacle, the suggestion
is to look at holding the meeting at a different time of day.
FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS
There will be separate meetings for the Downtown BID and Broadway BID, followed by a meeting that
includes both BIDs. Subcommittee members suggested that the meeting with both BIDs follow up on
the BIDs working together on a joint Shop Local campaign.
EDS Relihan noted for reference that the DBID meets on the second Tuesday of each month, and the
Broadway BID meets on the third Thursday of each month.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes
(DRAFT)
June 12, 2019
5
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no further public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:26 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin Gardiner
Community Development Director
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods
Traffic Calming Update
City Council Meeting|September 3, 2019
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingProject Area Map
Engage with residents to understand
concerns
•Formed Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP)
made up of 3 members of TSPC and 3
residents to serve as a steering
committee
Identify and study traffic-related issues
Develop effective strategies to address
concerns
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingProject Goals
Citizen
Advisory
Panel
Meeting #1
Community
Workshop #1
Citizen
Advisory
Panel
Meeting #2
Community
Workshop #2
Citizen
Advisory
Panel
Meeting #3
9/4
Community
Workshop #3
10/2
TSPC
Meeting
City Council
Update
9/3
Data
City
Council
Town
Hall
Meeting
May
2018
Draft
Report
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingProject Overview
Analysis Analysis
Retained
TJKM to Studies
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingCommunity Outreach
Performed extensive community
outreach through direct mailers,
social media, and e-News
Conducted online survey to receive
input regarding traffic related
concerns
Lyon Hoag Traffic Calming
Community Workshops
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingCommunity Workshop 1
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingSample Input Board
SPEEDING
Community
Workshop #1
CUT
THROUGH
TRAFFIC PARKING
Speeding
Cut-through traffic
Parking intrusion
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingTop Concerns We Heard
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingFrequently Mentioned Streets
Consulting firm (TJKM) conducted traffic studies
•Speed surveys
•Origin and Destination studies to determine
cut-through traffic patterns
•Examined intersections for improvements
•Evaluated pedestrian safety concerns
•Explored preliminary concepts to address
concerns raised by the community
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingTraffic Studies
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingNeeds Assessment Map
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingCommunity Workshop 2
Rapid Rectangular
Flashing Beacons Mini Traffic Circles Trial Road Humps Radar Feedback Signs
Enhanced Crosswalks Bulb-outs Median Island Edge Line
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingTraffic Calming Toolkit
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingPreliminary Solutions Map
Bulb-out
Lyon Hoag & Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming
Taking a Closer Look
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingDwight/ Clarendon
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingTraffic Circle at Dwight/ Clarendon
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingTraffic Circle at Dwight/ Clarendon
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingTraffic Circle at Dwight/ Clarendon
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingTraffic Circle at Dwight/ Clarendon
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingEdge Line Striping at Bloomfield Road
Lyon Hoag Traffic Calming
Next Steps
Citizen Advisory Panel Meeting -9/4
Final Community Workshop -10/2
Finalize Traffic Calming Solutions
Develop Cost Estimates
Develop Phased Implementation Plan
Present Draft Report
Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic CalmingNext Steps
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on August 19, 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 former Sunnyvale Mayor Tony Spitaleri.
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
There were no presentations.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
2
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Colson asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the
Consent Calendar. Councilmember Keighran pulled item 8k. Mayor Colson pulled items 8n and 8o.
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8f, 8g, 8h, 8i, 8j, 8l, and 8m;
seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 1, 2019
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt City Council Meeting Minutes for July 1, 2019.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL
MAP (PM 18-02), LOT MERGER AND RESUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF LOT 1, MAP
OF BURLINGAME HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION AT 1500 CYPRESS AND 105 EL CAMINO
REAL
CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 86-2019.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN
PROJECT NO. 10, CITY PROJECT NO. 84900
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 87-2019.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO PUMP REPAIR
SERVICE COMPANY FOR THE TROUSDALE PUMP REHABILITATION, CITY
PROJECT NO. 85800, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
CONTRACT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 88-2019.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE 1740
ROLLINS ROAD AND 842 COWARD ROAD PUMP STATION UPGRADES, CITY
PROJECT NOS. 83390 & 84820
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 89-2019.
f. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS TO INCREASE THE
SCOPE OF WORK TO UPGRADE TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS.
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 90-2019.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
3
g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF WATER
METERS AND AUTOMATIC METER READ (AMR) RADIO DEVICES
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 91-2019.
h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE 2019
SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM, CITY PROJECT NO. 85520
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 92-2019.
i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN
HR Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 93-2019.
j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE AFSCME LOCAL 829 MAINTENANCE 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 Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 94-2019.
k. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH GRANICUS, INC. FOR CLOSED CAPTIONING SERVICES AND
THE PROCUREMENT OF A CAPTIONING ENCODER, AND APPROVING A BUDGET
AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000
Councilmember Keighran thanked staff for following up on her request to obtain closed captions for Council
and Commission meetings that are videoed. She asked what the timeline is for implementation. City Clerk
Hassel-Shearer explained that closed captions for the streamed meetings will begin with the September 9,
2019 Planning Commission meeting. She explained that the City will need to purchase and install an
encoder to allow for closed captions on an individual’s television. Accordingly, it will take additional time
to provide closed captioning for those that choose to watch the meetings on their televisions. She stated that
this would be implemented in October.
Vice Mayor Beach asked about language options for closed captions. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer explained
that the City has the option to purchase closed captioning in additional languages but that it was a large cost.
She noted that staff’s plan was to start with English closed captions and then based on the need would add
additional languages.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
4
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 95-2019; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
l. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATES AND
ALTERNATES FOR THE 2019 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES’ ANNUAL
CONFERENCE
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 96-2019.
m. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
CONTRACT WITH CAINE COMPUTER CONSULTING, LLC, TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Police Chief Matteucci requested Council adopt Resolution Number 97-2019.
n. ANNUAL RENEWAL OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (DBID): RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2018-19 ANNUAL
REPORT; DECLARING THE CITY’S INTENTION TO ESTABLISH AND LEVY
ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20; AND SETTING REQUIRED PUBLIC
HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 16, 2019
Mayor Colson stated that she had a meeting with members of DBID’s leadership. She explained that they
expressed an interest in increasing holiday lighting from November to February on Burlingame Avenue. She
noted that DBID’s request was made in order to ensure that the community utilizes local businesses during
the holiday season instead of going to other cities.
Mayor Colson stated that she talked with DPW Murtuza and Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad about
DBID’s request. She noted that based on these discussions, she determined that it is necessary to appoint a
subcommittee to help DBID navigate their request. She stated that the subcommittee would include
Councilmember Keighran and herself.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 98-2019; seconded by
Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
o. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2019
Mayor Colson stated that on page 9 of the report, there is a summary of the performance of the City’s various
trust funds over the past year. She explained that the CalPERS return for 2018-19 was 6.7%, and the Section
115 return was 7.29%. She noted that the Section 115 Fund performed better than PERS. She stated that
this was important because the larger return will provide greater assistance in paying down the City’s
pension liabilities.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
5
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to accept the Quarterly Investment Report; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A
DESIGN REVIEW AMENDEMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SPLIT LEVEL, SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AT 25 ARUNDEL ROAD
Mayor Colson asked her colleagues to reveal any ex-parte communications they had on the matter.
Councilmember Keighran and Councilmember Ortiz both stated that they visited 25 Arundel Road.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he visited 25 Arundel Road and talked with some of the Planning
Commissioners about their decision.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that she visited 25 Arundel Road and watched the May Planning Commission
meeting. She noted that her family was friendly with the designer, but it didn’t require recusal.
Mayor Colson stated that she visited 25 Arundel Road and had talked with the design firm about the project.
CDD Gardiner explained that in 2017, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review
for a first and second story addition to an existing split-level single-family dwelling at 25 Arundel Road.
Building permits for this project were issued in late 2018. He stated that during construction, the property
owners encountered issues and filed an application for a Design Review Amendment. The Design Review
Amendment included the following requests:
Removal of the bellyband;
Removal of shutters (only originally proposed on one window on the rear elevation);
Removal of wood paneling below the bay window at the front elevation;
Removal of wood brackets below the bay window on the east elevation;
Change of exterior material from wood siding to HardiePlank (a brand of fiber cement lap siding);
Change of garage door material from wood to steel (retaining a similar style/design)
CDD Gardiner stated that on May 28, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed the Design Review
Amendment and approved some of the requested changes but not all of them.
CDD Gardiner explained that the applicant is appealing two specific items:
1. Appeal to allow the substitution of HardiePlank (“Hardie”) fiber cement lap siding in place of wood;
and
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
6
2. Appeal to allow the use of corner boards (also known as corner caps) on the siding rather than
mitered corners.
CDD Gardiner noted that the relationship between fiber cement siding and corner boards is not mutually
exclusive.
Carrie and Channing Chen, the applicants, gave a presentation on their request.
Ms. Chen explained that they worked with an architect to ensure that the plans were consistent with the
original style of the home and with the neighborhood. She noted that the original application included wood
siding and didn’t make specific comment regarding the corners. She explained that after they began working
with the contractor, they learned about Hardie siding.
Ms. Chen reviewed the benefits of utilizing Hardie siding over wood including sustainability, fire resistant
material, moisture and rot resistant, durability, and aesthetics.
Ms. Chen discussed their rationale for wanting to use corner caps including aesthetics, consistency with other
homes in the neighborhood, and the difficulty of using mitered corners on an older home due to uneven
settling.
Ms. Chen explained that they walked their neighborhood to identify the number of homes that used Hardie
siding and/or corner caps. They found that 149 homes in their neighborhood use Hardie siding or another
form of fiber cement siding.
Mr. Chen discussed the importance of using fire resistant materials as a result of the increased number of
wildfires and because their home sits near a Wildland Urban Interface area.
Mr. Chen displayed pictures of recent projects that were approved that include Hardie siding.
Ms. Chen noted that 106 of the 149 homes that have Hardie siding in their neighborhood also utilize corner
caps. She noted that on their block of Arundel, there are seven homes with lap siding and corner caps.
Mr. Chen stated that the cost of using Hardie siding is approximately $8,100, and the cost of wood siding for
their project would be approximately $31,000. He explained that this was a factor in their decision.
Councilmember Brownrigg thanked the Chens for their presentation. He explained that he didn’t see a big
difference between Hardie siding and wood siding. He noted that the concern he had was with the panels
below the windows. Ms. Chen replied that they are keeping the panels.
Mayor Colson noted that the only issues before the Council were the wood versus Hardie siding and the
corner caps. She clarified that the applicant and the Planning Commission came to an agreement on the
other issues that went before the Commission during the Design Review Amendment discussion.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
7
Mayor Colson opened the public hearing.
Planning Commissioner Comaroto explained that when the matter came before the Planning Commission,
their focus was on the overall changes that were being made to the design.
A Burlingame resident stated that a major concern for him is wildfires, and therefore if the Chens were
offering to utilize material on their home that would reduce the speed of a fire, he was all for it.
Burlingame resident Craig Lichtenstein voiced support for the applicant’s design and request to have corner
caps and use Hardie siding.
Mayor Colson closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Keighran asked for clarification on the Design Review Amendment and when items were
approved by the Planning Commission. CDD Gardiner stated that the 25 Arundel design that was before
Council was different than what the Planning Commission reviewed. He noted that the Planning
Commission’s resolution approved the removal of shutters and the bellyband. The Planning Commission
didn’t approve the removal of the trim under the window, the removal of the wood paneling, nor the change
to the garage door.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the garage door is still wood. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the home’s front paneling is still wood. CDD Gardiner replied in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Beach thanked the applicant for adding back some of the decorative changes. She noted that
when she toured the neighborhood, it seemed to her that the revised application would fit in with the
community. She stated that she was inclined to approve their request and overturn the Planning
Commission’s decisions.
Councilmember Ortiz explained that his usual position is to defer to the Planning Commission’s decision
because the Planning Commissioners are the experts. However, he noted that when he went through the
applicant’s neighborhood, he believed that their request fit in with the other houses.
Councilmember Keighran stated that the City Council is looking at a different project than what the Planning
Commission reviewed. Therefore, she didn’t feel like the Council was overturning the Planning
Commission decision. She noted that some of the Planning Commission’s concerns were addressed before
they came to the Council. She added that she was fine with the Hardie siding and corner caps.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to uphold the appeal.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
8
Councilmember Brownrigg voiced his agreement with Councilmember Keighran that the Planning
Commission had reviewed a different project than what was now before the Council. Therefore, he believed
that the design presented to Council showed only minor changes that should be approved.
Councilmember Keighran seconded the motion.
Mayor Colson thanked the Chen family for saving and preserving their older home instead of starting from
scratch.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
10. STAFF REPORTS
a. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE
REQUIRING SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS
Councilmember Keighran recused herself from this discussion due to her work with Supervisor Canepa on
the County’s Gun Lock policy.
Police Chief Matteucci stated that in February 2019, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors adopted an
ordinance requiring that all firearms in a residence in unincorporated San Mateo County be safely stored
using a safety device approved by the California Department of Justice. He noted that on March 31, 2019,
Supervisor Pine and Supervisor Canepa sent a letter encouraging all cities in San Mateo County to adopt an
identical ordinance.
Police Chief Matteucci stated that the County’s ordinance is similar to California State Assembly Bill 276,
which was introduced January 29, 2019, and is currently in committee. He noted that the County ordinance
is stricter than the State’s proposal. AB 276 includes an exception for loaned firearms and applies only when
the firearm owner is not at home.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked what the Police Chief’s perspective was on the matter. Police Chief
Matteucci noted that there are between 400 to 500 accidental gun-related deaths a year in the United States.
Therefore, if the County’s ordinance can prevent one death, then it is a step forward.
Mayor Colson asked if the City adopts a similar ordinance to the County, how would it be enforced. Police
Chief Matteucci stated that he believed it would be easier to enforce the County ordinance than the City’s
smoking ordinance. He explained that the City would need to draft a policy on how the ordinance would be
enforced. He stated that the issue he saw arising would be when a neighbor reports on their neighbor. He
explained that the City would need to create a policy that covers issues of this nature and discusses whether
an officer would be sent out to the house to do a consented search.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
9
City Manager Goldman stated that if the City adopts a gun lock ordinance, staff would need to conduct
extensive public outreach and education. She explained that this would help to increase the effectiveness of
the ordinance.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment.
Former Sunnyvale Mayor Tony Spitaleri discussed how Sunnyvale took on gun safety legislation. He
explained that Sunnyvale considered sensible gun regulation including:
1. Banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds;
2. Requiring ammunition sales in the city to be recorded with valid ID and fingerprints; and
3. Allowing the police department access to records of ammunition sales.
He explained that because sensible gun regulations aren’t being adopted on the federal level, it is the duty of
local governments to focus on gun safety in order to make progress.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if Sunnyvale considered an assault weapons ban. Mayor Spitaleri stated that the
state has banned assault weapons. He noted that a group of attorneys out of San Francisco defended
Sunnyvale for free. He stated that this group would defend any city.
Moms Demand Action representative Roberta Jurash stated that Moms Demand Action is supportive of the
County’s ordinance and encouraged the City to adopt a similar ordinance. Additionally, she asked that the
City ensure that the police department receives training on the new red flag laws.
Another Moms Demand Action representative noted that 4.6 million American children live in homes with
guns that are loaded and unlocked. She stressed the importance of gun safety and locked guns.
Police Chief Matteucci discussed the new red flag law and stated that he has sent a sergeant to receive
training and that he would be creating a policy for the police department on the new legislation.
Congresswoman Speier’s representative Alexandra Carter read the Congresswoman’s statement that asked
the City to take action on gun safety.
Mayor Colson closed public comment.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that after the El Paso and Dayton shootings, he talked with friends about how
these tragedies would spur action. However, he was reminded that no action was taken after Sandy Hook.
He stated that he was in favor of looking at the County’s ordinance and reviewing what Sunnyvale had done.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Mayor Spitaleri that change needed to come from the
bottom up. He asked that the Council review the sensible gun regulations in Sunnyvale.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that she fully supported the proposed ordinance and exploring additional options.
She noted that she wanted to see change happen and thought that it would start at the local level.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
10
Mayor Colson discussed Proposition 63, which requires a background check on ammunition sales in
California. She also noted that she spoke with State Senator Jerry Hill about the need for progress on gun
safety to start at the city level.
City Manager Goldman recommended that staff first bring back a gun lock ordinance for Council’s review.
She stated that the City Attorney could review Sunnyvale’s ordinances to see what makes sense for
Burlingame.
Mayor Colson talked about the standards foster families must go through in reference to gun safety. She
wondered why the same laws and regulations don’t apply to every household with a gun.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO
IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE TEMPORARY LOSS OF
PARKING DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED VILLAGE AT
BURLINGAME SENIOR AND WORKFORCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON PARKING
LOT F AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING STRUCTURE ON PARKING LOT N
DPW Murtuza explained that the Village at Burlingame development includes 132 senior and workforce
housing units and a new 368-space public parking garage. He stated that the housing development is being
built on Lot F, while the parking structure will be built on Lot N. He explained that the developers are in the
final planning/permitting stages and will be breaking ground on the parking garage structure in the fall.
Mayor Colson noted that the parking garage is being built prior to the housing development because of the
massive amount of excavation work that has to happen on Lot F to build the housing. Therefore, the
developers won’t break ground on the housing project until the spring when the rainy season has ended.
DPW Murtuza stated that the parking garage will increase downtown parking by 162 spaces. He explained
that construction will begin in the fall and take 12 to 18 months to complete. He noted that the plan is for the
housing project to break ground in the spring of 2020, with a two-year construction period.
DPW Murtuza explained that currently there are 105 parking spaces in Lot N and 100 parking spaces in Lot
F. The two lots are designated as long term employee parking with ten-hour parking limits. He stated that
there are concerns about what the impact will be on the downtown businesses when the two lots are taken
offline.
DPW Murtuza stated that over the past six months, staff has been meeting with the Downtown Parking
Stakeholders Group, which includes two members of the City Council (Mayor Colson and Councilmember
Ortiz), and representatives from the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission (John Martos and Howard
Wettan), Chamber of Commerce, and DBID. The Stakeholders Group was tasked with identifying a variety
of solutions to address the parking impacts that will occur during the construction of the Village at
Burlingame project.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
11
DPW Murtuza stated that the Stakeholders Group looked at the following alternatives: employee incentives,
leased parking, shuttle service, and valet parking.
DPW Murtuza discussed employee incentives. He noted that the Stakeholders Group believed that this
option has the highest potential to mitigate parking impacts. He explained that the group spent a lot of time
discussing how to encourage employees to change their commuting habits by leaving their cars at home,
particularly on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays when parking demand in the downtown is highest. He
stated that the Stakeholders Group is working on a proposal. To ensure that there is funding for this
alternative, staff recommends allocating $20,000 for employee incentives.
DPW Murtuza stated that the Stakeholders Group also investigated leased parking alternatives. He explained
that the group investigated the ability for the City to utilize the new parking garage at 225 California Drive,
hotel parking lots, and the two Caltrain Station parking lots in the city. He stated that the City was able to
secure a lease with Caltrain for the use of the Burlingame Avenue Station lot. He noted that this would
provide the City with an additional 40 spaces at an annual cost of $57,000.
DPW Murtuza stated that the Stakeholders Group considered shuttle service. Under this alternative,
employees would be shuttled from a leased parking lot to their place of employment. However, because the
City was unable to locate an off-site parking location, this option wasn’t pursued.
DPW Murtuza stated that the Stakeholders Group investigated utilizing a valet-assist program. He explained
that under this program, vehicles could be stacked in an existing lot to create additional capacity. Staff
researched the feasibility and studied various examples in Mountain View and Redwood City. He stated that
the City consulted with several parking vendors and analyzed all of the downtown parking lots. He
explained that with the assistance of vendors, staff identified Parking Lots A and F as the most effective
facilities for valet parking services.
DPW Murtuza stated that the City issued an RFP for valet-assist programs. He explained that staff received
four responses, and after reviewing the proposals, staff selected Peninsula Parking of San Carlos. The valet
service will be three days a week (Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays) from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The
service will start in Lot F in October and then will shift to the top deck of Lot A. The service will create 40-
45 additional spaces, for a total cost of $100,000 for the year.
DPW Murtuza discussed the public outreach that will be undertaken to educate businesses and employees.
He added that signage would be posted concerning the valet assist program in the affected lots.
Councilmember Keighran asked about the DBID’s timeline for their employee incentive proposal. DPW
Murtuza stated that he was unsure of the timeline.
Councilmember Keighran stated that the sooner the better as public outreach would be important. She asked
if DBID or the City would be administering the incentive program. DPW Murtuza stated that from staff’s
perspective, it is better if DBID administers the program.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
12
City Manager Goldman stated that at the last Stakeholders Group meeting, they spent an hour brainstorming
and discussing options for employee incentives. She discussed the difficulties in administering the program.
She noted that the goal is to implement the program prior to breaking ground on Lot N.
Vice Mayor Beach asked what the cost is for citizens to utilize the valet assist program. DPW Murtuza
stated that there would be no additional cost for the program. Instead, the program is structured so that if
you have a long-term parking permit, you will use it to park in the valet parking area.
Mayor Colson stated that the valet assist is set up for employees in the downtown area and not for shoppers.
Vice Mayor Beach asked for information on where the downtown area employees are commuting from. She
explained that she believed this would assist in creating a successful employee incentive program.
Councilmember Brownrigg explained that previously the City reached out to the owners of the Post Office
building about utilizing their parking lot. He noted that while it hadn’t been an option at the time, staff
should revisit this option. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment.
Peninsula Parking CEO Rae Ann Reichmuth thanked the City for their support and gave a brief overview of
how the valet assist services would work.
Mayor Colson closed public comment.
Vice Mayor Beach explained that she would like for the Stakeholders Group to continue exploring the
employee incentives program. She stated that economic incentives can change behavior and believed that
this program could help change employees’ commutes beyond the completion of the parking garage. She
noted that she wasn’t in favor of subsidizing Uber and Lyft.
Vice Mayor Beach asked that staff put QR codes on the signs. Additionally, she asked for signage in the
parking lots where spaces are turning from short term to long term. City Manager Goldman replied in the
affirmative and noted that staff’s proposed signs include QR codes.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she thought the public transportation employee incentive should be
done on a reimbursement basis.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 99-2019; seconded by
Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
c. DISCUSSION OF THE 2019 BURLINGAME AND HILLSBOROUGH EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS PLAN (EOP) BASIC PLAN
Fire Marshall Christine Reed introduced CCFD’s Community Risk and Resiliency Specialist Dena Gunning.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
13
Ms. Gunning stated that the former Emergency Operations Plan (“EOP”) Basic Plan was adopted in 2007.
She stated that the EOP was originally created by the San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services.
She explained that staff utilized that EOP to make it specific to Burlingame and Hillsborough.
Ms. Gunning explained that after adoption, staff and the Council will be trained on the new EOP Basic Plan.
Mayor Colson acknowledged that Christine Reed had recently become the Fire Marshall after Rocque
Yballa’s retirement.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked how the City’s emergency services interface with BNN. Ms. Gunning
discussed how the BNN, CERT and other community groups are critical in the City’s response. She noted
that this is included in the EOP. She stated that the City had its first CERT boot camp this past weekend.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked that the EOP’s executive summary include references to the BNN and
other community groups. Ms. Gunning replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Beach thanked staff for their work on the EOP. She asked for the date of the citywide drill. Ms.
Gunning replied that it is October 12.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that the League of California Cities is discussing including additional training
opportunities for City officials.
Councilmember Keighran asked that the EOP be included in the enews. City Manager Goldman replied in
the affirmative.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCMENTS
a. MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Colson stated that she had been informed that all the emergency caches had been distributed. She
stated that BNN would like to make a presentation to Council and consider additional caches. Council
agreed to agendize this item.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.org.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 09/03/19
Burlingame City Council August 19, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
14
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Colson adjourned meeting at 9:04 p.m. in memory of Susan Anne Terry and Judy Larratt.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8b
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Rich Holtz, Parks Supervisor – (650) 558-7335
Nicole Rath, Recreation Coordinator – (650) 558-7308
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Procure
Greenfields, Inc. Fitness Equipment, Construction Materials, Associated
Landscaping, and Site Amenities; and to Execute an Agreement with Bay
Area Paving Co., Inc. to Install Concrete Pads for the Bay Trail Fitness
Equipment Project, City Project No: 85440
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to procure
Greenfields, Inc. fitness equipment at a cost of $75,308.70 through Porter Corp., construction
materials, associated landscaping, and site amenities at a cost of $42,500.00; and execute an
agreement with Bay Area Paving Co., Inc. to install concrete pads for the installation of fitness
equipment at a cost of $73,500, City Project No: 85440.
BACKGROUND
In early 2015, Burlingame High School removed the fitness apparatus at its outdoor track. Since
the removal, the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department has received several requests from
community members to install outdoor fitness equipment. Staff consulted with other agencies about
their existing installations, explored equipment options with manufacturers, and met with a fitness
expert to evaluate options. After evaluation and review of the information collected, staff
determined that installing the fitness equipment in vacant areas adjacent to the Bayfront and
Lagoon trails would complement these popular trails and ensure that the equipment is readily
accessible to the Burlingame community and to hotel visitors. Moreover, the locations that staff
selected will allow for social interaction during exercise activities and will encourage users to run
or walk between equipment areas as the equipment will be spread out along the trails.
Staff selected the manufacturer Greenfields, Inc. as it has the widest variety of equipment, most
recommendations by other agencies, and best industry warranty. The equipment chosen allows for
focused exercise targeting specific muscle groups and accessibility by persons of varying abilities.
Two of the four equipment areas are located along the 1100 block of Airport Boulevard; the
remaining two areas are located along the Lagoon Trail within Bayside Park (Exhibit B). These
areas are subject to Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) review. In
September 2015, staff submitted a draft fitness equipment concept to BCDC, and the agency
Resolution for the Installation of the Bay Trail Fitness Equipment September 3, 2019
2
provided preliminary feedback that included referrals to the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. (These agencies
subsequently approved the project.) BCDC also made additional data requests. In order to
facilitate BCDC’s final review and approval, the City hired a Landscape Architect to complete the
final design portion. The City received the final approval from BCDC in July 2019.
DISCUSSION
On May 16, 2019, staff presented the project to the Parks & Recreation Commission to get their
input and approval of the proposed locations and design. The Commission was enthusiastic about
the fitness additions to the already well used Bay Trail path and approved the project as designed.
The base project includes the installation of four concrete pads. The grade at Cluster 1 requires a
retaining wall and channel drain system installation to mitigate grade changes in order to
accommodate an ADA-accessible concrete pad. The retaining wall installation was listed as an
add-alternative pending contractor quotation. Staff recommends accepting the add-alternative as
the lowest bid received is within the preliminary estimate and would reduce staff time for the
installation.
The project was bid per the City’s informal bidding policy, with bids due on August 15, 2019. Bidders
were instructed to fill out a specified bid sheet for all the labor and materials required to complete
the project.
After solicitation of quotations, the City received two bids; Bay Area Paving Co., Inc. submitted the
lowest responsive bid.
The bid results were as follows:
The Greenfields Fitness Equipment will be purchased from Porter Corp., which has been awarded
contract #030117 with the government purchasing cooperative Sourcewell (formerly NJPA). After
a competitive RFP process, Sourcewell found Porter Corp. to provide the most competitive pricing
(Exhibit D).
The fitness equipment, landscaping, and site amenity installations will be completed by City staff
once the concrete pads are installed.
FISCAL IMPACT
On June 18, 2018, the City Council allocated funds in the Parks and Trees Capital Improvement
Program for the addition of fitness equipment.
Company Name Base Bid Add Alt.
1. Bay Area Paving Co., Inc. $69,900 $3,500
2. Golden Bay Construction $102,242 $4,774
3. Anza Engineering No Bid
Resolution for the Installation of the Bay Trail Fitness Equipment September 3, 2019
3
The following are the estimated project expenditures:
In order to help fund the project, staff met with the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation.
The Foundation members were excited about the potential improvements and set about soliciting
potential sponsorships from local hotels to improve the surfacing of the concrete pads with
interlocking tiles to cushion the concrete pads.
To date, the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation has raised $16,000 from sponsorships
from the Crowne Plaza Hotel and the Doubletree Hotel. The estimated cost for the interlocking
tiles on the four concrete pads is $22,000. The Foundation has committed to raise the remaining
$6,000.
With the support of the Foundation and the funds allocated in the Parks and Trees Capital
Improvement Program, there are adequate funds to complete the project with the add-alterative
and improved interlocking tile surfacing.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Cluster Location Map
Agreement with Bay Area Paving Co., Inc.
Purchasing Agreement with Porter Corp. for Greenfields, Inc.
Fitness Equipment $75,309
Concrete Pads (base) $69,900
Concrete Pads (add-alt) $3,500
PLS Surveying $3,720
Baytree Design, Inc. $4,511
BCDC $600
San Mateo County Clerk $50
Signage $2,000
Channel Drain $3,000
Retaining Wall Stone $1,000
Rubber Tile Surfacing $22,000
Drinking Fountains $10,000
Irrigation $1,500
Landscape Materials $3,000
Contingency $20,000
Total $220,090
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCURE GREENFIELDS, INC. FITNESS
EQUIPMENT, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, AND SITE
AMENITIES; AND TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH BAY AREA PAVING CO., INC.
TO INSTALL CONCRETE PADS FOR THE BAY TRAIL FITNESS EQUIPMENT
PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 85440
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Capital Improvement Program has identified the Bay
Trail as a place to install fitness equipment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize
construction of the public work and improvements provided for in the attached Contract; and
WHEREAS, the project was bid per the City’s bidding policy for the contract for the Bay
Trail Fitness Equipment Project; and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2019, the City received two completed proposals and one
declination to submit, which were opened b y representatives of the City Clerk’s Office and Parks &
Recreation Department; and
WHEREAS, Bay Area Paving Co., Inc. submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid
for the project in the amount of $73,500.00; and
WHEREAS, the Greenfields, Inc. fitness equipment can be purchased through Sourcewell
Cooperative purchasing through Porter Corp., for $75,308.70; and
WHEREAS, the construction materials, associated landscaping, and site amenities will be
installed by City staff at a cost of $42,500.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The facts in the recitals above and in the staff report are true and correct.
2. The Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted.
3. The bid from Bay Area Paving Co., Inc. in the amount of $73,500.00 is the lowest
responsive and responsible bid for said project and is accepted.
4. The City shall enter into a contract with the successful bidder, Bay Area Paving Co.,
Inc. for the performance of the installation of concrete pads along the Bay Trail for
the Fitness Equipment Project, Project No. 85440, and the City Manager is authorized
on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract.
5. The City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to procure
Greenfields, Inc. fitness equipment at a cost of $75,308.70 from Porter Corp.
______________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of September, 2019,
and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
AREA 1
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
AREA 1
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LIST
GR2005-1-26
HP2009-7-24
UBX-292
SGR2005-1-105
2-Person Ski
Pylometric Steps
Stepper
Announcement Board
These 3 units may serve up to 6 people at a time.
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
10'-11"
39'-8"
41'-1"
Announcement BoardSGR2005-1-105
Greenfields Outdoor Fitness, Inc.
DATE DRAWING # INITIALS
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
EXISTING PINETO REMAIN,TYP. AT CLUSTER 1BCDC -
TOE
OF
R
IP
RAPTOP OF RIP RAP100 FT. SETBACK LINEBCDCTOP OF BANKEDGE OF PAVEMENTEDGE OF PAVEMENTMH 15 CAR DIV25 CAR DIV11 EPI CAN1 PINUS (TO MATCH EXISTING)3 ARB MAR3 CEA GRI16 PHL FRU48'-1"6'-8"9'-1"4/4/2019 12:57:36 PM
0'5'10'20'SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"CLUSTER 1 - PROPOSED PLANTING - ADMIN DRAFT1NORTH
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
AREA 2
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
AREA 2
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LIST
GR2005-1-104N
UBX-217
UBX-298
SGR2005-1-105
4-Person Leg Press
Squat
Leg Extension & Curl
Announcement Board
These 3 units may serve up to 6 people at a time.
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
13'
42'-6"
48'-6"
DATE DRAWING # INITIALS
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
CONCRETEBCDC - TOP OF BANKBCDC100 FT. SETBACK LINEAIRPORT BLVD.EDGE OF PAVEMENTEDGE OF PAVEMENTEXISTING OAK TO REMAINEXISTING TELEPHONE POLEMH8 ARC EDM1 ARB MAR3 EPI CAN 7 PHL FRU3 CEA GRIS15 EPI CAN4/4/2019 12:57:36 PM
0'5'10'20'SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"CLUSTER 2 - PROPOSED PLANTING - ADMIN DRAFT1NORTH
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
AREA 3
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LIST
AREA 3
GR2005-1-48-W
GR2005-1-48A-W
GR2005-1-48E-W
UBX-290
SGR2005-1-105
Accessible Lat Pull
Accessible Chest Press
Accessible Butterfly & Reverse Fly
Rower
Announcement Board
These 4 units may serve up to 7 people at a time.
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
13'-6"
44'-7"
44'-7"
Announcement BoardSGR2005-1-105Greenfields Outdoor Fitness, Inc.
DATE DRAWING # INITIALS
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
BCDCBCDCEXISTING TREE TO REMAINEDGE OF PAVEMENTEDGE OF PAVEMENT 17 JUN PAT21 CAR DIV6 CEA GRIS3 ARB MAR3 EPI CAN9 ARC EDM17 JUN PAT21 CAR DIV3 EPI CAN4/4/2019 12:57:36 PM
0'5'10'20'SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"CLUSTER 3 - PROPOSED PLANTING - ADMIN DRAFT1NORTH
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
AREA 4
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
AREA 4
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LIST
GR2004-1-33
GR2005-1-47-W
GR2005-1-71
HP2009-5-09
SGR2005-1-105
5-Person Multi-Level Bars
Accessible Vertical Press
3-Person Static Combo
Horizontal Ladder
Announcement Board
These 4 units may serve up to 11 person at a time.
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
Horizontal LadderHP2009-5-09
Greenfields Outdoor Fitness, Inc.
38'-1"
51'-7"
Announcement BoardSGR2005-1-105
Greenfields Outdoor Fitness, Inc.
DATE DRAWING # INITIALS
CA-CITY OF BURLINGAME-BAY TRAIL-V2
PROPOSED OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE
BCDCBCDCEXISTING OAK TO REMAINEDGE OF PAVEMENTEDGE OF PAVEMENT 15 PHL FRU5 CEA GRIS2 ARB MAR15 JUN PAT29 CAR DIV4/4/2019 12:57:36 PM
0'5'10'20'SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"CLUSTER 4 - PROPOSED PLANTING - ADMIN DRAFT1NORTH
Exhibit B
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION OF CONCRETE PADS FOR
PURPOSE OF FITNESS EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION
BY BAY AREA PAVING CO., INC.
TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of
San Mateo, State of California, by and between the City of Burlingame, a municipal corporation
[hereinafter City], and BAY AREA PAVING CO., INC.[hereinafter Contractor], as of the
____day of September 2019.
RECITALS
(A) City wishes to establish a contractual relationship with Contractor to provide
services and materials; and
(B) City has determined the exact nature, scope, or budget for these services and
materials at this time; and
(C) City has qualified Contractor for providing these services and materials as to
insurance and other provisions as specified in this Agreement; and
(D) Contractor represents that it is a qualified and competent supplier of the services
and items to be purchased under this Agreement.
IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Scope of Services. The Contractor shall provide the following services:
(A) As requested by the City of Burlingame Parks Division, Contractor to
excavate, grade and install four concrete pads as offered in the attached Exhibit A.
2. Time of Performance. The services of the Contractor are to be available upon the
execution of this Agreement until December 31, 2019.
3. Request for Services. City will request services pursuant to this Agreement and
the Contractor and the City shall execute a purchase order specifying the nature and cost of the
services to be provided for that specific request. Contractor shall acknowledge receipt and
acceptance of the requested materials and/or services by signing a copy of the purchase order and
returning it to the City within ten (10) days unless directed to reply sooner.
4. Nonexclusivity. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed or
interpreted as giving the Contractor any exclusive right or priority to provide any or all of the
services described in this Agreement, and the City shall remain free to use its own forces or any
other person to provide some or all of those services as the City may in its sole discretion
determine best meets the City’s needs and wishes.
Page 2 of 8
5. Compliance with Laws. The Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws,
codes, ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state and local laws. Contractor
represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of
whatsoever nature, which are legally required for Contractor to practice its profession.
Contractor represents and warrants to City that Contractor 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 Contractor to perform the services requested under this
Agreement. If providing services in the City, Contractor shall maintain a City business
license pursuant to the City Municipal Code.
6. Sole Responsibility. Contractor shall be responsible for employing or engaging
all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.
7. Cost of Services and Materials. Pricing for those services shall be in conformance
with the price listing contained in Exhibit A attached hereto [or shall be specified in the purchase
order and attachments to the purchase order for the specific services and materials requested by
the City]. In no event shall purchases under this Agreement exceed a total of Seventy Three
Thousand Five Hundred dollars and no cents $73,500.
8. Information/Report Handling. All documents furnished to Contractor by the City
and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Contractor under this Agreement are the
City's property and shall be delivered to the City upon the completion of Contractor's services or
at the City's written request. All reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled
by Contractor in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are
confidential until released by the City to the public, and the Contractor shall not make any of the
documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by the
Contractor or the City without the written consent of the City before such release.
9. Availability of Records. Contractor shall maintain the records supporting this
billing for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work under this Agreement.
Contractor shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the City at the
Contractor's offices during business hours upon written request of the City.
10. Project Manager. The designated Project Manager for the City is Richard Holtz
who shall represent the City on all matters hereunder.
11. 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: Attn: Richard Holtz
City of Burlingame Parks Division
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 558-7330/rholtz@burlingame.org
Page 3 of 8
To Contractor: Bay Area Paving
Chris Quinn
1950 Carmelita Drive
San Carlos, CA 94070
650-787-7453/bayareapaving@comcast.net
or personally delivered to Contractor to such address or such other address as Contractor
designates in writing to City.
12. Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Contractor, 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 Cit y. As an independent contractor, neither Contractor nor
any of its officers or employees shall obtain any rights to retirement benefits or other benefits
which accrue to City employee(s). With prior written consent, the Contractor 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.
13. Nondiscrimination. Contractor warrants that it is an equal opportunity employer
and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity.
Contractor does not and shall not 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.
In performing services under this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate against any
applicant or designer on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation,
ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical condition.
14. Insurance. Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the
Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may
arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor,
Contractor's agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. The cost of such insurance
shall be included in the Contractor's pricing.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
i. Insurance Services Office form number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering
Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form
number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability;
or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage
("occurrence" form GC 0001).
ii. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering
Automobile Liability, code 1 "any auto" and endorsement CA 0025.
Page 4 of 8
iii. Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of the
State of California and Employers Liability insurance.
B. Minimum Limits of Insurance
Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
i. General Liability: $2,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for
bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial
General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is
used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
Project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required
occurrence limit.
ii. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for
bodily injury and property damage.
iii. Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability: Worker's compensation
limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and
Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident.
C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by
the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate
such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond
guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration,
and defense expenses.
D. Other Insurance Provision
The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
i. General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages
a. The City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of
activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor, products and completed
operations of the Contractor, premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor,
or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The
coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded
to the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. The
endorsement providing this additional insured coverage shall be equal to or
broader than ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 and must cover joint negligence,
completed operations, and the acts of subcontractors.
Page 5 of 8
b. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as
respects the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers.
Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Burlingame, its
officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s
Insurance and shall not contribute with it.
c. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials,
employees, or volunteers.
d. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of
the insurer's liability.
ii. Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage
The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City of
Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers for losses arising from
work performed by the Contractor for the City of Burlingame.
iii. All Coverages
Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that
coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in
coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified
mail, return receipt required, has been given to the City of Burlingame.
E. Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than
A-:VII and authorized to do business in the State of California.
F. 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 work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
Page 6 of 8
G. Subcontractors
Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish
separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for
subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
15. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall save,
keep and hold harmless indemnify and defend the City its officers, agent, employees and
volunteers from all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or expenses in law or equity, including
but not limited to attorneys’ 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 may be occasioned by the work performed by the Contractor, or by any
of the Contractor's officers, employees, or agents or any subcontractor, under this Agreement, or
by the presence or activities conducted at the site of the work to be performed under this
Agreement of the Contractor or any of Contractor’s officers, employees, or agents or any
subcontractor. The duty to defend under this paragraph is wholly independent and separate from
the duty to indemnify, and the duty to defend exists regardless of any ultimate liability of the
Contractor. The duty to defend arises immediately upon presentation of a claim by any party and
written notice of the claim being provided to the Contractor. This paragraph shall not apply if
the damage or injury is proximately caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the
City, its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers.
16. Prevailing Wages. Unless otherwise authorized in writing by the City, Contractor
shall comply with Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775. The current schedule of prevailing wage
rates supplied by the State Department of Industrial Relations can be found at
www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/PWD/index.htm. The City shall not supply copies of this schedule for
posting on the job site unless specifically requested to do so by the Contractor. If the Contractor
intends to use a craft or classification not shown on the general prevailing wage determinations,
it may be required to pay the wage rate of the craft or classification most closely related to it as
shown in the general determinations effective at the time of the purchase order. If the Contractor
intends to use a craft or classification not shown, it shall notify the City at least five (5) working
days before the execution of the purchase order. It is the Contractor’s obligation to ensure that
prevailing wages are paid on this project in conformance with State law and regulations.
17. Time of the Essence. Prompt delivery of the services and materials is essential to
this Agreement.
18. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by giving sixty (60)
days written notice to the other party. Any work, services, or materials being performed or
delivered at the time notice of termination of this Agreement is given shall be completed and
paid for pursuant to this Agreement and California law.
19. Waivers. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute
a continuing waiver or a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of the
Agreement.
Page 7 of 8
20. Modifications. No modification, waiver, termination, or amendment to this
Agreement is effective unless made in writing signed by the City and the Contractor.
21. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in effect.
22. License. The undersigned is licensed in accordance with State Law providing for
the registration of Contractors. No payment for work or material under this Contract will be
made by City unless and until the City receives verification from the State Registrar of
Contractors that the records of the Contractor’s State License Board indicate the Contractor was
properly licensed at the time the Contract was awarded.
Any Contractor not so licensed shall be subject to all legal penalties imposed by law, including,
but not limited to, an appropriate disciplinary action by the Contractor’s State License Board.
In addition, failure of the Contractor to obtain and maintain proper and adequate licensing for the
term of the Contract shall constitute a failure to execute or perform this Contract and shall result
in the forfeiture of the security of the bidder. The representations made by Contractor regarding
the license are under penalty of perjury.
24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding between
the parties.
Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) Public Works Contractor Registration Program:
All contractors and subcontractors who bid or work on a public works project will be required to
register and pay an annual fee to DIR. The phase-in timetable is as follows:
March 1, 2015: No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project
unless registered with DIR.
April 1, 2015: No contractor or subcontractor may work on a public works project unless registered with
DIR.
All contractors and subcontractors will be required to furnish electronic certified payroll records
directly to the Labor Commissioner (aka Division of Labor Standards Enforcement). The phase-in
timetable for this requirement is as follows:
April 1, 2015: for all new projects awarded on or after this date, the contractors and subcontractors must
furnish electronic certified payroll records to the Labor Commissioner.
Anytime: for projects besides those listed above, the Labor Commissioner may at any time require the
contractors and subcontractors to furnish electronic certified payroll records.
January 1, 2016: the requirement to furnish electronic certified payroll records to the Labor
Commissioner will apply to all public works projects, whether new or ongoing.
Page 8 of 8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Contractor have executed this Agreement on
the date of_______________________.
City of Burlingame Bay Area Paving
501 Primrose Road 1950 Carmelita Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Carlos, CA 94070
__________________________________
Print Name
____________________________________
Signature
____________________________________
Title
Recommended:
____________________________
Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager
ATTEST: Approved as to form:
_______ __________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk Kathleen Kane, City Attorney
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8c
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter of
Opposition Regarding SB 266, Public Employees’ Retirement System:
Disallowed Compensation: Benefit Adjustments
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to send
a letter of opposition regarding SB 266, Public Employees’ Retirement System: Disallowed
Compensation: Benefit Adjustments.
BACKGROUND
The Public Employees Retirement Law (PERL) and the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of
2013 (PEPRA) govern what an individual is entitled to receive as pension benefits in retirement.
What an employee receives as a pension benefit is a factor of how long they have worked in a
CalPERS agency, the pension formula, and their final compensation. The PERL and PEPRA
govern what is included in final compensation, which is compensation earnable, pay rate, and
special compensation. These terms are further defined in detail in the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) sections 570 and 571, and these sections clearly define exactly what is eligible
to be included in the final compensation calculation. Anything not included in the CCR sections 570
and 571 is considered ‘disallowed compensation’ by CalPERS and is excluded from the pension
benefit calculation. CalPERS, as the administrator of the pension plan, interprets the PERL,
PEPRA, and CCR when calculating the pension benefit for an individual, and their determination is
final; appeals by an individual are heard and decided by the CalPERS Board of Directors.
The City and employee bargaining units negotiate components of compensation, including special
compensation, which is memorialized in the Memoranda of Understanding the City holds with each
bargaining unit. The City is careful to advise the bargaining units throughout this process that
CalPERS is the authority and the final determination of what is considered ‘pensionable
compensation’ and what is not (meaning what is allowed compensation and what is disallowed
compensation for the purposes of determining the retirement benefit). The City follows the CCR
regulations and works closely with CalPERS to try to ensure the components of compensation are
accurately reported to CalPERS, but the ultimate determination is made by CalPERS when an
individual retires and CalPERS calculates their pension benefit. The City has an incentive to
accurately calculate and report compensation as corrections create an administrative burden and
a budget impact.
Opposition to SB 266 September 3, 2019
2
Senate Bill 266, introduced by State Senator Connie Leyva, would significantly alter current
legislation concerning responsibility for retirement liability created by disallowed compensation. The
bill would abdicate all responsibility previously held by CalPERS to ensure that retirement benefits
are calculated and administered correctly and require public agencies to directly pay retirees and/or
their beneficiaries disallowed retirement benefits using General Fund dollars. The League of
California Cities has taken an oppose position on this bill and requested that cities do so as well.
DISCUSSION
The provisions in SB 266 create policy, operational cost, and legal concerns for every local
government agency and are retroactive.
Specifically SB 266:
Creates a Double Payment for the City:
Under current law, once a benefit is determined to be disallowed, both the employer and the
employee cease making future payments on that benefit. Past contributions from the employee
are returned to the employee, while past contributions from the employer are applied towards
future payment. The employer has already made its contributions and should not be double
paying for the benefit.
Means CalPERS has no Incentive to Properly Calculate Benefit Payments:
Recent amendments to the measure remove all responsibility by CalPERS to ensure benefits
are reviewed, calculated, and administered correctly. Instead, SB 266 places sole responsibility
on the employer—even if the employer exercises its right to have CalPERS review its
compensation proposal. While staff understands that CalPERS has asserted that they face IRS
plan qualification concerns for paying out an unlawful benefit, the fact that there is zero
accountability or assurances afforded to the state or local agency when CalPERS reviews a
compensation agreement is irrational.
Creates Compliance and Implementation Issues:
Under SB 266, the City would be issuing direct General Fund payments to retirees, which would
trigger GASB 68 reporting requirements. Given the unique circumstances surrounding these
overpayments, staff would have to track and report these liabilities. Such additional
responsibilities will require the City to hire costly outside actuarial and legal experts to ensure
that the City is following federal reporting laws. SB 266 is a de facto and retroactive benefit
enhancement bill that would further strain cities’ budgets at a time when retirement obligations
are making it financially difficult to provide critical services for the public. The City has already
seen dramatic increases in pension costs, with actuarial valuations estimating that Burlingame’s
pension costs will double over the next 8 to 10 years, to a high of over 82% of payroll for Safety
employees and 42% pf payroll for Miscellaneous employees. These increases in pension cost
obligations make it difficult for the City to fund infrastructure improvements and provide
services.
This measure also fails to consider the common practice of employees moving from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction throughout their careers. Under normal circumstances, CalPERS pays out the
Opposition to SB 266 September 3, 2019
3
benefit if an employee works for multiple agencies who enjoy reciprocity. However, under SB
266, it is unclear. Such confusion will lead to compliance, legal, and implementation challenges.
This measure would also require the City to track and maintain current records of all retirees
and their beneficiaries in order to deliver the direct payment. SB 266 would present agencies
with a costly logistical challenge.
Is a Gift of Public Funds and is a Violation of the California Constitution:
Under SB 266, the City of Burlingame would be issuing monthly, unlawful, payments to former
employees and/ or their beneficiaries in perpetuity. Continued payment of a disallowed benefit
to a retiree would constitute a gift of public funds, in violation of Section 6, Article 16 of the
California Constitution. Such violation would leave a public agency left to defend itself from
costly litigation lawsuits filed by members of the public.
Attempts by the League of California Cities to suggest a series of amendments to try and make the
measure lawful and workable were rejected. These suggested amendments included, but weren’t
limited to:
Eliminating the retroactivity provisions in the bill.
Establishing a pre-retirement audit system through CalPERS that would enable the retiree to
begin receiving base-salary pensionable compensation immediately allowing CalPERS to
review special pay compensation and adjust the benefit upwards if required after the special
compensation review. This would alleviate the concern regarding retirees’ detrimentally relying
on erroneous benefit calculations and would avoid a situation where CalPERS needs to reduce
benefits paid in error.
Allowing CalPERS to review and certify that proposed pensionable compensation meets
standards set forth by CalPERS. Such certification would indemnify the agencies for liability
resulting from a future CalPERS error.
For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council oppose the bill and authorize the Mayor
to share the City’s opposition with the appropriate Legislators and the League of California Cities.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this bill is difficult to determine, but is likely to be significant and include the
cost of the administrative burden. The impact will increase the City’s pension obligation, increasing
the unfunded liability, increasing the required annual payments, and creating an ongoing financial
burden on the City.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Draft letter of opposition letter
Bill text
1
RESOLUTION NO._______
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER OF OPPOSITION REGARDING SENATE BILL 266,
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM : DISALLOWED COMPENSATION :
BENEFIT PAYMENTS
WHEREAS, the Public Employees Retirement Law (PERL) and the Public Employees’
Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) govern what an individual is entitled to receive as pension
benefits in retirement, and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) sections 570 and 571 clearly
define exactly what is eligible to be included in the pension benefit calculation; and
WHEREAS, an employee receives a pension benefit that is a factor of how long they have
worked in a CalPERS agency, the pension formula, and their final compensation; and
WHEREAS, CalPERS, as the administrator of the City’s pension plan, interprets the PERL,
PEPRA, and CCR when calculating the pension benefit for an individual, and their determination
is final; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill (SB) 266 absolves CalPERS from all liability for ensuring retirement
benefits are calculated and administered correctly; and
WHEREAS, SB 266 requires public agencies to directly pay retirees and/or their
beneficiaries disallowed retirement benefits using General Fund dollars; and
WHEREAS, SB 266 creates a double payment for the City, for past and future contributions,
past contributions made by the City are intended to cover existing liabilities; and
WHEREAS, SB 266 means CalPERS has no incentive to properly calculate benefit
payments for retirees, as the City is responsible for any errors CalPERS makes in the calculation;
and
WHEREAS, SB 266 creates compliance and implementation issues and GASB 68
reporting requirements, requiring the City to hire costly outside actuarial and legal experts to
ensure that they follow federal reporting laws; and
WHEREAS, SB 266 is a de facto and retroactive benefit enhancement bill that would further
strain the City’s budget at a time where retirement obligations are making it financially difficult to
provide critical services for the public; and
WHEREAS, SB 266 would require the City to track and maintain current records of all
retirees and their beneficiaries in order to deliver the direct payment, presenting a costly logistical
challenge; and
WHEREAS, SB 266 requires cities to provide a gift of public funds and therefore violates
the California Constitution; and
2
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities suggested a series of amendments to try and
make the measure lawful and workable that were rejected.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES THAT:
The City of Burlingame opposes SB 266 and authorizes the Mayor to send a letter of opposition
to the appropriate Legislators and the League of California Cities.
_______________________
Mayor Donna Colson
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of September,
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_____________________
City Clerk
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
September 4, 2019
The Honorable Lorena Gonzalez
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
State Capitol Building, Room 2114
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 266 (Leyva) Public Employees’ Retirement System: Disallowed Compensation: Benefit Adjustments.
Notice of Opposition
Dear Assembly Member Gonzalez,
The City of Burlingame must respectfully oppose SB 266, which would require public agencies to dire ctly pay retirees and/or their
beneficiaries disallowed retirement benefits using General Fund dollars. Our objections to this measure are rooted in policy, operational
cost, and legal concerns that will inevitably face virtually every local government agency should this measure be signed into law.
Double Payment:
Under current law, once a benefit is determined to be disallowed, both the employer and the employee cease making future paym ents
on that benefit; past contributions from the employee are returned to the employee, while past contributions from the employer are applied
towards future payment. We the employer have already made our contributions, we should not be double paying for the benefit.
As Amended CalPERS has no Incentive to Properly Calculate Benefit Payments:
Recent amendments to the measure remove all responsibility by CalPERS to ensure benefits are reviewed, calculated, and administered
correctly. Instead, SB 266 places sole responsibility on the employer—even if the employer exercises its right to have CalPERS review
its compensation proposal. While we understand that CalPERS has asserted that they face IRS plan qualification concerns for payin g
out an unlawful benefit, the fact that there is zero accountability or assurances afforded to the state or local agency when CalPERS
reviews a compensation agreement is irrational.
Requirements under SB 266 will Create Compliance and Implementation Issues:
Under SB 266, the City of Burlingame would be issuing direct General Fund payments to retirees, which would trigger GASB 68 reporting
requirements. Given the unique circumstances surrounding these overpayments, we would have to track and report these liabilities. Such
additional responsibilities will require us to hire costly outside actuarial and legal experts to ensure that they follow federal reporting laws.
SB 266 is a de facto and retroactive benefit enhancement bill that would further strain our budget at a time where retirement obligations
are making it financially difficult to provide critical services for the public. The City has already seen dramatic increases in pension costs,
with actuarial valuations estimating that our pension costs will double over the next 8 to 10 years, to a high of over 82% of payroll for
Safety employees and 42% pf payroll for Miscellaneous employees. These increases in pension cost obligations make it difficult for the
City to replace aging and worn out infrastructure (including buildings, sewer, and water systems), plan for growth in the city, and continue
current services.
The Honorable Lorena Gonzalez
September 4, 2019
Page 2
Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org
This measure also fails to consider the common practice of employees moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction throughout thei r careers.
Under normal circumstances, CalPERS pays out the benefit if an employee works for multiple agencies who enjoy reciprocity. However,
under SB 266 it is unclear. Such confusion will lead to compliance, legal, and implementation challenges.
This measure would also require the City of Burlingame to track and maintain current records of all retirees and their beneficiaries in
order to deliver the direct payment. SB 266 would present us with a costly logistical challenge.
Gift of Public Funds is a Violation of the California Constitution:
Under SB 266, City of Burlingame would be issuing monthly, unlawful, payments to former employees and/or their beneficiaries in
perpetuity. Continued payment of a disallowed benefit to a retiree would constitute a gift of public funds, in violation of S ection 6, Article
16 of the California Constitution. Such violation would leave a public agency left to defend itself from costly litigation lawsuits filed by
members of the public.
For these reasons, the City of Burlingame strongly opposes SB 266 (Leyva). If you have any question about the City’s position on this
matter, please contact Human Resources Director Sonya Morrison at smorrison@burlingame.org or 650-558-7209.
Sincerely,
Donna Colson
Mayor
cc: State Senator Connie Leyva
State Senator Jerry Hill
State Assembly Member Kevin Mullin
Che Salinas, Chief Deputy Legislative Secretary for Operations, Office of Governor Newsom Leg.unit@gov.ca.gov
Seth Miller, League of California Cities Regional Public Affairs Manager, smiller@cacities.org
League of California Cities, CityLetters@cacities.org
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 14, 2019
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 17, 2019
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 17, 2019
SENATE BILL No. 266
Introduced by Senator Leyva
February 12, 2019
An act to add Section 20164.5 to the Government Code, relating to
public employees’ retirement.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 266, as amended, Leyva. Public Employees’ Retirement System:
disallowed compensation: benefit adjustments.
(1) Existing law, the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL),
establishes the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), which
provides a defined benefit to members of the system, based on final
compensation, credited service, and age at retirement, subject to certain
variations. PERL authorizes a public agency to contract to make its
employees members of PERS and prescribes a process for this. PERS
is administered by its board of administration, which is responsible for
correcting errors and omissions in the administration of the system and
the payment of benefits. Existing law requires the board to correct all
actions taken as a result of errors or omissions of the state or a
contracting agency, in accordance with certain procedures.
The California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013
(PEPRA) generally requires a public retirement system, as defined, to
modify its plan or plans to comply with the act. PEPRA, among other
things, establishes new defined benefit formulas and caps on pensionable
compensation.
96
This bill would establish new procedures under PERL for cases in
which PERS determines that the benefits of a member or annuitant are,
or would be, based on disallowed compensation that conflicts with
PEPRA and other specified laws and thus impermissible under PERL.
The bill would also apply these procedures retroactively to
determinations made on or after January 1, 2017, if an appeal has been
filed and the employee member, survivor, or beneficiary has not
exhausted their administrative or legal remedies. At the threshold, after
determining that compensation for an employee member reported by
the state, school employer, or a contracting agency is disallowed, the
bill would require the applicable employer to discontinue the reporting
of the disallowed compensation. The bill would require that
contributions made on the disallowed compensation, for active members,
be credited against future contributions on behalf of the state, school
employer, or contracting agency that reported the disallowed
compensation and would require that the state, school employer, or
contracting agency return to the member any contributions paid by the
member or on the member’s behalf.
With respect to retired members, survivors, or beneficiaries whose
benefits are based on disallowed final compensation, the bill would
require PERS to adjust the benefit to reflect the exclusion of the
disallowed compensation, and provide that contributions made on the
disallowed compensation be credited against future contributions on
behalf of the employer entity that reported the disallowed compensation.
Additionally, if specified conditions are met, the bill would require the
employing entity to refund overpayment costs to the system and to pay
retired members, survivors, and beneficiaries whose benefits have been
reduced a lump sum or an annuity reflecting an annuity, or a lump sum,
as prescribed, that reflects the difference between the monthly allowance
that was based on the disallowed compensation and the adjusted monthly
allowance calculated without the disallowed compensation, as provided.
The bill would require the system to provide certain notices in this
regard. This bill would require the system to provide confidential contact
information of retired members, and their survivors and beneficiaries,
who are affected by these provisions to the relevant employing entities,
the confidentiality of which the entities would be required to maintain.
The bill would authorize the state, a school employer, or a contracting
agency, as applicable, to submit to the system an additional
compensation item proposed to be included or contained in a
memorandum of understanding or collective bargaining agreement on
96
— 2 — SB 266
and after January 1, 2020, that is intended to form the basis of a pension
benefit calculation for determination of compliance in order for PERS
to review its consistency with PEPRA and other laws, as specified, and
would require PERS to respond provide guidance regarding the review
within 90 days, as specified. The bill would require PERS to publish
notices identifying items of allowable compensation derived from
regarding proposed compensation language submitted to the system
for review. review and the guidance given by the system that is
connected with it. The bill would make related legislative findings and
declarations.
(2) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits
the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of
public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating
the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that
interest.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. (a) The California Public Employees’ Retirement
line 2 System (CalPERS) is the largest public pension fund in the United
line 3 States, administering defined benefit retirement plans for
line 4 California’s public employees, including state and local
line 5 government firefighters, law enforcement personnel, and school
line 6 employees.
line 7 (b) Of the numerous positions maintained by the state, schools,
line 8 and local governments, each is unique and each is vital to ensuring
line 9 quality public services that help keep our state strong, a critical
line 10 component to promoting our state’s continued economic recovery
line 11 and future growth.
line 12 (c) Fire service, law enforcement, school personnel, and other
line 13 public employees exhibit varying demographic features and career
line 14 patterns. Each requires a different skill set and knowledge base,
line 15 as well as unique requirements for recruitment, training, retention,
line 16 and compensation.
line 17 (d) Generations of hard-working members of California’s middle
line 18 class have dedicated their careers to public service, often earning
line 19 less over the course of their careers when compared to their private
96
SB 266 — 3 —
line 1 industry counterparts, to earn and pay for the promise of a secure
line 2 retirement.
line 3 (e) A public employee’s pension is based on collectively
line 4 bargained compensation that takes the form of base pay and special
line 5 compensation for additional skills, extraordinary assignments, or
line 6 education.
line 7 (f) For CalPERS, it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure
line 8 that employee information is reported to CalPERS accurately and
line 9 on a timely basis in order to correctly calculate an employee’s
line 10 service credit and final compensation for retirement purposes.
line 11 (g) In 2012, after serving the public for nearly 30 years, a
line 12 firefighter employed by a CalPERS contracting agency, which
line 13 provided an official projection of retirement benefits based on the
line 14 firefighter’s estimated retirement date, made the decision to retire
line 15 based on that projection.
line 16 (h) In 2017, five years after officially retiring, CalPERS notified
line 17 the firefighter retiree that the retiree’s former employer had
line 18 erroneously reported and remitted contributions on certain
line 19 compensation, which CalPERS later determined in an audit was
line 20 not pensionable compensation. CalPERS sought repayment of the
line 21 purported overpayment directly from the retired firefighter totaling
line 22 thousands of dollars, as well as imposed a substantial future
line 23 reduction to the retiree’s monthly allowance. Unfortunately, this
line 24 scenario is not isolated to just this one retiree. A handful of other
line 25 firefighter, law enforcement, and school retirees have reported
line 26 similar stories across multiple CalPERS employers.
line 27 (i) For over eight decades, CalPERS has proven its ability to
line 28 fairly administer the retirement system to uphold the promises
line 29 made by its employers for those members who invest their life’s
line 30 work in public service. However, this kind of clawback has the
line 31 potential to take a major toll on the finances of retirees, including
line 32 firefighters and law enforcement officers who, unlike private sector
line 33 employees, do not receive social security benefits and instead rely
line 34 on their fixed monthly pension as their sole source of retirement
line 35 income.
line 36 (j) In enacting this bill, it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure
line 37 that a retired CalPERS member is protected when alleged
line 38 misapplication or calculation of compensation occurs as a result
line 39 of an employer’s error, and that this protection be provided to
line 40 retirees whose appeal of CalPERS’ determination, and subsequent
96
— 4 — SB 266
line 1 reduction of the retiree’s allowance, is not final. It is further the
line 2 intent of the Legislature that errors made on the part of the
line 3 employer, with respect to a promise to a retiree, be borne by the
line 4 employer rather than through a retroactive clawback and permanent
line 5 reduction in the retired member’s pension.
line 6 SEC. 2. Section 20164.5 is added to the Government Code, to
line 7 read:
line 8 20164.5. (a) For purposes of this section, “disallowed
line 9 compensation” means compensation reported for a member by the
line 10 state, school employer, or a contracting agency that the system
line 11 subsequently determines is not in compliance with the California
line 12 Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (Article 4
line 13 (commencing with Section 7522) of Chapter 21 of Division 7 of
line 14 Title 1), Section 20636 or 20636.1, or the administrative regulations
line 15 of the system.
line 16 (b) If the system determines that the compensation reported for
line 17 a member by the state, school employer, or a contracting agency
line 18 is disallowed compensation, the system shall require the state,
line 19 school employer, or contracting agency to discontinue reporting
line 20 the disallowed compensation. This section shall also apply to
line 21 determinations made on or after January 1, 2017, if an appeal has
line 22 been filed and the member, the retired member, survivor, or
line 23 beneficiary has not exhausted their administrative or legal
line 24 remedies.
line 25 (1) In the case of an active member, all contributions made on
line 26 the disallowed compensation shall be credited against future
line 27 contributions to the benefit of the state, school employer, or
line 28 contracting agency that reported the disallowed compensation, and
line 29 any contribution paid by, or on behalf of, the member, including
line 30 contributions under Section 20691, shall be returned to the member
line 31 by the state, school employer, or contracting agency that reported
line 32 the disallowed compensation.
line 33 (2) In the case of a retired member, survivor, or beneficiary
line 34 whose final compensation at the time of retirement was predicated
line 35 upon the disallowed compensation, the contributions made on the
line 36 disallowed compensation shall be credited against future
line 37 contributions, to the benefit of the state, school employer, or
line 38 contracting agency that reported the disallowed compensation and
line 39 the system shall permanently adjust the benefit of the affected
96
SB 266 — 5 —
line 1 retired member, survivor, or beneficiary to reflect the exclusion
line 2 of the disallowed compensation.
line 3 (3) (A) In the case of a retired member, survivor, or beneficiary
line 4 whose final compensation at the time of retirement was predicated
line 5 upon the disallowed compensation as described in paragraph (2),
line 6 the repayment and notice requirements described in this paragraph
line 7 and paragraph (4) shall apply only if all of the following conditions
line 8 are met:
line 9 (i) The compensation was reported to the system and
line 10 contributions were made on that compensation while the member
line 11 was actively employed.
line 12 (ii) The compensation was provided for in a memorandum of
line 13 understanding or collective bargaining agreement as compensation
line 14 for pension purposes.
line 15 (iii) The determination by the system that compensation was
line 16 disallowed was made after the date of retirement.
line 17 (iv) The member was not aware that the compensation was
line 18 disallowed at the time it was reported.
line 19 (B) If the conditions of subparagraph (A) are met, the state,
line 20 school employer, or contracting agency that reported contributions
line 21 on the disallowed compensation shall do both of the following:
line 22 (i) Pay to the system, as a direct payment, the full cost of any
line 23 overpayment of the prior paid benefit made to an affected retired
line 24 member, survivor, or beneficiary resulting from the disallowed
line 25 compensation.
line 26 (ii) Pay to the retired member, survivor, or beneficiary, as a
line 27 lump sum or as an annuity based on that amount, the actuarial
line 28 equivalent present value representing the difference between the
line 29 monthly allowance that was based on the disallowed compensation
line 30 and the adjusted monthly allowance calculated pursuant to
line 31 paragraph (2) for the duration that allowance is projected to be
line 32 paid by the system to the retired member, survivor, or beneficiary.
line 33 The payment, or payments, shall be made by the state, school
line 34 employer, or contracting agency that reported contributions on the
line 35 disallowed compensation in the option selected by as an annuity
line 36 unless the retired member, survivor, or beneficiary pursuant to a
line 37 settlement or agreement between the parties. and the state, school
line 38 employer, or contracting agency, as may be applicable, mutually
line 39 agree to a lump sum payment or payments.
96
— 6 — SB 266
line 1 (4) The system shall provide a notice to the state, school
line 2 employer, or contracting agency that reported contributions on the
line 3 disallowed compensation and to the affected retired member,
line 4 survivor, or beneficiary, including, at a minimum, all of the
line 5 following:
line 6 (A) The amount of the overpayment to be paid by the state,
line 7 school employer, or contracting agency to the system as described
line 8 in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3).
line 9 (B) The actuarial equivalent present value owed to the retired
line 10 member, survivor, or beneficiary as described in subparagraph (B)
line 11 of paragraph (3), if applicable.
line 12 (C) Written disclosure of the state, school employer, or
line 13 contracting agency’s obligations to the retired member member,
line 14 survivor, or beneficiary pursuant to this section.
line 15 (5) The system shall, upon request, provide the state, a school
line 16 employer, or a contracting agency with contact information data
line 17 in its possession of a relevant retired member, survivor, or
line 18 beneficiary in order for the state, a school employer, or a
line 19 contracting agency to fulfill their obligations to that retired
line 20 member, survivor, or beneficiary pursuant to this section. The
line 21 recipient of this contact information data shall keep it confidential.
line 22 (c) (1) The state, a school employer, or a contracting agency,
line 23 as applicable, may submit to the system for review an additional
line 24 compensation item that is proposed to be included, or is contained,
line 25 in a memorandum of understanding adopted, or a collective
line 26 bargaining agreement entered into, on and after January 1, 2020,
line 27 that is intended to form the basis of a pension benefit calculation,
line 28 in order for the system to determine compliance review consistency
line 29 of the proposal with the California Public Employees’ Pension
line 30 Reform Act of 2013 (Article 4 (commencing with Section 7522)
line 31 of Chapter 21 of Division 7 of Title 1), Section 20636 or 20636.1,
line 32 and the administrative regulations of the system.
line 33 (2) A submission to the system for review under paragraph (1)
line 34 shall include only the proposed compensation item language and
line 35 a description of how it meets the criteria listed in subdivision (a)
line 36 of Section 571 or subdivision (b) of Section 571.1 of Title 2 of the
line 37 California Code of Regulations, along with any other supporting
line 38 documents or requirements the system deems necessary to evaluate
line 39 compliance with the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform
line 40 Act of 2013 (Article 4 (commencing with Section 7522) of Chapter
96
SB 266 — 7 —
line 1 21 of Division 7 of Title 1), Section 20636 or 20636.1, and the
line 2 administrative regulations of the system. complete its review.
line 3 (3) The system shall respond to provide guidance regarding the
line 4 submission within 90 days of the receipt of all information required
line 5 to make a determination. review.
line 6 (d) The system shall periodically publish a notice of the
line 7 proposed compensation language submitted to the system pursuant
line 8 to paragraph (c) for review and the system’s determination of
line 9 compliance. guidance provided by the system.
line 10 (e) This section does not alter or abrogate any responsibility of
line 11 the state, a school employer, or a contracting agency to meet and
line 12 confer in good faith with the employee organization regarding the
line 13 impact of the disallowed compensation or the effect of any
line 14 disallowed compensation on the rights of the employees and the
line 15 obligations of the employer to its employees, including any
line 16 employees who, due to the passage of time and promotion, may
line 17 have become exempt from inclusion in a bargaining unit, but whose
line 18 benefit was the product of collective bargaining.
line 19 (f) This section does not effect or otherwise alter a party’s right
line 20 to appeal any determination regarding disallowed compensation
line 21 made by the system.
line 22 SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 2 of
line 23 this act, which adds Section 20164.5 of the Government Code,
line 24 imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings
line 25 of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies
line 26 within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California
line 27 Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the
line 28 Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest
line 29 protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
line 30 In order to appropriately maintain the current confidentiality of
line 31 personal contact information held by the Public Employees’
line 32 Retirement System regarding retired members of the system, and
line 33 their survivors and beneficiaries, it is necessary to limit access to
line 34 this information if it is provided to other public entities for purposes
line 35 of Section 20164.5 of the Government Code.
O
96
— 8 — SB 266
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8d
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Deletion of One Vacant Office
Assistant II and the Addition of One Administrative Assistant I
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the deletion of
one vacant full time equivalent (1.0 FTE) Office Assistant II position and the addition of one full
time equivalent (1.0 FTE) Administrative Assistant I.
BACKGROUND
The City is proposing the following amendment to the classification plan:
1. Addition of one Administrative Assistant I (1.0 FTE) to be allocated between the City Clerk’s
office (80%) and Finance Department (20%).
2. Deletion of one vacant Office Assistant II (-1.0 FTE) position, allocated equally between the
City Clerk’s office and the Finance Department.
Currently, the City Clerk’s office and Finance Department share one full time equivalent (1.0 FTE)
Office Assistant II position equally between the departments. In general, this position acts as the
receptionist for City Hall, handles clerical tasks for the City Clerk and Finance Director,
assembles City Council packets, and assists customers with their water bills and business
licenses. With the resignation of the incumbent Office Assistant II in late August, and prior to
recruiting to fill the vacancy, the City Clerk and Finance Director wanted to use the opportunity to
critically evaluate the existing duties of the position against the future needs of the City to
determine the correct classification for the position.
DISCUSSION
In recent years, the City Clerk’s office has undertaken several new projects to increase the City’s
transparency and improve internal client access to records, including:
1. Movement of all City Commissions and Boards to the Granicus agenda management system
2. Adoption of a new Retention Schedule
3. Creation of an electronic records management system for the City, which will include a public
portal
Classification Plan Amendments September 3, 2019
2
4. Addition of closed captions to all videoed meetings and implementation of online public
comments for agenda items
In order to maintain the listed projects and further assist both the community and staff, the City
Clerk’s office is in need of both additional higher level support than an Office Assistant II allows
for and more time than the current arrangement provides for. Due to the change in scope and
complexity of the work to be assigned to this position, staff recommends deleting the vacant
Office Assistant II position and adding an Administrative Assistant I position. Because of the
change in demand for time from the City Clerk’s office, staff recommends reallocating the vacant
position to 80% for the City Clerk’s office and 20% for the Finance Department. This change will
more accurately align the duties of the position with the classification.
Based on the difference between the salaries of the two positions, this change represents an
increased annual cost of $12,664 to the City’s General Fund. Although the current position is
vacant and recruitment for the new position can be immediately initiated upon Council’s approval,
the impact to the General Fund budget for the current fiscal year is unknown. The personnel
budgets within the Finance Department and the Office of the City Clerk for the current fiscal year
can be amended with the Mid-Year Report when these costs can be more accurately calculated.
The change has been communicated to the appropriate bargaining unit.
FISCAL IMPACT
The annual financial impact to the City budget due to the increased salary is $11,072, with a
$1,592 increase in the cost of benefits, for a total cost increase of $12,664. The Fiscal Year
2019-20 budget will be amended to the extent necessary with the City’s mid-year budget
analysis.
Exhibit:
Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE DELETION OF ONE VACANT OFFICE ASSISTANT II POSITION
AND THE ADDITION OF ONE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I POSITION
WHEREAS, the proposed changes are as detailed below:
Delete a vacant 1.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) Office Assistant II position allocated
equally between the City Clerk’s office and Finance Department ; and
Add a 1.0 FTE Administrative Assistant I position to be allocated between the City
Clerk’s office (80%) and Finance Department (20%); and
WHEREAS, this change will allow the City to maintain momentum on current and future
projects in the City Clerk’s office and further assist both the community and staff; and
WHEREAS, this change will more accurately align the current and future duties of the
position with the classification; and
WHEREAS, this change results in an annual increase of $12,664 to the City’s General
Fund operating budget; and
WHEREAS, the bargaining unit representing the impacted classification has reviewed the
proposed changes and has not brought forth any objections or concerns.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Burlingame finds,
orders and declares that:
1. The Council approves the deletion of a 1.0 FTE Office Assistant II position allocated
equally between the City Clerk’s office and Finance Department ; and
2. The Council approves the addition of a 1.0 FTE Administrative Assistant I position
allocated between the City Clerk’s office (80%) and Finance Department (20%).
____________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of
September 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8e
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with
Wilsey Ham for the Burlingame and Glenwood Park Subdivision and
Neighborhood Water Main Improvements, City Project No. 84891, and
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a professional
services agreement with Wilsey Ham for professional engineering services related to the
Burlingame and Glenwood Park Subdivision and Neighborhood Water Main Improvements, in the
amount of $298,760, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.
BACKGROUND
The Water System Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identified the existing water mains in the
Burlingame and Glenwood Park Subdivision as one of the high priority project areas to replace
aging potable water mains. This is the second phase of a four phased project to replace
approximately 7,520 linear feet of four-inch, six-inch, and twelve-inch diameter cast iron water
mains with new polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and ductile iron pipes. The existing cast iron pipes were
installed approximately 90 years ago and have served beyond their intended service life.
The Burlingame and Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements will focus on water
infrastructure improvements on Chapin Avenue, Ralston Avenue, Howard Avenue, Newlands
Avenue, Central Avenue, Crescent Avenue, Carol Avenue, East Carol Avenue, and Cypress
Avenue. The new water infrastructure will improve the water flow capacity in the water mains,
thereby improving the water volume and volume to the community. Additionally, the improved
system will enhance the City’s ability to fight fires with improved fire hydrants system.
DISCUSSION
On August 15, 2017, staff issued a Request for Proposals to a list of qualified engineering firms for
professional services related to designing improvements along El Camino Real between Sanchez
and Barroilhet Avenues, and adjacent subdivisions. The City received eight proposals from
qualified firms. After a comprehensive review and ranking of the proposals, the consulting firm of
Wilsey Ham was selected as the top ranking firm for this phase because of their understanding of
the overall project, project approach, and quality of proposal.
Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with September 3, 2019
Wilsey Ham for the Burlingame and Glenwood Park Water Main Improvements
2
Staff negotiated the scope of professional services for the project with Wilsey Ham in the amount
of $298,760. The following is a brief outline of the scope of professional design services, which is
described in detail in Exhibit A of the attached Professional Services Agreement.
• Perform pre-design investigation including field surveying, potholing, and utility location
to prepare project base map.
• Prepare 35% design submittal including preliminary horizontal layout of the pipeline
alignments, design memo, and preliminary engineer’s estimate.
• Prepare 50% design submittal including preliminary pipeline alignments, construction
details, draft specifications, coordination with Hillsborough, pothole plan, and
preliminary engineer’s estimate.
• Prepare 90% design submittal including coordination with the City, updating pipeline
plan and profiles to 90% completion, preparing a draft bid package, and updating the
engineer’s estimate.
• Prepare 95% design submittal including coordination with the City, updating pipeline
plan and profiles to 95% completion, preparing a draft bid package, and updating the
engineer’s estimate.
• Complete and submit 100% design including addressing City comments, finalizing
specifications, finalizing cost estimate, completing 100% contract documents, and
performing a quality assurance and quality control review of the contract documents.
• Provide bidding assistance including attending a pre-bid meeting, answering contractor
questions, and preparing addenda.
• Perform project management functions including attending meetings, site visits, and
agency coordination.
The project construction is anticipated to begin in the summer of 2021 and be completed by the
end of 2022.
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated costs relative to the project development:
Consultant Design Services $298,760
Contingency (15%) $44,814
Engineering Design & Administration $31,426
Total $375,000
There are adequate funds available in the FY 2019-20 Water CIP Budget to complete the project.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Professional Services Agreement
Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILSEY HAM
FOR THE BURLINGAME AND GLENWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION AND
NEIGHBORHOOD WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
CITY PROJECT NO. 84891
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 3RD day of
September, 2019 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_____________________________
City Clerk
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of _, 2019,
by and between the citv of Burlinqame, state of california, herein called the "city", and
wILSEY HAM engaged in providing PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERTNG oEstcN services
herein called the "Consultant".
A
B
C
Scooe of services. The consurtant sha provide professionar engineering
services such as perform topographic survey work, identify and tocate utitity
infrastructure, pothole utilities, coordinate and conduct project meetings, prepare
plans, specifications, and estimate documentation, provide additionar addenda as
'l
needed, and as detailed in "Scope of Services" of the attached Exhibit A of this
agreement.
Time of Performance. The services of the consultant are to commence upon
the execution of this Agreement with completion of all work as set forth in Exhibit
A.
Page 1 of 8
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGTNEERTNG DESIGN SERVTCES
WITH WILSEY HAM FOR THE
BURLINGAME AND GLENWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION
AND NEIGHBORHOOD WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 84891
RECITALS
The city is considering conducting activities for consultant engineering services
for design services for the Burlingame and Glenwood park subdivision and
Neighborhood Water Main lmprovements, City project No. g4g91.
The city desires to engage a professionar engineering consurtant to provide design
services because of consultant's experience and qualifications to perform the
desired work, described in Exhibit A.
The consultant represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the
desired work pursuant to this Agreement.
AGREEMENTS
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
2.
3. Comoli ance wt th Laws . The Consultant shall comply 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
5
le Res ibiti Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging
all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.
rma dlin . All documents furnished to Consultant by the City
rtive data prepared by the Consultant under thisand all repo(s and suppo
Agreement are the city's property and shail 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 consurtant shall not make any of
these documents or information available to any individual or organization not
employed by the consurtant or the city without the written
"onrent of the city
before such release. The city acknowredges 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 prepaied
by the consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at city,s risk,
unless consultant expressry consents to such use in writing. city furtheiagrees
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. Co mpen sation . Compensation for Consultant,s professional seryices shall not
exceed $298.760; 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
rate and on what date. Arso, prans, specifications, documents or other pertinent
materials shall be submitted for city review, even if only in partial or draft form.
ilabilitv of7 S . Consultant shall maintain the records supporting this
three (3) years following completion of the work under thisbilling for not less than
Page 2 of 8
I
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.
8. Proiect anaqer . The Project Manager for the Consultant for the work under this
Agreement shall be Brandon S. Davis, Supervising Engineer.
Assionabilitv and subcontractino. 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.
Notices. Any notice required to be given shail be deemed to be duryand properry
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:
or personally delivered to consultant to such address or such other address as
Consultant designates in writing to City.
11. lnd nd Contr ctor. I t is understood that the Consultant, in the performance
of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an
10.
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, theConsultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement by
subcontracting, but may not deregate urtimate responsibirity for performance or
assign or transfer interests under this Agreement.
consultant agrees to testify in any ritigation brought regarding the subject of the
work to be performed under this Agreement. consurtant shafl be compensated
for its costs and expenses in preparing for, travering to, and testifying in such
mafters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is
Brandon S. Davis, Supervising Engineer
Wilsey Ham
3'130 La Selva Street, Suite 100
San Mateo, CA 94403
Page 3 of 8
12.onflict of I . 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 presenfly 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. Eoua I Emolov ent ODoo rtunitv . Consultant warrants that it is an equal
opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing 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
conditlon, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the
California Fair Employment & Housing Act.
14. lnsu ra n ce.
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
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.
Page 4 of 8
brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent
performance or wrongdoing.
i.
Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the
contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her
and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and
property 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 subcontractors. 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, offlcials,
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.
ii.
t
Page 5 of 8
i.
t.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.
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). Current certification of such insurance shall
be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City
Clerk.
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.
1 5, lndemn ification 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 attorneys' 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
C
D
E
F
Page 6 of 8
ln addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain Workers'
Compensation insurance as required by California law. Further,
Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant
provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective
employees.
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 Califomia-
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 nol 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.
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. c rnino Law. Th is Agreement, regardless of where
governed by and construed under the laws of the State of C
any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior
of San Mateo.
executed, shall be
alifornia. Venue for
Court of the County
18. Terminati on of Aore ement . 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,
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.
Page 7 of 8
16.
20.
lN wlrNESS 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
Wilsey Ha
?'^e.>1cte.a{
Approved as to form:
City Attorney - Kathleen Kane
ATTEST:
City Clerk - Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
Print Na
Title:
e-sf
a.
Page 8 of 8
J
July 17, 2019
Mr. Kevin Okada, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Proposal for Professional Engineering Design Services for Burlingame and Glenwood
Park Subdivision and Neighborhood Water Main Improvements - City Project 84891
Dear Mr. Okada,
On behalf of Wilsey Ham, I am pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Burlingame for
design of the water main projects referenced above. We are confident that we have a very good
understanding of the scope of work and have a proposed project approach that is cost effective
while providing the essential information to minimize change orders. Wilsey Ham has an
experienced and responsive staff that will provide a high quality of service to the City.
Proposed Design Team
I will serve as the Supervising Engineer for our project team, providing input on design issues
and playing a major role in the quality control reviews. I have the ultimate responsibility to the
City to ensure that the City is happy with our services and work products.
Project Understanding
The City previously issued an RFP for the design of Water Main Improvements along El Camino
Real from Sanchez Avenue to Barroilhet Avenue and within the Glenwood Park, Burlingame
Heights, Burlingame Terrace and Burlingame Park Subdivisions; totaling almost five miles of
roadway. The project is programmed to be designed and constructed in four phases. The
construction of improvements may be extended into future years if there is not sufficient budget
to construct all of the improvements in the program year.
Wilsey Ham was selected for the design we are currently working on the first of the four projects
along El Camino (Phase 1). Since the El Camino project requires more extensive coordination
through the involvement of Caltrans and SFPUC, the City expects the timeline to be more drawn
out. It is our understanding that the City would also like to begin design of the second project
now. The City would like to implement the Glenwood Park Subdivision and Negihborhood Water
Main Project (Phase 3) as the second project due to its proximity along El Camino Real.
To better understand the scope of the project, we have walked the full length of each street to
observe and photograph the site conditions. We have also reviewed the City’s GIS maps
showing the approximate water, sewer and storm drain locations. From our observations, we
have identified some design constraints in each phase of the project that will need to be
properly addressed to achieve a successful project.
EXHIBIT A
July 17, 2019
Kevin Okada, P.E.
Page 2
Our staff has also prepared a preliminary layout for the new water mains in each project phase
to assist us in developing our scope of work and to illustrate our initial design thoughts. A
summary of our observations and comments on the alignments are shown below. The
alignments are included at the end of this proposal for your information. The alignments will
need to be adjusted once the utility locations are surveyed and we have a more accurate
understanding of the site constraints.
Phase 3 - Glenwood Park Subdivision and Neighborhood (7,520LF)
The third phase of improvements is a roughly triangular area bounded by El Camino, Occidental
and Barroilhet. Electric distribution is overhead and City GIS shows most of the drainage occurs
on the ground surface with minimal underground drainage improvements providing more room
for a new water line. The streets are fairly wide with on-street parking on each side of the road.
Preliminary Alignment Thoughts
Our initial thoughts on the alignment locations are generally near the existing water mains or on
the opposite side of the road depending upon the curvature of the road and the alignment of the
sewer. Some additional investigation on Ralston will be needed to confirm the alignment as the
field conditions seem to be different from the schematic system maps, particularly at the
intersection with Crescent. Preliminary alignment sketches are attached.
Project Approach and Scope of Services
In light of our project understanding, the RFP requirements and our site observations, Wilsey
Ham proposes the following Project Approach and detailed Scope of Services for each task.
Howard Ave. - Existing markings show alignment along gutter
July 17, 2019
Kevin Okada, P.E.
Page 3
Task 1- Pre-Design Investigation – Survey, Utility Locates, Potholing, Base Mapping
The surveys to prepare the base mapping will be prepared by ground surveys due to the tree
canopies and need to pick up utility markings. The ground surveys will be performed after the
utility locator marks the utility locations for water, gas, electric and communications. Sewer and
storm drain manholes will be located and dipped to verify the invert elevations. To minimize
costs, the surveyors will shoot the curbs, pavement crown elevations, edge of sidewalk and all
visible utility structures and markings. Driveways will be approximately shown for reference
using Google Earth imagery and field observations and coordination with tree locations will be
field coordinated by our engineering staff. All potholing will be performed during the 90% design
phase, after the City has approved the proposed water main alignments and pothole plan. We
have also included a 10-day supplemental survey budget to be used during the 90% Phase to
collect potholes and to obtain additional/supplemental information that may be needed as the
design evolves. The scope of work in this task is detailed below along with our assumptions.
1. Attend a project kickoff meeting at City Hall.
2. Perform records research and collect record utility maps
3. Perform a survey traverse using GPS, install control points. Reduce data and compute
control.
4. Perform utility location and mark streets for gas, electric, communications and water.
Dedicated traffic control is included for work on El Camino.
5. Perform topographic surveys and base mapping at 1” = 20” using ground surveys. The
base maps will be planimetric on 24” x 36” sheets. Dedicated traffic control is included
for work on El Camino.
6. Add approximate right of way lines to mapping from Record information.
7. Add topography and utility locates to create base maps.
8. Preform Quality Control/Quality Assurance review.
9. Pothole utilities at potential conflict areas per the approved potholing plan during the
90% design stage. We have assumed 4 days of potholing (approximately 24 potholes)
per phase with cold patch asphalt.
10. Perform supplemental topographic survey (at 90% design stage) to pick up utility
potholes and design information.
Deliverable: Project topographic base map
Task 2 - 35% Plans, Specifications and Estimate
We will focus on determining the best alignment of the new water mains during this task. Many
factors will influence our recommendation including avoidance of conflicts with existing utility
facilities, simplicity of layout, minimization of costs, and constructability. If there are alignment
options, we will show them both for the City’s consideration. Since El Camino Real is a
conventional State highway, Caltrans buy-in on the proposed replacement pipe alignment will
be needed. A cost estimate will be prepared to get an early idea if the entire extent of the main
can be constructed within the City’s budget. A phasing plan will be prepared with recommended
limits of improvements that can be constructed within the budget. The rationale for our
July 17, 2019
Kevin Okada, P.E.
Page 4
recommendation will be summarized in a Basis of Design memorandum as well as any design
constraints that are identified. The scope of work in this task is detailed below.
1. Layout horizontal locations of water mains and main connection stubs to side streets on
the topographic base sheets.
2. Perform a site visit to review site conditions with City Engineering and Maintenance
Staff.
3. Prepare a project title sheet.
4. Prepare a preliminary construction cost estimate.
5. Prepare Phasing plan.
6. Prepare a Basis of Design memorandum which describes the recommended alignment,
design issues and constraints, the preliminary construction cost estimate and initial
thoughts on phasing if the estimate exceeds the budget.
7. Submit the 35% plans, estimate and Basis of Design Memorandum package to City for
their review and approval.
8. Attend a meeting with the City to discuss their comments and required revisions.
9. Meet with Caltrans to obtain buy-in on El Camino Real Alignment. Two meetings at
District 4 in Oakland are assumed.
10. Revise and resubmit the plans and BOD to reflect the approved approach.
Deliverables: 2 sets of 35% Plans, estimate and Basis of Design Report
Task 3 - 50% Plans, Specifications and Estimate
This task involves the advancement of the plans, specifications and estimate in the phases
described above. A potholing plan will be proposed to accompany the 50% PS&E submittal so
that we can identify any conflicts early in the 90% design phase before the expending too much
budget. We will perform an initial quality control review during this phase to make sure the plans
and specifications are well coordinated. The scope of work in this task is detailed below.
1. Prepare plan view sheets.
2. Perform a site visit to review design issues.
3. Coordinate with outside utility companies and Caltrans/Hillsborough/San Mateo. Send
initial letter introducing the project with plan set identifying issues.
4. Develop the title sheet and notes sheet.
5. Prepare detail sheets.
6. Update the construction cost estimate and make phasing modifications in the event that
the estimated project cost exceeds the budget.
7. Prepare list of technical specifications based on the City’s standard water specifications.
8. Attend a design coordination meeting as needed.
9. Prepare pothole plan.
10. Perform a quality control review and make associated revisions.
11. Submit the 50% plans, specifications and estimate package to City for their review.
12. Attend a meeting with the City to discuss their comments and desired revisions.
Deliverables: 2 sets of the 50% Plans, specifications, estimate and pothole plan
July 17, 2019
Kevin Okada, P.E.
Page 5
Task 4 - 90% Plans, Specifications and Estimate
This task involves the development of the plans, specifications and estimate with all of the
information needed to construct the project. All design issues will be resolved and utility conflicts
will be checked by potholing. The estimate will be detailed with individual bid items to provide
the City with the flexibility during construction to make changes as desired while paying for only
competitively bid unit prices. We will perform an internal quality control review during this phase
to make sure the plans and specifications are well coordinated. The scope of work in this task is
detailed below.
1. Incorporate 50% Design Comments from City.
2. Advance design to 90% level of completion.
3. Pothole utilities and finalize Pothole plan with results.
4. Prepare profile views including the locations of new lateral connections.
5. Site visits as needed to review design issues (3 assumed).
6. Coordinate with utility companies and Caltrans/Hillsborough/San Mateo.
7. Update the construction cost estimate.
8. Prepare technical specifications based on the City’s standard water specifications.
9. Attend a design coordination meeting as needed.
10. Perform a quality control review and make revisions as necessary.
11. Submit the 90% plans, specifications and estimate package to City for their review.
12. Attend a meeting with the City to discuss their comments and desired revisions.
Deliverables: 2 sets of the 90% Plans, specifications, estimate and Final Pothole Plan
Task 5 - 95% Plans, Specifications and Estimate
The scope of work in this task is:
1. Incorporate 90% Design Comments from City.
2. Advance design to 95% level of completion.
3. Site visits as needed to review design issues (2 assumed).
4. Coordinate with utility companies and Caltrans/Hillsborough/San Mateo.
5. Update the construction cost estimate/phasing. Prepare bid schedule.
6. Update technical specifications.
7. Attend a design coordination meeting as needed.
8. Prepare bid package including Invitation, General and Special Provisions.
9. Perform a quality control review and make revisions as necessary.
10. Submit the 95% plans, specifications and estimate package to City for their review.
11. Attend a meeting with the City to discuss their comments and desired revisions.
Deliverables: 2 sets of the 95% Plans, specifications, and estimate
Task 6 - Plans, Specifications and Estimate
This task will focus on incorporating the City’s review comments on the 95% complete bid set,
and performing our final quality control review. The package will be bid ready after completion of
this task. The scope of work in this task is detailed below.
July 17, 2019
Kevin Okada, P.E.
Page 6
1. Perform the final revisions to the plans, specifications and estimate to address the City’s
review comments and perform final quality control review.
2. Re-submit final package to City for approval.
3. Attend a meeting with the City to discuss and final comments and make those revisions.
Deliverables: 2 sets of the 100% Plans, specifications, estimate and bid package for review,
and one final hard copy and digital set of plans, specifications and estimate for reproduction of
the bid sets
Task 7 - Bid Services
Wilsey Ham will provide assistance during the bidding process to ensure that questions from
contractors are answered. If changes or additional information is necessary as a result of
contractor inquiries, bid addenda will be issued as required to clarify the design intent. The
scope of work in this task is detailed below.
1. Attend the pre-bid meeting and answer contractor questions.
2. Respond to contractor Question's & issue bid addenda as necessary.
Deliverables: Bid addenda as necessary
Assumptions and Exclusions
The following assumptions and exclusions were made in the preparation of this proposal in
effort to define our scope of work.
1. The RFP identified the required diameter for each new water main, so we understand
that water system modeling is not required in our scope of work.
2. The desired pipe material is specified as either PVC or ductile iron. From our experience
working on City water projects, we are familiar with the typical applications for each pipe
material and the standard corrosion protection measures implemented by the City when
ductile iron pipe is used. Therefore, we have not included any services for corrosion
investigations or design.
3. We have included a reasonable amount of potholing budget for each project. If through
the design process it is agreed by the City that additional potholing should be conducted,
additional fees will be required.
4. Only those tasks specifically described herein are included in this proposal. Any other
requested work will be performed on a time and materials basis.
Fee and Schedule
Wilsey Ham's fee for the foregoing described Scope of Services is estimated to be
approximately $298,760 on a time and materials basis in accordance with the attached Charge
Rate Fee Schedule. We will not exceed this amount without your prior authorization. Work can
be completed on a mutually agreed upon schedule. The time of performance will commence
upon execution of this agreement and will end June 30, 2022.
July 17, 2019
Kevin Okada, P.E.
Page 7
Authorization
You may authorize Wilsey Ham to proceed in accordance with this proposal and the City of
Burlingame's Contract Provisions by returning a City standard contract. Work will commence
upon receipt of a City purchase order and a Notice to Proceed.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate on your project.
Very truly yours,
WILSEY HAM
A California Corporation
Brandon Davis
Supervising Engineer
RCE: C61024
Attached: Fee Estimate
2019 Charge Rate Fee Schedule
Preliminary Alignment Layouts
1REIM- TOTALTOTALSUB- BURSABLE WH TOTAL WH LABORTASK DESCRIPTION$233 HRS $216 HRS $216 HRS $184 HRS $163 HRS $151 HRS $249 HRS CONSULTANTS EXPENSES LABOR $ ALL $ HOURS1. Pre-Design Investigation Survey, Utility Locates, Potholing, Base Mapping1Kick-off932 4 864 4736 450 2,532 2,582 122Records Research and Utility Maps216 12,208 122,424 2,424 133Control Surveys1,296 62,416 16 4,980 20300 8,692 8,992 424Utility Mark-out by AGS368 217,710368 18,078 25Topographic Surveys2,160 102,416 16 19,920 801,200 24,496 25,696 1066Approximate Right-of-way from Record2,160 101,812 123,972 3,972 227Base-mapping864 47,248 488,112 8,112 528QA/QC216 1 1,296 61,512 1,512 79Potholing by Exaro- Up to 5 days216 1368 222,714584 23,298 310Supplemental Survey - 4 days (at 90%)216 1 184 17,968 32480 8,368 8,848 34932 4 1,512 7 7,992 37 3,864 2113,892 92 32,868 132 40,424 2,030 61,060 103,514 2932.35% Plans and Estimate 1Layout Water Mains864 44,416 24 3,260 208,540 8,540 482Site Vist1,472 8 1,304 850 2,776 2,826 163Title Sheet184 1 163 1 151 1498 498 34Preliminary Estimate216 1736 4 1,956 122,908 2,908 175Preliminary Phasing Plan216 1368 2 326 2 302 21,212 1,212 76Basis of Design Memo216 1368 2 326 2910 910 57Submit216 1368 2 326 2910 910 58Meet with City648 3552 31,200 1,200 69Revise/Resubmit Plans, Estimate and BOD432 21,472 8 1,956 123,860 3,860 2210QA/QC233 1 648 3881 881 4233 1 3,456 16 9,936 54 9,617 59 453 350 23,695 23,745 1333.50% PS&E 1Prepare Plan View Sheets432 23,680 20 4,564 28 3,020 2011,696 11,696 702Perform Site Visit to review design issues1,104 6 1,304 825 2,408 2,433 143Coordinate Utilities/City of Hillsborough2,208 122,208 2,208 124Develop Title Sheet and Notes184 1302 2486 486 35Prepare Detail Sheets184 1604 4788 788 56Update Cost Estimate/Phasing216 1736 4 1,630 10 1,510 104,092 4,092 257Specifications Listing184 1 326 2510 510 38Design Coordination Meeting648 3552 31,200 1,200 69Prepare pothole Plan216 12,944 161,510 104,670 4,670 2710QA/QC Review233 1 1,080 51,840 10 1,630 10 1,510 106,293 6,293 3611Submit 50% PS&E w/ Pothole Plan216 1368 2 326 2 302 2200 1,212 1,412 712Meet with City648 3552 325 1,200 1,225 6233 1 3,456 1614,536 79 9,780 60 8,758 58250 36,763 37,013 214SubtotalSubtotalBurlingame and Glenwood Park Subdivision and Neighborhood7/17/2019SUPERVISINGENG/SURVENGINEERIIDESIGNER2 PERSONSURVEY CREWCity of BurlingameBurlingame & Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements - City Project 84891Fee ProposalENGINEER IPRINCIPALENGR./SRVR.SUPERVISINGENGR./SRVR.SENIORDarrinSubtotalPaulJeff Brandon CameronRon
1REIM- TOTALTOTALSUB- BURSABLE WH TOTAL WH LABORTASK DESCRIPTION$233 HRS $216 HRS $216 HRS $184 HRS $163 HRS $151 HRS $249 HRS CONSULTANTS EXPENSES LABOR $ ALL $ HOURS7/17/2019SUPERVISINGENG/SURVENGINEERIIDESIGNER2 PERSONSURVEY CREWCity of BurlingameBurlingame & Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements - City Project 84891Fee ProposalENGINEER IPRINCIPALENGR./SRVR.SUPERVISINGENGR./SRVR.SENIORDarrinPaulJeff BrandonCameronRon4.90% PS&E 1Incorporate 50% Design Comments from City648 32,944 16 3,912 24 1,208 88,712 8,712 512Advance Design to 90% Level864 45,152 28 7,824 48 6,040 4019,880 19,880 1203Finalize Potholing Plan368 2 978 6 604 41,950 1,950 124Prepare Profile Views3,680 20 4,564 28 1,510 109,754 9,754 585Perform Site Visit to review design issues1,104 6 1,304 850 2,408 2,458 146Coordinate Utilities/City of Hillsborough2,208 122,208 2,208 127Update Cost Estimate/Phasing432 2736 4 1,304 8 1,812 124,284 4,284 268Prepare Technical Specifications432 21,472 8 2,608 164,512 4,512 269Design Coordination Meeting552 3 489 31,041 1,041 610QA/QC Review466 2 1,728 82,208 12 1,956 12 1,812 128,170 8,170 4611Submit 90% PS&E w/ Pothole Plan216 1184 1 326 2 302 2300 1,028 1,328 612Meet with City552 3 489 325 1,041 1,066 6466 2 4,320 20 21,160 115 25,754 158 13,288 88375 64,988 65,363 3835.95% PS&E 1Incorporate 90% Design Comments from City432 21,104 6 1,630 10 1,812 124,978 4,978 302Advance Design to 95% Level864 44,416 24 5,216 32 3,624 2414,120 14,120 843Perform Site Visit to review design issues736 4 978 625 1,714 1,739 104Coordinate Utilities/City of Hillsborough1,104 61,104 1,104 65Update Cost Estimate/Bid Schedule/Phasing216 1736 4 1,304 8 1,812 124,068 4,068 256Update Technical Specifications1,296 62,208 12.3,504 3,504 187Design Coordination Meeting648 3552 31,200 1,200 68Prepare Bid Package432 21,840 10 1,304 8 1,208 84,784 4,784 289QA/QC Review466 2 2,160 101,840 10 2,282 14 2,114 148,862 8,862 5010Submit 95% PS&E216 1368 2 326 2 302 2450 1,212 1,662 711Meet with City552 3 489 325 1,041 1,066 6466 2 6,264 29 15,456 84 13,529 83 10,872 72500 46,587 47,087 2706.100% PS&E 1Finalize PS&E to address comments864 43,680 20 3,912 24 2,416 1610,872 10,872 642Submit Final Package368 2 326 2 302 2450 996 1,446 63Meet with City552 3 489 325 1,041 1,066 64Finalize design432 21,472 8 1,304 8 1,208 8250 4,416 4,666 261,296 66,072 33 6,031 37 3,926 26725 17,325 18,050 1027.Bid Services 1Attend Pre-bid Meeting648 3552 350 1,200 1,250 62Coordination and Addenda648 3736 4 1,304 850 2,688 2,738 151,296 61,288 7 1,304 8100 3,888 3,988 21Grand Total2,330 10 21,600 100 7,992 37 72,312 393 66,015 405 51,189 339 32,868 132 40,424 4,030 254,306 298,760 1,416Notes:SubtotalSubtotalSubtotal4. All positions may not be shown. If a position is not shown the Charge Rate Fee Schedule will govern.1. The amounts may vary between tasks and individuals but the Grand Total amount will not be exceeded without approval of the Client. 2. Total All$ includes subconsultants and reimbursable costs.3. Hourly rates effective through December 31, 2019 and subject to revision annually thereafter.Subtotal
Table 20168
2019 Charge Rate Fee Schedule
I. Charge Rate Fee Schedule
The compensation of Wilsey Ham for work done will be on the basis of an hourly charge rate, plus
incurred expenses and will be the sum of all the items set forth below:
A. Personnel Services
Principal Engineer/Surveyor $233 Per Hr Designer/Technician II $147 Per Hr
Supervising Eng/Surveyor 216 Per Hr Designer/Technician I 135 Per Hr
Managing Engineer/Surveyor 206 Per Hr Cad Operator/Drafter II 122 Per Hr
Senior Engineer/Project Mgr. 194 Per Hr Designer/Technician 111 Per Hr
Associate Engineer 184 Per Hr Administrative Assistant 81 Per Hr
Engineer II 173 Per Hr Technical Assistant 69 Per Hr
Engineer I 163 Per Hr 2 Person Survey Crew 249 Per Hr
Assistant Engineer 147 Per Hr Contract Personnel 2x Invoice
Junior Engineer 135 Per Hr Outside Survey Specialist 173 Per Hr
Senior Designer 151 Per Hr
*Effective through December 31, 2019 and subject to revision annually thereafter.
B. Reimbursable Expenses
1. Travel & Transportation Expenses:
a) Reimbursement for actual travel and subsistence expenses paid to or
on behalf of employees on business connected with the project, plus a
handling charge of 15%.
b) Fifty-four cents ($0.54) per mile, or the current rate allowable set by the
Internal Revenue Service for use of company passenger vehicles, and
fifteen dollars ($15.00) per hour for use of vehicles carrying field survey
equipment or used for field inspection and supervision.
2. Miscellaneous Expenses:
a) The cost of materials, supplies, reproduction work, agency filing fees, and
other services, including communication expenses, plus a handling
charge of 15%.
C. Outside Services
a) Invoice cost of services and expenses charged to Wilsey Ham by outside
consultants, professional, or technical firms engaged in connection with
the order, plus 15% handling charge.
1
/
J
I
MATCHFno
mzo
i
o
o
!
t
zo
-II
=
I
i-
t!!
=;=-t::
:Eii-i
iiii
EI
5i
\
r
I
I
t.
+
-{
{
t1IIt-
1
i t
-t^_|-_
r
\t-t'-IL-tF
-tr
-l
.- -J
\-l
\t
l-
//
Iir
I
I
i
{
I
i
i
ai!i,;ilit
:!lli
!i!i!'.:i:
i:9-=
tfrt
1;r;
iliE
!
HLINE
=
B
\
-.:
\
I
I
I
I
I
T
t-
\
-'-:r' --
\ _L--
r,, '.
_l
f
tlto
mztr
_t
:
ABOVE
]
E
\
J
9e
E,
-t:R
!;
a
=I
:E
-.=l
tl
1
\-
\t----'i
(
,/.
tl
-r
\"F-
r'..-Ix
Z
L_i___-___-.1
V
\
^r'Z
-\
-\
i{!F:ul!m:<
:I!>i=
ilt
tI
I
t
rln
C)
-=Is
,^I=
I -(_
II
1 tr
x
xX
I
l
I
L
_l
I
! --l
I
ll
t_L
-T T-tl
Lt_llir
{
\l,\\\
l
-__-t
I_,!_ -r-ll
-r- -l-
L.
|--
L-
L-
t
L__
't
_l
tl
I
I
--lF1t
L--lt_,
L-r
t'1-.1
_-L
I
I
t_l
L
II
t__L
ltrI
i
L
1
-L
s-t----l
tE!E g{
IlIIiE
ti-"ii:3
.{
o
Ie,
zo
3It
I
I
-I
-L
:
\
\
:a
II
,
/{\
i
I
rl
I
.ty
I
\
{
\/-,
,'-f
t
x
i_.1\
/>
x
>..'.. \
,/-
7-'
i
BURLINGAME AND GLENWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION AND NEIGHBORHOOD WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8f
MEETING DATE: September 03, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to EPS, Inc. dba
Express Plumbing, for the Easton Drive Drainage Improvements, City Project
No. 85610
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a construction
contract to EPS, Inc. dba Express Plumbing, for the Easton Drive Drainage Improvements, in the
amount of $228,050, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the same.
BACKGROUND
In 2017, a high intensity storm caused flooding in the Easton Drive neighborhood and impacted
the basement of a private property at 2627 Easton Drive. This particular property is located at a
low point in the affected area from which the storm water is discharged to the creek. As part of
this project, the stormwater capacity of the drainage system from the Easton Drive neighborhood
to the creek will be significantly increased by installing a larger storm drain pipe. The scope of
work includes construction of new storm drain inlets, curb, and gutter in the public right-of-way
and storm drain piping through an existing easement in private property.
DISCUSSION
The project was advertised for bids on August 1, 2019. The sealed bids were opened on August
22, 2019, and one bid proposal was received from EPS, Inc. dba Express Plumbing, with a base
bid of $228,050. The bid proposal is $20,050 above the engineer’s estimate of $208,000. Staff
has reviewed the contractor’s proposal, and the contractor has met all the project requirements.
Additionally, the contractor has successfully performed similar work for the City of Burlingame
and neighboring public agencies.
Upon approval, the construction is anticipated to begin in late September or October and is
scheduled to be completed before the winter season pending approval from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife and weather permitting.
Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract for the September 3, 2019
Easton Drive Drainage Improvements, City Project No. 85610
2
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated Project Expenditures
The following are the estimated project expenditures:
Construction Contract $228,050
Construction Management/Engineering and Inspection $50,000
Construction Contingencies (25%) $69,510
Contract Administration $17,440
Total: $365,000
A contingency amount of 25% is requested on this project to address any potential unforeseen
conditions as the project is located in a private property, and adjacent to a creek.
Funding Availability
There are adequate funds available in the FY 2019-20 Capital Improvement Program to complete
the project.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Bid Summary
Construction Contract
Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT WITH EPS, INC. DBA EXPRESS PLUMBING FOR THE EASTON DRIVE
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 85610
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2019, the City issued notice inviting bid proposals for the Easton
Drive Drainage Improvements, City Project No. 85610; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2019, all proposals were received and opened before the City
Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, EPS, Inc. dba Express Plumbing submitted the lowest responsible bid for the
job in the amount of $228,050.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED,
1. The Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and
2. The bid of EPS, Inc. dba Express Plumbing for said project in the amount of $228,050,
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 3rd day of
September, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________
City Clerk
Date Printed: 8/27/2019 Page 1 of 1 FREYER & LAURETA, INC.
City of Burlingame
Easton Drive Drainage Improvements
Bid Summary
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
3 Sheeting, Shoring, and Bracing 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
4 Construction Staking and Survey 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
5 Site Investigation and Potholing 1 LS $ 3,000 $ 3,000
6 Stormwater Pollution Prevention 1 LS $ 6,000 $ 6,000
7 Dewatering Operations 1 LS $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Easton Avenue Storm Drain Improvements
8 Pothole 3 EA $ 3,000 $ 9,000
9 G0 Inlet 2 EA $ 7,800 $ 15,600
10 12" PVC Storm Drain PVC C900 by Open Trench 76 LF $ 250 $ 19,000
11 Pavement Restoration 380 SF $ 100 $ 38,000
12 Curb/Gutter Replacement 47 LF $ 350 $ 16,450
Base Bid Items
13 A HDPE DR 17 by Directional Drill 180 LF $ 500 $ 90,000
14 A Landscape Restoration 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Total without Contingency
Total Bid 228,050$
Item
General
AGREEMENT - 1
AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
EASTON DRIVE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 85610
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 ______________, a [State of incorporation] [Corporation or other form of business],
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 September 03, 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:
EASTON DRIVE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 85610.
2. The Contract Documents.
The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following
documents: this Agreement; Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A;
the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions,
addenda, complete plans, profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid documents
titled “Easton Drive Drainage Improvements, City Project No. 85610” attached as Exhibit
AGREEMENT - 2
C; the State of California Standard Specifications 2010, as promulgated by the California
Department of Transportation; prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable
to this project by State law; and all bonds; which are collectively hereinafter referred to as
the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set
forth and described in the Contract Documents, which are hereby incorporated as if fully
set forth herein. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that
any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed
the same as if mentioned in all said documents.
3. Contract Price.
The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work
above agreed to be done, the sum of Two hundred and twenty eight thousand and fifty
dollars ($228,050), called the “Contract Price”. This price is determined by the lump sum
and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed
or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the
Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained.
Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents.
4. Termination
At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any
portion of the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice
in writing to Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor
will be granted an adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for
Completion, or both, directly attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a
claim therefor was provided in the Contract Documents.
The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justify termination
of the contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractor’s persistent failure to perform the
work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor’s disregard of Laws or
Regulations of any public body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor’s disregard of the
authority of the Engineer; or (4) Contractor’s violation in any substantial way of any
provision of the Contract Documents. In the case of any one or more of these events, the
City, after giving Contractor and Contractor’s sureties seven calendar days written notice
of the intent to terminate Contractor’s services, may initiate termination procedures. Such
termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against Contractor then existing
or that accrue thereafter. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor will not
release Contractor from liability. At the City’s sole discretion, Contractor’s services may
AGREEMENT - 3
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. Art Morimoto
Assistant Public Works Director
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows:
Nicolas Bechwati, President
EPS, Inc. dba Express Plumbing
370 N. Amphlett Boulevard
San Mateo, CA 94401
7. Interpretation
As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes
the plural and vice versa.
AGREEMENT - 4
8. Waiver or Amendment.
No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is
effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more
waivers of any term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall
not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision.
9. Controlling Law.
This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws
of the State of California.
10. Successors and Assignees.
This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the
parties hereto but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written
consent of the other party.
11. Severability.
If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable
by any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement
shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect.
12. Indemnification.
Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers,
employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims,
suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the
actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its
employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of
the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood
that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as
set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for
any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited
to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements
required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this
indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause
shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be
AGREEMENT - 5
applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting
of five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be
deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties
hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF BURLINGAME,
a Municipal Corporation
By
Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager
Approved as to form:
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
"CONTRACTOR"
By
Print Name:
Company Name:
Project Location Map
EASTON DRIVE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 85610
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8g
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Memorializing the City Council’s August 19, 2019
Action Regarding an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Action of an
Application for a Design Review Amendment to a Previously Approved Project
at 25 Arundel Road
RECOMMENDATION
The attached resolution memorializes the direction provided by City Council at the August 19, 2019
hearing.
BACKGROUND
On August 19, 2019, the City Council conducted a public hearing to review and consider an appeal
of the Planning Commission’s denial of portions of a request for a Design Review Amendment for
changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing split level, single
family dwelling at 25 Arundel Road.
DISCUSSION
Following conclusion of the hearing, the City Council discussed the proposed use of fiber cement lap
siding in lieu of the originally approved wood lap siding. Councilmembers noted that fiber cement lap
siding is an environmentally-friendly product and is fire resistant. In addition, it is a product that is
commonly used, along with corner boards, both in the immediate neighborhood and throughout the
city. The City Council found that the proposed change to fiber cement lap siding with corner boards
would be consistent with the architectural style of the existing house.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the City Council made a motion to direct staff to prepare a
resolution memorializing this decision. The decision amends the Planning Commission’s May 28,
2019 action on the Design Review Amendment application to allow the use of fiber cement lap siding
and corner boards on the project at 25 Arundel Road.
Exhibits:
Resolution
August 19 Staff Report without Exhibits
RESOLUTION NO. ________
1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME GRANTING THE
APPEAL OF CHANNING AND CARRIE CHEN AND AMENDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
MAY 28, 2019 DECISION ON A DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SPLIT
LEVEL, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 25 ARUNDEL ROAD
RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT:
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2017, Channing and Carrie Chen (property owners), filed an
application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing split-level, single-
family dwelling with attached garage at 25 Arundel Road; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the request at a public hearing held on May
8, 2017, and approved the project at a public hearing held on May 22, 2017, with a one-year
extension granted on May 29, 2018; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, building permit number B18-0368 was issued to the
property owners for construction of a first and second story addition to an existing split-level, single-
family dwelling with attached garage at 25 Arundel; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2019, Channing and Carrie Chen, filed an application for a Design
Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition at 25
Arundel Road; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Design Review Amendment request at
a public hearing on May 28, 2019, and voted 4-2-1 (Commissioner Kelly and Loftis absent,
Commissioner Sargent recused) to approve the removal of the belly band and the shutters, but not
approve the removal of wood paneling below the bay window at the front elevation; the removal of
wood brackets below the bay window on the east elevation; the change of exterior material from
wood siding to fiber cement siding; or the change of garage door material from wood to steel; and
WHEREAS, the property owners filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s May 28,
2019 denial of their request for the change the exterior to use Hardieplank and corner boards; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing to review and consider the
application at its regular meeting of August 19, 2019 and, following conclusion of the public hearing,
moved to grant the appeal filed by the property owners and amended the Planning Commission’s
May 28, 2019 Design Review Amendment decision to allow the use of fiber cement siding and corner
boards; and
WHEREAS, at the August 19, 2019 public hearing the City Council directed staff to prepare a
resolution memorializing the determination to the allow the use of fiber cement siding and corner
boards.
RESOLUTION NO. ________
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT:
Section 1. The City Council hereby amends the Planning Commission’s May 28, 2019
decision on an application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first
and second story addition to an existing split level, single-family residence at 25 Arundel Road to
allow the changes to include the use of fiber cement siding and corner boards, based upon the
following findings:
a) That the architectural style, mass, and bulk of the structure is being retained and features such
as painted wood fascia, wood trellis above the wooden garage door, aluminum clad wood
windows, composition shingle roofing, with fiber cement exterior siding and corner boards is
compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood and the project may be found to be
compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria.
b) That the proposed single-car garage is being restored (from a previously unpermitted garage
conversion) and will have a wooden garage door with a trellis above, and complies with the off-
street parking requirement for the project and exceeds the required front setback at over 50’
from the front property line where 25’-0” is required by code.
c) That the use of fiber cement siding is an environmental friendly product and is resistant to fire;
d) That fiber cement lap siding with corner boards is consistent with the design of the house and
is commonly used on homes in the vicinity of the subject property and throughout Burlingame;
and
e) That the application is retaining and restoring an existing house, and that the property owners
requested permission to change the exterior material from wood siding to fiber cement siding
prior to installing the materials.
Section 2. The City Council hereby grants the appeal filed by the property owners and amends the
Planning Commission’s May 28, 2019 Design Review Amendment decision to allow the changes to
include the use of fiber cement siding and corner boards, for the project at 25 Arundel Road, subject
to the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped May 11, 2017, sheets A0.0 through L1.1, with revised elevations date stamped May
2, 2019;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof
height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Plann ing
Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning
staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s April 27, 2017 and February 13, 2017 memos, the
RESOLUTION NO. ________
3
Engineering Division’s May 5, 2017 and February 17, 2017 memos, the Fire Division’s
February 14, 2017 memo, the Parks Division’s February 21, 2017 memo, and the Stormwater
Division’s February 22, 2017 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes, or dumpsters for the construction project shall be
placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development
Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the
site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required
to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval
adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of
all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions
of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the
approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that the se
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building
permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional,
that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for
the property;
12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification
that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing,
such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural
certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the
Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
RESOLUTION NO. ________
4
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
______________________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution
was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of September, 2019 by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9a
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: August 19, 2019
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Subject: City Council Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s
Denial of an Application for a Design Review Amendment for Changes to a
Previously Approved First and Second Story Addition to an Existing Split
Level, Single Family Dwelling at 25 Arundel Road
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should conduct a public hearing, consider all oral and written testimony received
during the hearing and, following closure of the hearing and deliberations, take one of the following
actions:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the application;
Grant the appeal and approve the application; or
Remand the application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
In the event the City Council chooses to either uphold the Planning Commission’s denial, or approve
the application, staff will prepare the resolution memorializing the action for adoption on the next
regular City Council agenda.
BACKGROUND
Project Description: The subject property is a split-level house that contains 2,233 SF (0.33 FAR)
of floor area. An in-ground swimming pool and two storage sheds are located at the rear of the
property. There is also a deck off of the main living level at the rear of the hous e. The pool and the
118 SF storage shed in the left rear corner will remain, while the second floor deck and 156 SF shed
located at the right, rear side of the house are proposed to be demolished as part of this project.
The approved project includes removing a large portion of both the lower and main living levels
(including the rear deck) and expanding both levels at the rear of the house, increasing the total floor
area to 2,748 SF where 3,260 SF (0.48 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There is no increase in the
overall height of the building.
The house will remain as a four bedroom residence. The lower floor area appears to have been a
garage area that was converted to living space at some point, so currently there is no covered on-
site parking. The approved project includes converting space back to a covered, code-complying
parking space to meet current requirements. The covered space is 12’-7” x 20’, and an uncovered
9’ x 20’ space is provided in the driveway, meeting the parking requirement for this four bedroom
house. All other zoning code requirements have been met.
Appeal – 25 Arundel Road August 19, 2019
2
The Planning Commission approved the application for Design Review for a first and second story
addition to an existing split level single family dwelling at 25 Arundel Road, zoned R -1, on May 22,
2017. The Planning Commission granted a one year permit extension for this project on May 29,
2018.
Request for Design Review Amendment: A building permit for this project was issued on October
30, 2018, and the project is currently under construction. During construction, the property owners
filed an application for a Design Review Amendment on May 2, 2019 for the following changes to
the approved plans:
Removal of the bellyband;
Removal of shutters (only originally proposed on one window on the rear elevation);
Removal of wood paneling below the bay window at the front elevation;
Removal of wood brackets below the bay window on the east elevation;
Change of exterior material from wood siding to HardiePlank (a brand of fiber cement lap siding);
and
Change of garage door material from wood to steel (retaining a similar style/design).
In the request, the applicants noted that there were several unanticipated structural and safety issues
that were discovered as construction proceeded, and these required a reprioritization of the project
budget. They intend to retain the overall character and unique look of their approved plans for their
home, but requested changes to the approved design.
Planning Commission Action – Request for Design Review Amendment: At its meeting of May
28, 2019, the Commission approved the removal of the bellyband and the shutters, but denied the
remaining requests. Commissioners’ concerns related to the use of fiber cement siding with corner
boards (caps). The original approval included wood siding with mitered corners, which
Commissioners felt was more consistent with the City’s Neighborhood Design Guidelines, and with
this type of house (see attached minutes of the meeting).
Appeal of Planning Commission’s Action: Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s action, the
property owners, Channing and Carrie Chen, submitted a timely appeal of the Commission’s action.
They followed up their appeal with a letter that explains their reasons for filing the appeal; the letter
is attached to this report for the City Council’s review and consideration. The property owners are
specifically requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and allow
the exterior finish to be fiber cement lap siding with corner caps. Please refer to the attached appeal
request and background materials.
Exhibits:
Appeal Letter
Letter from Applicant/Appellants Explaining Reasons for Appeal
May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report
May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report Attachments
Cut Sheets
Project Plans – Proposed Changes
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8h
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an
Amendment to a Professional Services Agreement with Circlepoint to
Perform Environmental Review Services Related to the Proposed
Development of a New 150-Unit Apartment Building at 1095 Rollins Road
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute
a $14,781 Amendment to a Professional Services Agreement with Circlepoint for environmental
review services related to the development of a new six-story, 150-unit residential apartment
building proposed at 1095 Rollins Road, Burlingame.
BACKGROUND
The City of Burlingame received an application from The Hanover Company on September 14,
2018 for Environmental Review, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Design Review, Conditional
Use Permit, Density Bonus, and Vesting Tentative and Final Map for a new six-story, 150-unit
residential apartment building at 1095 Rollins Road.
The project is subject to environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
DISCUSSION
The Community Development Department circulated a Request for Proposals (RFP) to three
environmental consultants qualified to provide environmental review services for development
projects. After reviewing the proposals, staff selected Circlepoint to perform the environmental
review required for the proposed apartment development. Final selection of the CEQA consultant
was based on the consultant’s previous experience preparing CEQA documents in Burlingame in
a timely and efficient manner. In addition, Circlepoint provided the lowest bid at $93,135. This
original contract amount was under $100,000 and therefore did not require City Council approval
to proceed; the contract was executed on February 28, 2019.
The Planning Commission reviewed the project for environmental scoping on January 28, 2019,
and an environmental review kick-off meeting was held with the applicant, City staff, and Circlepoint
on March 6, 2019. The environmental document preparation is currently underway.
Professional Services Agreement with Circlepoint September 3, 2019
2
Following these meetings and as the project has been analyzed, it was determined that additional
technical studies are required, and that additional project management was needed. A budget
augment was requested in the amount of $14,781 to cover the additional studies and project
management. This augmentation brought the environmental review budget to a total of $107,916,
exceeding the $100,000 City Council threshold for review of contracts. Therefore, staff is requesting
City Council approval to authorize the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the Professional
Services Agreement with Circlepoint for $14,781, bringing the overall contract amount to $107,916.
Environmental review is a duty imposed on the lead agency under state law, but such review is
funded by the development applicant. Therefore, although the contract is with the City of
Burlingame, the applicant will pay $107,916 to the City to cover the costs of the environmental
review. To date, the applicant has paid $93,135, which is held in an account and paid to Circlepoint
on a monthly basis as services are rendered.
Attached is an Amendment to the Agreement for Professional Services with Cirlepoint to perform
the environmental review services for the proposed project, in an amount not to exceed $14,781
for additional environmental review services detailed in the August 14, 2019 budget amendment
requested by Circlepoint. Because the amendment brings the total cost of the agreement to
$107,916, City Council approval is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the project's environmental review is provided by the project applicant. Therefore, there
will be no fiscal impact to the City's budget.
Exhibits:
Proposed Resolution
Circlepoint Contract Amendment No 1, for 1095 Rollins Road CEQA - dated August 14, 2019
Original Executed Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CIRCLE POINT
FOR ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO
THE PROPOSED 6-STORY, 150-UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
AT 1095 ROLLINS ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame (“City”) circulated a Request for Proposals (RFP) to
three environmental consultants qualified to provide environmental review services for development
projects. After reviewing the proposals the City selected Circlepoint (“Consultant”) to perform the
environmental review required for the proposed 6-story, 150-unit residential apartment development at
1095 Rollins Road and the City entered into a contract with Circlepoint for $93,135, dated February 28,
2019; because the original contract amount was under $100,000 it was able to be executed by the City
Manager; and
WHEREAS, the it has been determined that additional work is required to complete the
environmental review for the proposed 6-story, 150-unit residential apartment development at 1095
Rollins Road and the Consultant has requested $14,781 to perform additional services beyond the scope
of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant has prepared a request for additional fees to cover the cost of
the requested services as outlined in the attached Contract Amendment Request No. 1, dated August
14, 2019, for the 6-story, 150-unit residential apartment development at 1095 Rollins Road, for an
increase of $14,781 for a total budget of $107,916;
WHEREAS, because the amendment to the agreement will authorize work in excess of
$100,000, with the combined total budget of $107,916, City Council approval is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into Amendment No. 1 to Professional
Services Agreement with Circlepoint for environmental review services related to the proposed 6-
story, 150-unit residential apartment development at 1095 Rollins Road consistent with the Scope
of Work attached to this resolution, for an additional cost of $14,782, for a maximum total cost of
$107,916.00, as stated in the Contract Amendment No. 1, dated August 14, 2019.
2. The City Clerk is instructed to attest to the signature of the City Manager upon execution of the
Professional Services Agreement.
1
Resolution No.
_______________________________________
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 3 rd
day of September, 2019, and as adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________________
City Clerk
2
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND CIRCLEPOINT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE
PROPOSED 6-STORY, 150-UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT AT 1095 ROLLINS ROAD
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1, by and between Circlepoint ("Consultant"), engaged in providing
environmental review services related to the proposed 6-story, 150-unit residential apartment
development at 1095 Rollins Road, and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of
California ("City"), amends the Agreement between the parties dated February 28, 2019,
hereinafter called the “Agreement”.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Request for Proposals (RFP) to three environmental
consultants qualified to provide environmental review services for development projects. After
reviewing the proposals the City selected Circlepoint to perform the environmental review required
for the proposed 6-story, 150-unit residential apartment development at 1095 Rollins Road and the
City entered into a contract with Circlepoint for $93,135, dated February 28, 2019; because the
original contract amount was under $100,000 it did not require City Council approval; and
WHEREAS, the it has been determined that additional work is required to complete the
environmental review for the proposed 6-story, 150-unit residential apartment development at 1095
Rollins Road and the Consultant has requested $14,781 to perform additional services beyond the
scope of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant has prepared a request for additional fees to cover the cost of
the requested services as outlined in the attached Contract Amendment Request No. 1, dated
August 14, 2019, for the 6-story, 150-unit residential apartment development at 1095 Rollins Road,
for an increase of $14,781 for a total budget of $107,916;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Consultant shall provide the additional services requested by the City as
outlined in the attached Contract Amendment Request No 1 to the Agreement for
Environmental Review Services dated August 14, 2019.
2. The additional cost shall not exceed $14,781.00, to be invoiced as the work occurs,
for a total compensation not to exceed $107,916.00.
3. Except as expressly amended in this Amendment No. 1, all other terms and
conditions contained in the Originally Agreement, executed February 28, 2019, shall
remain in full force and effect.
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for Professional Services between Circlepoint and the City of
Burlingame
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement.
CITY OF BURLINGAME CONSULTANT
501 Primrose Road Circlepoint
Burlingame, CA 94010 200 Webster Street, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94607
By: By:
Lisa K. Goldman Audrey Zagazeta
City Manager Vice President & Director of
Environmental Services
Date: Date:
Attest: Federal Employer ID Number:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Kathleen Kane
City Attorney
2
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8i
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an
Agreement with the San Mateo Union High School District for the
Burlingame Aquatic Center
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an
agreement with the San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD, the District) for the
Burlingame Aquatic Center.
BACKGROUND
The Burlingame Aquatic Center on the Burlingame High School campus includes a 50-meter by 25
yard competition pool, a smaller, warm pool for lessons, and a pool house that includes locker
rooms, offices, and pool equipment. The Center was built in the late 1990s using funds from an
anonymous donor ($1,210,000), the City ($1,166,695), and the District ($300,000).
Last summer, the District undertook a pool renovation project that included removal and
replacement of the deck, removal and replacement of the pool finish, and the replacement of the
interior lights with LED fixtures. The entire project, which was to begin June 1 and be completed
by September 21, had a projected budget of $1,902,659, with the City’s share $951,330, or 50% of
the total. The actual demolition began July 2.
Various problems related to corrosion of the rebar and improper concrete coverage, among other
challenges, arose throughout July, August, and September, and work on the pool ceased. In
October, District staff recommended to their Board that the District replace the pool rather than
repair it given the many problems uncovered. At their October 25 meeting, the District Board
approved proceeding with a replacement of the pool, rather than continuing with the repair of the
pool.
DISCUSSION
The City Council has held a number of discussions about the pool since the problems were
discovered, including study sessions on November 19, 2018, January 7, 2019, and March 18, 2019,
and a Council meeting on October 15, 2018. The discussions primarily focused on how much the
City would contribute to the reconstruction of the pool.
Approval of an Agreement for the Pool Construction Project September 3, 2019
2
City staff and District staff, with the assistance of a Council subcommittee (Mayor Colson and
Councilmember Brownrigg) and District Board subcommittee (Board President Land and Clerk of
the Board Griffin) developed a Term Sheet that lays out the City’s financial contribution to the pool
construction project and other items. The District Board approved the Term Sheet at their meeting
on May 15, and the City Council approved the Term Sheet on May 20, 2019.
Since that time, City staff and District staff have worked together to craft the attached Second
Amended and Restated Agreement between the City of Burlingame and the San Mateo Union High
School District for the Use, Operation and Maintenance of the Burlingame High School Aquatic
Center. The major terms of the Agreement are:
The City’s contribution toward the construction project will be $2.7 million; this amount includes
the funds the City has already paid toward the project. The City’s contribution is payable in two
installments: $1,269,203 (less the $605,800 the City has already paid) due upon receipt of an
invoice, likely this fiscal year, and $1,430,797 payable upon the City’s completion of the
Community Center.
The agreement will be extended from 2026 to 2040, with the provision that on or after January
1, 2035, but no later than January 1, 2039, either Party may give the other Party notice that it
does not intend to negotiate an extension of the Term.
The City’s share of maintenance and operations expenses will be 50% for the first year after
the pool reopens (anticipated in December 2019 or shortly thereafter). After this one-year
period, the City’s share will be based on a formula using the hours each Party uses the pool,
the hours of shared use, and the hours of unused time. The formula is included in Exhibit C to
the agreement.
The City’s share of capital expenses will be 50%. However, the City’s share of capital
expenditures does not includes the unamortized portion of Capital Expenditures based on a 10-
year amortization schedule. As an example, if the cost of a Capital Expenditures project is
$100,000, and the remaining term of the agreement is two years at the time payment of the
City’s share of capital expenditures is due, then the City’s share will be $10,000, i.e., 20% of
$50,000.
The District at its sole cost and expense will initiate an audit of the Burlingame Aquatic Center
Facility no later than the first quarter of 2020. The City shall have the opportunity to review and
approve the selection of the auditor. Once the audit is completed, the City and the District will
meet and negotiate in good faith to determine which projects, if any, should be included on the
list of Approved Capital Expenditures based on the audit.
The District will close the pool at various times for major maintenance and will make alternate
District pools available depending on the length of the closure.
The District and the City will share the pool as before.
The City, at its sole cost and expense, may make physical changes to the Pool House, such as
improving the locker rooms, subject to the prior written consent of the District.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City’s total contribution to the pool project is $2.7 million, with $605,800 previously paid, and
$663,403 due this fiscal year. Funds for this purpose are included in the City’s Capital Improvement
Approval of an Agreement for the Pool Construction Project September 3, 2019
3
Budget for fiscal year 2019-20. The remaining $1,430,797 will be need to be appropriated in the
fiscal year that the payment becomes due. The City would also like to explore improving the locker
rooms; additional funds in a yet-to-be-determined amount will be required should the City proceed
with such improvements.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT
WITH THE SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE BURLINGAME
AQUATIC CENTER
WHEREAS, the Burlingame Aquatic Center on the Burlingame High School campus
includes a 50-meter by 25 yard competition pool, a smaller, warm pool for lessons, and a pool
house that includes locker rooms, offices, and pool equipment; and
WHEREAS, in the summer of 2018, the District undertook a pool renovation project that
included removal and replacement of the deck, removal and replacement of the pool finish, and
the replacement of the interior lights with LED fixtures; and
WHEREAS, various problems related to corrosion of the rebar and improper concrete
coverage, among other challenges, arose throughout July, August, and September 2018; work
on the pool ceased; and District staff recommended to their Board that the District replace the
pool rather than repair it given the many problems uncovered; and
WHEREAS, District staff, City staff, and Council and District subcommittee members
(Mayor Colson, Councilmember Brownrigg, Board President Land, and Board Clerk Griffin) me t
to negotiate a term sheet that was approved by both elected bodies in May and that laid out the
City’s financial contribution to the pool construction project and other items; and
WHEREAS, City staff and District staff have worked since then to craft the Second
Amended and Restated Agreement between the City of Burlingame and the San Mateo Union
High School District for the Use, Operation and Maintenance of the Burlingame High School
Aquatic Center; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement includes such terms as: the City’s $2.7 million contribution
toward the construction project; the extension of the existing Agreement from 2026 to 2040; the
City’s share of maintenance and operations expenses (50% for the first year, and then set by
formula thereafter); the City’s share of capital expenditures (50%); the sharing of pool hours; the
District’s commitment to undertake a facility audit in early 2020; and the City’s ability to make
physical changes to the Pool House, subject to the prior written consent of the District; and
WHEREAS, the District Board of Trustees approved the Agreement on August 22, 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
The City Manager is authorized to execute the Second Amended and Restated Agreement with
the San Mateo Union High School District for the Burlingame Aquatic Center.
____________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of
September, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Sheaerer, City Clerk
SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND
SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE USE, OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL AQUATIC CENTER
This SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME AND SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE USE,
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL AQUATIC
CENTER (this “Agreement”) is dated August 22, 2019 and is by and between the City of Burlingame
(the “City”), a municipal corporation, and the San Mateo Union High School District (the “District”),
a public school district, each a “Party,” together the “Parties.”
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Chapter 10 of Part 7 of the California Education Code –The Community
Recreation Act (“Act”), codified in Sections 10900 et seq. of the California Education Code, authorizes
public authorities (e.g., cities and school districts) to organize, promote and conduct programs of
community recreation, establish systems of playgrounds and recreation and acquire, construct,
improve, maintain and operate recreation centers within or without the territorial limits of such public
authorities;
WHEREAS, Section 10905 of the California Education Code authorizes public authorities to
enter into agreements with each other for the use, operation and maintenance of community recreation
Centers;
WHEREAS, Section 10910 of the California Education Code provides that the governing body
of any school district may use or grant the use of any grounds of the school district to any other public
authority for the organizing, promoting and conducting community recreation under the direct control
of the public authority whenever such use will not interfere with the use of those facilities for any other
purpose of the public school system;
WHEREAS, on November 19, 1997 the Parties entered into an agreement (“Original
Agreement”) to jointly fund the initial construction and ongoing use, repair, improvements, operations
and maintenance of the Center (as defined below);
WHEREAS, in 1999, the Parties entered into a First Amendment to the Original Agreement
(the “First Amendment’) to amend various provisions in the Original Agreement to reflect the
expansion of the Center’s swimming pool from 25 yards to 50 meters through financing provided
through a combination of private charitable and City funding for the purpose of allowing the City to
sponsor and provide greater community recreation at the Center;
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Original Agreement, as amended by the First
Amendment, (together the “1999 Agreement”) the City sponsors and provides community recreation
at the Center through the City Parks & Recreation Department (“Parks & Rec.”);
WHEREAS, beginning on or about September 12, 2011, the City, through Parks & Rec., has
transitioned the programming, coordination and staffing of the City’s community recreation programs
at the Center to the Burlingame Aquatic Club, Inc., (“Club”) a California non-profit, public benefit
corporation;
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement to the 1999
Agreement dated as of June 1, 2016 (the “First Amended and Restated Agreement”) in order to provide
for, among other things, the collaborative and cooperative use of the Center for community recreation
to the fullest extent allowed under the Act and to schedule authorized Capital Expenditures for the
Center as defined in the First Amended and Restated Agreement;
WHEREAS, further to the First Amended and Restated Agreement, the District and the City
agreed to re-plaster and replace the Center pool deck (the “Replacement Work”), and in June 2018 the
District entered into a contract with Waterworks Industries, Inc. (“Waterworks”) to perform the
Replacement Work;
WHEREAS, during the course of the Replacement Work, significant previously unknown
structural defects in the Center pool shell were discovered and the District determined it was in the
best interest of the District to terminate the construction contract with Waterworks for the Replacement
Work and issue a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) for the following work at the Center: demolition and
replacement of the existing pool shells for the competition and warm up poo ls, demolition and
installation of the pool deck and associated underground utilities, demolition and construction of the
equipment room and renovations to the mechanical room (collectively the “Shell Replacement Work”);
WHEREAS, as of the date the District terminated the Waterworks contract for the Replacement
Work, the City had paid $466,696.31 toward the cost of the Replacement Work;
WHEREAS, further to the RFP, the District awarded the Shell Replacement Work to
Waterworks on February 21, 2019 and it is anticipated the Shell Replacement Work will be completed
in late October 2019 or early November 2019;
WHEREAS, the Shell Replacement Work, together with all design, testing, inspection and all
other “soft costs,” (the “Shell Replacement Project”) has a budget of $5,450,000 and the City has paid
$139,103.68 toward the Shell Replacement Project;
WHEREAS, the First Amended and Restated Agreement is scheduled to expire on January 1,
2026 and the Parties desire to amend and restate the First Amended and Restated Agreement pursuant
to the terms and conditions in this Agreement in order to provide for, among other things, an extension
of the Term, modification of the City Share, and the City’s contribution toward the cost of the Shell
Replacement Project; and
WHEREAS, the foregoing recitals constitute a substantive part of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Definitions. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Agreement shall have
the meanings set forth below:
1.a. “Act” shall mean the Community Recreation Act, codified in Education Code
Sections 10900, et seq.
1.b. “Capital Asset” shall mean any physical portion of the Center, or any major
Center equipment, intended for an extended useful life of not less than one year , and also
includes, but is not limited to, the following described items located at the Center:
1) Center fixtures (plumbing fixtures, permanently affixed furniture (if any), all
lighting and wiring, office equipment, HVAC, water heater, lockers, pool covers and reels,
lifeguard stands, pool lane dividers, drinking fountain, etc.);
2) Center heating equipment (pool heaters, piping, electronics and related
systems, etc.);
3) Center pool pumps (pumps, piping, generator, valves, related electronics, etc.);
4) Center filtration system;
5) Center sanitization system;
6) Center chlorine and pH control and pumps;
7) Center pool tanks (tanks, plaster, tile, gunite, reinforcing steel, piping, drains,
ladders, railings, fixtures, etc.); and
8) Center pool deck (concrete, reinforcing steel, fixtures, drains, electrical
conduit, pool lights, etc.).
1.c. “Capital Expenditures” shall mean any mutually agreed costs or expenditures
for the purchase, repair, improvement or restoration of a Capital Asset that extends the life
cycle of a Capital Asset beyond one year.
1.d. The “City Share of Capital Expenditures” shall mean 50% of the total costs of
the Capital Expenditure as determined by District in consultation with the City and as a result
of public bidding and paid invoices for design, permitting and inspection related services.
1.e. The “City Share”, as described in Exhibit C, shall mean the portion of the
Maintenance and Operation Expense payable by the City to the District.
1.f. “Center” shall mean the Burlingame High School Aquatic Center comprised of
the Burlingame High School competition swimming pool 50-meters by 50-yards, a second
warm-up swimming pool 50-feet by 20-feet, swim pool tank, pool deck, swim pool water and
the mechanical room located in the Pool House. The Center shall not include the Pool House,
except for the mechanical room.
1.g. “Club” shall mean the Burlingame Aquatic Club, Inc., as defined in the Recitals
to this Agreement, or its successor as designated by the City in compliance with the Act and
all other applicable laws and regulations.
1.h. “Community Recreation” and “Public Recreation” shall mean recreation as
may be engaged in under the direct control of a public authority as defined in Section 10901(d)
of the Act.
1.i. “Competition Pool” shall mean the competition pool that is a component of the
Center.
1.j. “Effective Date” shall mean the last day each of the following conditions has
occurred: (i) this Agreement is duly authorized by each of the government bodies of the Parties
and (ii) this Agreement is signed by a duly authorized representative of each Party.
1.k. “Expiration Date” shall mean January 1, 2040, unless extended by Parties as
provided herein.
1.l. “Maintenance and Operation Expense” shall mean frequent and routine costs
and expenses for the purchase of goods and/or services customarily required for the on -going
maintenance and operation of the Center or for the maintenance and operation of a Capital
Asset during its expected life cycle as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. Maintenance and Operation Expense shall also include unanticipated
repairs that are ordinary, customary and routinely required in less than a 12 month period.
1.m. “Pool House” shall mean the area of the Center containing the mechanical
room, break room, City locker rooms, City restrooms, City office, and Center lobby/entrance.
1.n. “Public Authority” or “Public Authorities” shall mean any city of any class,
city and county, county of an y class, public corporation or District having power to provide
recreation, or school district in the State of California as defined in Section 10901(a) of the
Act.
1.o. “Warm-Up Pool” shall mean the warm-up pool that is a component of the
Center.
2. Term
The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and end on the Expiration Date
(the “Term”). Upon expiration of the Term on the Expiration Date, the City shall have no further rights
or interests in the Center. The Term may be extended only by a written amendment to this Agreement
signed by the duly authorized representatives of the Parties after official action by the governing bodies
of the City and the District. On or after January 1, 2035, but no later than January 1, 2039, either Party
may give the other Party notice that it does not intend to negotiate an extension of the Term. If the
District gives such notice (the “District Non-Extension Notice”), the District shall reimburse the City
for the City’s unamortized contribution to the Shell Replacement Project as set forth in Section 4.f.,
below.
3. Responsibility for the Center.
3.a. Maintenance and Operations of the Center.
3.a.1. The District shall be responsible for maintaining and operating the
Center, including the removal of garbage, refuse, rubbish, litter and other solid waste pursuant
to its normal maintenance and operating procedures as provided in Exhibit A. Except as
expressly provided below, the District shall maintain and operate the Center in accordance with
current State, County, and District laws and standards for operation and maintenance of public
swimming facilities. District shall maintain detailed records of all Maintenance and Operation
Expense.
3.a.2. In performing its maintenance and operation obligations, District will
use its best efforts to minimize interference with the City’s scheduled use of the Center.
3.b. Pool House. The City shall be responsible for the operation and supervision of
the Pool House, excepting the mechanical room. The City, at its sole cost and expense, shall
provide custodial services for the Pool House as described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, and the District shall be responsible for all other
maintenance of the Pool House. The City’s share of the District’s maintenance costs for the
Pool House shall be 50%.
4. Reimbursement for Maintenance and Operation Expenses; Emergencies; Capital
Expenditures; Shell Replacement Project Costs.
4.a. City Share. The City Share of Maintenance and Operation Expense shall be
50% beginning the week after the date the Notice of Completion is filed and ending twelve
(12) months thereafter (the “One-Year Period”). After this One-Year Period, the City Share of
Maintenance and Operation Expense for the remainder of the Term of this Agreement shall be
equitably adjusted based on a formula using the hours each Party uses the Competition Pool,
the hours of shared uses, and the hours of unused time, as set forth in Exhibit C, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
4.b. Maintenance and Operation Expense. The City shall reimburse the District for
the costs incurred and paid by the District for the Maintenance and Operation Expense based
on the City Share. The City shall make reimbursement to the District when presented with an
itemized invoice from the District. The District shall present such an invoice no less than once
every quarter, and City shall make payment as promptly as feasible, but in no event later than
sixty (60) days from the date of presentation.
4.c. Emergencies. In the event of an emergency or an imminent safety hazard,
including, without limitation, earthquakes, fires, flooding, or other similar events, the D istrict
may perform non-scheduled repair or maintenance work at the Center without prior notification
to the City. The District shall notify the City of such emergency work within a reasonable
time. Verified expenses paid for such work shall be paid or reimbursed by City under Section
4.b., above. Work undertaken as a result of an emergency under this section that would
otherwise be classified as a Capital Expenditure shall be reimbursed by the City at the 50%
rate for Capital Expenditures as provided in Section 4.e., below.
4.d. Communication Regarding Maintenance and Capital Expenditures. With the
exception of emergency safety concerns, the District and the City shall meet annually in
February of each year to discuss maintenance and operation expenses and projected Capital
Expenditures projects anticipated for the year (the “Annual Budget Discussion”).
4.e. Approved Capital Expenditures; City Share of Capital Expenditures;
Emergency Capital Expenditures.
4.e.1. Provided the District and the City have complied with the Annual
Budget Discussion requirement in Section 4.d, the District and City agree that the District may
elect to incur Capital Expenditures by giving the City ninety (90) days prior written notice of
the commencement of the Capital Expenditures project. The City agrees to reimburse the
District for Capital Expenditures incurred and paid by the District in an amount equal to the
City Share of Capital Expenditures. The City shall pay the City Share of Capital Expenditures
as soon as feasible, but in no event later than sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of an
itemized invoice for the cost of the Capital Expenditure project from the District; provided,
however, the City Share of Capital Expenditures shall not include the unamortized portion of
Capital Expenditures based on a 10-year amortization schedule. As an example, if the cost of
the Capital Expenditures project is $100,000 and the remaining Term of this Agr eement is two
(2) years at the time payment of the City Share of Capital Expenditures is due, the City Share
of Capital Expenditures payment is $10,000, i.e., 20% of $50,000.
4.e.2. In the event the District determines in good faith to undertake a capital
expenditure project that was not discussed during the Annual Budget Discussion in order to
address emergency safety concerns, prior to undertaking such emergency capital expenditure
project, the District shall give the City as much notice as feasible and shall “m eet and confer”
to discuss the emergency capital expenditure project. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
above, the City shall not be in breach of its payment obligations under this Section 4.e for
emergency capital expenditures that are not in the City’s current fiscal year budget; provided
the City shall act with reasonable due diligence and in good faith to obtain an appropriation for
payment of the emergency capital expenditures through a mid-fiscal year budget adjustment,
or in the next fiscal year budget if a mid-year budget adjustment is unavailable.
4.e.3. The District at its sole cost and expense shall initiate an audit of the
Burlingame Aquatic Center Facility no later than the first quarter of 2020. The City shall have
the opportunity to review and approve the selection of the auditor. Once the audit is completed,
the City and the District will meet and negotiate in good faith to determine which projects, if
any, should be included on the list of Approved Capital Expenditures under Section 4.e of this
Agreement based on such audit. If the City and District are able to reach agreement on the list
of Approved Capital Expenditures, the City and District will amend this Agreement to include
a list of Approved Capital Expenditures in Exhibit D, which shall be attached to and made a
part of this Agreement.
4.f. City Contribution to Shell Replacement Project Costs. Upon completion of the
Shell Replacement Project as evidenced by the filing of the Notice of Completion, the City
shall contribute $2,700,000 toward the Shell Replacement Project (the “City Shell
Replacement Project Contribution”), payable in two installments as follows: (i) the first
installment shall be in the amount of $1,269,203 (less a credit of $605,799.99 for the City’s
prior payment toward the Replacement Work and Shell Replacement Project), which shall be
payable within sixty (60) days of receipt of an invoice from the District, and (ii) the second
installment shall be in the amount of $1,430,797 and payable within sixty (60) days of the
City’s issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Community Center, but in no event later
than June 1, 2023. The City Shell Replacement Project Contribution shall be allocated as
follows: (x) $1,000,000 toward the cost of the pool deck work, (y) $250,000 toward the cost of
the mechanical room work, and (z) $1,450,000 toward the new pool shell work. In the event
the District delivers the District Non-Extension Notice as set forth in Section 2, above, the
District shall reimburse the City for the City’s unamortized Shell Replacement Project
Contribution based on the following lifecycle periods: mechanical room 1 6 years, pool deck
27.5 years and pool shell 50 years. As an example, if the City’s payment of the pool shell work
is made on January 1, 2020, and the Expiration Date is not extended beyond January 1, 2040,
the District will reimburse City for the unamortized portion of the City’s payment of the pool
shell work in the amount of $870,000, i.e., 60% of $1,450,000 based on the pool shell work’s
remaining 30 year life cycle. The District shall pay such reimbursement to the City within
thirty (30) days of delivery of the District Non-Extension Notice.
5. Annual Maintenance Closure; City Use of District Pools.
5.a. Closure Period and Annual Discussions. The District may close the Center for
annual maintenance and necessary repairs for the periods November 15th to December 15th,
January 15th to January 31st, and during the District’s Spring Break each school year (the
“Closure Period”). The District and the City shall meet annually in September of each year to
discuss the Closure Period for the following twelve (12) month period (the “Annual Closure
Period Discussion”). During the Annual Closure Period Discussion, the District and the City
will discuss best practices to minimize the Closure Period and, if feasible, minimize the closure
of all or any portion of the Center, including the Competition Pool. The District will give the
City ninety (90) days prior written notice of the Closure Period, except in the case of emergency
repairs (the “Closure Notice”). The District shall promptly notify the City when the annual
maintenance and repairs undertaken during the Closure Period are completed. During the
Closure Period, neither Party may use the Center except as agreed during the Annual Closure
Period Discussion. The Closure Periods shall be limited to one or two per year, with the
exception of emergency repairs or as otherwise agreed upon in writing between the Parties .
5.b. Use of District Pools During Closure Period. During the Closure Period and if
feasible, District will make available a minimum of eight (8) swimming lanes and locker rooms
at Capuchino High School and Mills High School and full use of the pool facilities at San
Mateo High School (each an “Alternate Pool”) for the City’s use during the Closure Period if
the Closure Period is longer than one (1) week. The City agrees to pay to the District the actual
labor costs incurred by the District to make the Alternate Pool available to the City and 50%
of the standard facility usage fees (non-profit rate) imposed by the District for users of the
Alternate Pool. District shall state in the Closure Notice the Alternate Pool available for C ity
use during the Closure Period, whether such use includes the locker rooms and the total costs
for the City’s use of the Alternate Pool. The City shall remit payment of the costs prior to use
of the Alternate Pool. The City will not be invoiced for any expenses at the Center during the
Closure Period except for expenses associated with projects performed by the District during
the Closure Period.
6. City and District Usage of Facilities; Community Recreation. The Parties have set
forth below the initial schedule for joint use of the Center that does not interfere with the District’s
ability to meet its public school purpose. Usage allocation shall be discussed annually at the February
Annual Budget Discussion meeting between the Parties as set forth in Section 4.d., above.
6.a. District Use. The District shall have use of the Center as follows.
6.a.1. Monday to Friday, 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.:
up to 10 adjoining swimming lanes (no buffer lane)
6.a.2. Monday to Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. as needed: up to 10 adjoining
lanes (no buffer lane). Entire pool up to three times per year for special
school events, e.g., Senior Day. Full-day use will begin no earlier than
8 a.m.
6.a.3. PE Units require exclusive use of pool; times to be determined and
discussed with the City (the District to provide a minimum of ninety
(90) days prior written notice to the City if feasible)
6.a.4. Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. during water polo season: up to 10
adjoining lanes (no buffer lane)
6.a.5. Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. during swimming season: up to 10
adjoining lanes (no buffer lane)
6.a.6. Interscholastic competition scheduling as needed. Exclusive use of
pool for duration of contest is required. District shall provide notice of
competitions as soon as feasible
6.b. City Use. The City shall have use of the Center as follows:
6.b.1. Monday to Friday, 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.:
up to 10 adjoining lanes (no buffer lane)
6.b.2. Monday to Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.: all lanes unless District
requests entire use (see 6a.2 and 6a.3 above); if District requests use,
then up to 10 adjoining lanes (no buffer lane)
6.b.3. Monday to Friday, 7:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.: all lanes
6.b.4. Saturday, 5:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.: all lanes
6.b.5. Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. during swimming season and 9:00
a.m. to 1:00 p.m. during water polo season: up to 10 adjoining lanes
(no buffer lane)
6.b.6. Saturday, 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.: all lanes
6.b.7. Sunday, 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.: all lanes
6.b.8. BAC swim meets and water polo tournaments outside the three
traditional events in February, June, and October must be mutually
agreed upon by City and District
6.c. Warm-up Pool Use. The City shall have exclusive use of the Warm-Up Pool
at no additional cost or expense.
6.d. Non-Use Maintenance Periods. Neither Party shall use the Center during the
following periods:
6.d.1. Weekday maintenance twice per week, (Tuesday and Thursday, 8:00
a.m. to 11:00 a.m., or as agreed by the Parties)
6.d.2. Annual Pool Closure maintenance
6.e. Pool House Use. The City shall arrange for custodial services for the interior
of the Pool House (excluding the mechanical room) as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
The City and its authorized agent under Section 11, above shall not use or access District
internet or wireless communication systems except as related to the City’s use of the Center
under this Agreement. The City and its authorized agent may use the District’s telephone lines.
District shall notify City when such telephone lines are scheduled to be unavailable for use.
6.f. District Reserved Rights. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary above, the
District reserves the right to have first priority for use of the Center if necessary to meet its
public school purpose as set forth in the Act. If feasible, the District will give the City a
minimum of thirty (30) days prior written notice of any alteration of the District’s use schedule
set forth above. The City understands and supports the educational purpose of the Center.
However, City access to the Center is an integral and indispensable part of its incentive for
entering into this Agreement. Should District’s invocation of reserved rights under this Section
interfere with the City’s access to the Center on the terms reflected in this Agreement for more
than one week, the Parties shall meet and confer as to adjustment of payments owed under this
Agreement, and the City shall have the right to terminate its participation under this Agreement
without penalty after the meet and confer process by giving the District a minimum of fifteen
(15) days prior written notice of the effective date of the termination . In the event the City
elects to terminate this Agreement, the District shal l reimburse the City for the unamortized
Capital Expenditures and City Share of Shell Replacement Project Contribution as set forth in
this Agreement.
7. Modifications to Center and/or Intended Use; Pool House. The City shall not make
any physical changes to the Center without the prior written consent of the District. The District shall
have the right to make physical changes to the Center in the best interest of the District; provided,
however, such changes do not reduce the City’s hours of use of the Center and the District has given
the City as much notice as feasible. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary above, the City, at its
sole cost and expense, may make physical changes to the Pool House, subject to the prior written
consent of the District, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. This Section 7 is not intended
to apply to Capital Expenditures, which are governed by Section 4.d.
Supervision. The District and the City agree that at all times when the District or the City is using the
Center for its programs, adequate supervision of the swimming pools, the deck areas and building areas
will be provided by the respective responsible agency. Whenever the swimming pools are in use, the
responsible agency shall ensure that an appropriate number of persons certified in water safety are
present and responsible for the use activity. The District and the City shall provide supervision during
periods of exclusive and concurrent use. The District and the City agree to promptly establish pertinent
claims procedures under the California Claims Act (Government Code Sections 810 et seq.) governing
injuries at the Center sustained by participants of City or District programs, as applicable.
8. Insurance. The District and the City at each Party’s own cost and expense, shall carry
the following insurance: Commercial General Liability Insurance written on an “occurrence” form
covering the use and occupancy of the Center with a minimum limit of $2,000,000 per occurrence for
Bodily Injury and Property Damage and umbrella or excess liability insurance to be excess over the
Commercial General Liability written on an “occurrence” form with a minimum limit of liability of
Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00). The City shall submit to the District c ertificates of insurance
evidencing all such insurance required under this Section 9 upon request. All insurance policies
required hereunder shall be specifically endorsed to state that coverages afforded under the policies
will not be cancelled or allowed to expire for any reason until at least thirty (30) days’ prior written
notice has been mailed to the District (or ten (10) days prior written notice for non -payment of
premium) and/or the policy cancellation provisions must be provided with the certificate of insurance.
The City’s insurance policies shall be endorsed to provide as additional insured the District and its
Board members, officers, employees and agents. All insurance policies, if feasible, shall provide for
the insurer to waive all right to recover by way of subrogation in connection with any loss covered
thereby. The District and the City intend to insure against claims and loss arising from their respective
obligations under this Agreement; i.e., each Party is primarily liable for claims and loss arising from
its use of the Center and acts and omission under this this Agreement.
9. Scheduling of Center Public Use; City and District Meetings.
9.a. Scheduling. The District shall have the responsibility for maintaining the
master schedule related to District and City use of the Center under this Agreement.
9.b. Scheduling Meetings. Ninety (90) days prior to each anniversary of the
Effective Date, the District’s Capital Facilities Manager and the City Director of Parks &
Recreation shall meet to discuss the scheduling for the Center. Any modification to the Center
use provisions in Section 6, above shall be memorialized in a revised written schedule signed
by each Parties’ duly authorized representative within thirty (30) days prior to each anniversary
date.
9.c. Quarterly Compliance Meetings. The District’s Capital Facilities Manager, or
designee, and City’s Director of Parks & Recreation, or designee, shall meet no less often than
quarterly to ensure best practices are being followed with regard to the Parties’ duties and
obligations under this Agreement.
10. Limited Delegation of City Use; Prohibited City Use . The Parties acknowledge that the
City, to the fullest extent allowed by the Act, has delegated the performance of its maintenance,
administration and operation duties and obligations under this Agreement to the Club. Any other use
of the Center by the Club (or any other authorized agent of the City) shall be prohibited unless approved
by the District under the District’s facility usage and rental fee requirements then in place.
11. Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement.
11.a. City Indemnification. It is agreed that the City shall defend, hold harmless and
indemnify the District, its officers and/or employees from any and all claims for injuries or
damage to persons and/or property which arise out of the acts and omissions of the City, its
officers, employees, designees, agents, and consultants under this Agreement. The City’s
indemnity obligations under this Section 12.a shall include the acts and omissions of the Club
and its officers, employees, designees, agents and consultants arising from or related to the
subject matter of this Agreement, but shall not include claims arising out of the willful
misconduct or sole negligence of the District, its officers and/or employees . The
indemnification requirement established by this Section shall survive the expiration or
termination of this Agreement.
12.b District Indemnification. It is further agreed that District shall defend, hold
harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, authorized agents, volunteers and/or employees
from any and all claims for injuries or damage to persons and/or property which arise out of
the acts or omissions of the District, its officers, employees designees, agents and consultants
under this Agreement, but shall not include claims arising out of the willful misconduct or sole
negligence of the City, its officers, authorized agents, volunteers and/or employees. The
indemnification requirement established by this Section shall survive the expiration or
termination of this Agreement.
12. Dispute Resolution. If from time-to-time disputes relative to this Agreement arise
which are not resolved through the efforts of the District and City representatives, then either Party
may declare an impasse has been reached. Within thirty (30) days of the impasse, the Parties shall
mediate the dispute through the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) under its rules and
procedures, as amended. If the dispute is not resolved by mediation, either Party may submit the
dispute, with supporting documents, for binding arbitration through AAA under its rules and
procedures, as amended. The decision of the arbitrator is final and binding solely with regard to
disputes related to the payment of Maintenance and Operation Expense . The Parties reserve the right
to pursue legal action, with the right of appeal, as to all other disputes arising under this Agreement.
13. Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and
understanding between the District and the City with respect to the subject matter hereof and
supersedes all prior agreements relating to the subject matter hereof, including but not limited to the
Original Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, which are of no further force or effect. This
Agreement may be amended or modified only by written agreement signed by both Parties.
14. Non-Waiver. Failure on the part of either Party to enforce any provisions of this
Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of the right to compel enforcement of such provision or
provisions.
15. Not a Joint Powers Agency. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed
as intended to nor shall it be a joint powers agency of any kind.
16. Relationship of the Parties. It is understood that District pool and building maintenance
workers, supervisors, teachers, coaches, lifeguards, other staff and contractors are employees and
contractors of the District and the City does not provide liability or workers compensation insurance
or benefits for any such employees and contractors.
It is understood that City building maintenance workers, supervisors, instructors, coaches,
lifeguards, volunteers and contractors are employees or agents of the City and the District does not
provide liability or workers compensation insurance or benefits for any such employees and
contractors.
17. No Ownership Interest Intended. Nothing contained herein is intended to create in the
City any ownership interest whatsoever by the City in the Center.
18. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by
certified mail, return receipt requested, postage paid:
Notices required to be given to District shall be addressed:
Debbie Arobio
Capital Facilities Manager
San Mateo Union High School District
650 North Delaware Street
San Mateo, CA 94401-1795
with copy to
Sean Absher
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 4200
San Francisco, CA 94104-4803
Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed:
Margaret Glomstad
Director of Parks & Recreation
City of Burlingame
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
with copy to
Kathleen Kane
City Attorney
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Said persons shall be representatives of District and City for all purposes of this Agreement;
provided, however, either Party may change its designated representative for the purpose of receiving
notices and demand as herein required by written notice given in the manner provided above to the
other Party.
19. Section Headings. All section headings contained herein are for convenience of
reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement.
20. Governing Law. This Agreement is made pursuant to and shall be construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
21. Venue. The applicable law for any legal disputes arising out of this Agreement shall
be the law of the State of California, and the forum and venue for such disputes shall be the appropriate
Superior Court in and for San Mateo County.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day and
year first above written.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A Municipal Corporation
By: __________________________________
Name: Lisa K. Goldman
Its: City Manager
ATTEST:
By: __________________________________
Name: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
Its: City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _________________________________
Name: Kathleen Kane
Its: City Attorney
SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT
By: __________________________________
Name: Kevin Skelly, Ph.D.
Its: Superintendent
By: __________________________________
Name: Sean Absher
Its: District Special Counsel
ATTEST:
By: __________________________________
Name: ________________________________
Clerk Board of Trustees
EXHIBIT A
(Maintenance and Operation Expense and Schedule)
Duties performed on a regular basis as follows:
Monday-Friday
Verify that all 12 pool covers are placed on the pool nightly.
Inspect pool cover tabs (after BAC or HS put covers on) and report missing tabs.
Check pool gutters for debris/trash
Dump swimsuit water bucket (dump water down deck drain, rinse bucket with clean water).
Wipe down swimsuit spinner machine.
Disinfect outside shower floor, walls, and shower unit.
Clean/disinfect drinking fountains.
Clean/disinfect snack bar sills.
Pick up all trash/debris under bleachers.
Check and spot clean bleachers.
Clean skimmer baskets and housing unit.
Sweep up leaves & debris around entire perimeter of pool deck and handicapped ramp.
Sweep between equipment cage and shed.
Clean square deck drains grates.
Clean trash/debris underneath lost & found basket
Pool deck to be left clean, and free of trash, debris, or personal equipment.
Put pool vacuum into pool nightly, unless directed not to do so by authorized District staff.
Clean small pool tile w/cleanser & scrub pad.
Clean out cement drains.
Hose down pool deck – ONE section per shift. This task may be altered under drought-related water
restrictions.
Brush large pool tiles/walls. Clean one section/shift.
Clean exterior snack bar windows, glass doors & pool house windows.
Clean/disinfect lifeguard stands/seats
Dust off exterior of all vent covers to pool house building. Maintenance of interior vent covers is not
included as a District task.
Dust off all light covers.
Dust off all vented exterior doors.
Hose/clean out pool deck trash cans.
Clean trash from behind 4 cement electrical walls.
If you are the last person on deck, check all pool deck gates to insure they are closed/locked.
Monthly
Clean/polish stainless steel (poles, clocks, starting blocks, pool ladder handles, etc.)
Power wash metal bleachers.
Power wash outside shower wall & suit spinner wall
Knock down all cobwebs on fences, gates, deck shed and eaves on pool house.
Pull weeds growing in cement cracks.
Sweep/Clean storage cage (BAC staff to move/replace equipment on designated cleaning day).
High dust all can lights above snack bar.
Quarterly
Power wash eaves.
EXHIBIT B
(Pool House Janitorial Schedule)
Nightly (7 Days per Week)
Clean Restrooms (Sinks and Toilets)
Clean Locker Area
Clean and Disinfect Showers, Wash top to bottom
Remove and Rinse Floor Mats (per inspector)
Mop locker room floors (per inspector)
Empty all trash cans in pool house and on pool deck. Take garbage to BHS compactor.
Monthly
Deep scrub all hard surfaces
Dust Interior Vent Panels
Dust Tops of Lockers
Quarterly
Steam clean rubber mats
For Large Events
Secure dumpster for large events
EXHIBIT C
City Share Formula
The City share formula equation is based on a 351-day year since the pool is anticipated to be closed
for maintenance 14 days each year. The formula, which can be recalculated as necessary to account
for longer closure periods, takes into account the daily hours that the facility is open and in use,
including routine maintenance time, and the daily hours that the facility is closed. The formula shall
be calculated based on the prior year’s actual usage and shall reset on January 1 of each year.
1. To calculate the formula, take the number of days in the calendar year multiplied by usable time
(5:30 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.) in a day to determine the total number of available hours per calendar
year: 351 days x 16.5 hours = 5,791.5 hours per calendar year.
2. Divide the total hours each agency uses the pool per calendar year by the total usable hours
(5,791.5) to get the percentage that each agency uses the pool.
3. When the City and the District are sharing the usable hours of pool time (i.e., the times when the
agreement allocates up to 10 lanes each to the City and the District at the same time), the City and
the District shall share operating expenses 50/50.
4. When the City and the District are sharing the usable hours of pool space as described in 3 above,
the two agencies shall also share operating expenses for the unused hours on a 50/50 basis.
5. When only one agency is using the pool during operating hours, the unused hours will be allocated
according to the formula described in 2 above.
EXHIBIT D
(Approved Capital Expenditures Based on District Audit)
Reserved
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8j
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City’s Participation in United
Against Hate Week
RECOMMENDATION
Mayor Colson and staff recommend the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the
City’s participation United Against Hate Week.
BACKGROUND
United Against Hate Week, which was started by the Mayor of Berkeley in 2017, is a call for seven
days of local civic action by people in every Bay Area community to stop the “hate and the implicit
biases that are a threat to the safety and civility of our neighborhoods, towns and cities.” This year,
United Against Hate Week will be held November 17-23.
DISCUSSION
On August 23, the Mayor and City Manager heard a presentation about United Against Hate Week
from a member of the Berkeley Mayor’s staff. There is widespread support in the East Bay for this
movement, and the sponsors are now seeking to widen its reach. They have asked communities
in San Mateo County to adopt resolutions of support, post signs, and host events.
In July 2017, the City Council adopted a resolution affirming the City’s commitment to diversity and
inclusion. Because that resolution, which is attached, is in line with the goals of United Against Hate
Week, Mayor Colson and staff recommend that the City participate in this initiative.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is minimal fiscal impact from the City’s participation in United Against Hate Week.
Exhibits:
Resolution
2017 Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING
THE CITY’S PARTICIPATION IN UNITED AGAINST HATE WEEK
WHEREAS, United Against Hate Week was started by the Mayor of Berkeley in 2017 and is
a call for seven days of local civic action by people in every Bay Area community to stop the “hate
and the implicit biases that are a threat to the safety and civility of our neighborhoods, towns and
cities;” and
WHEREAS, this year, United Against Hate Week will be held November 17-23; and
WHEREAS, there is widespread support in the East Bay for United Against Hate Week, and
the sponsors are now seeking to widen its reach by asking communities in San Mateo County to
adopt resolutions of support, post signs, and host events; and
WHEREAS, in July 2017, the City Council adopted a resolution affirming the City’s
commitment to diversity and inclusion, and that resolution is in line with the goals of United Against
Hate Week.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Burlingame supports
United Against Hate Week.
____________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of
September, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.83.2017
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AFFIRMING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME'S COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY AND
INCLUSION
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame wants to assure its residents and visitors that
Burlingame is a community that celebrates diversity and inclusion; and
WHEREAS, Burlingame is a safe place for everyone, including vulnerable communities,
regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion,
socioeconomic status, immigration status, or country of origin; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame does not tolerate any prejudice, racism, bigotry,
hatred, bullying, or violence towards any groups within our community; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame rejects any attempt to intimidate, threaten, or
otherwise marginalize members of our community; and
WHEREAS, the City values all residents regardless of where they are from, whom they
love, how they worship, how they look, their abilities, or how they vote; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame encourages all of its residents and visitors to
celebrate each other's differences and learn from one another.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Burlingame
affirms its commitment to promoting and nurturing a diverse, supportive, inclusive, and
protective community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Burlingame makes the
following statements in furtherance of the intent of this resolution:
1. The City recognizes, values, and proactively works to promote diversity and inclusion
within Burlingame.
2. The City honors the rights of everyone in Burlingame, regardless of religion, race,
nationality, country of birth, immigration status, disability, gender, sexual orientation,
or gender identity.
3. The City does not tolerate discrimination, hate crimes, harassment, or assault.
4. The City rejects prejudice and bigotry in all forms, including, but not limited to,
Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, racism, nativism, misogyny, and homophobia.
5. The City promotes safety, a sense of security, and equal protection of constitutional
and human rights. (_? r
Mayor Ricardo Ortiz
I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day
of July, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BEACH. BROWNRIGG. COLSON. KEIGHRAN
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:ORTIZ
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:NONE
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8k
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Beautification Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill two vacancies on the
Beautification Commission. The pending vacancies are due to the expiring terms of Commissioners
Qiva Dinuri and Anne Hinckle. The recommended deadline is Friday, October 4, 2019. This will
allow applicants an opportunity to attend the September 5 and October 3, 2019 Beautification
Commission meetings.
BACKGROUND
The City’s current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring
reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the two-
year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8l
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill Three Vacancies on the Parks and Recreation
Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill three vacancies on the Parks and
Recreation Commission. The pending vacancies are due to the expiring terms of Commissioners
Christine Ardito, Ian Milne, and Bob Palacio. The recommended deadline is Friday, October 4,
2019. This will allow applicants an opportunity to attend the September 19, 2019 Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting.
BACKGROUND
The City’s current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring
reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the two-
year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9a
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: Planning Commissioners
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Andrea Pappajohn, Sustainability & Climate Mgmt. Fellow – (650) 558-7271
Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Subject: Adoption of Resolutions Adopting the Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan,
General Plan Amendment, and Addendum to the General Plan Environmental
Impact Report (EIR)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a Public Hearing and consider adoption of the
resolutions adopting the 2030 Climate Action Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Addendum to
the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
BACKGROUND
The City of Burlingame has long been an advocate and steward of the environment. The City
prepared its first Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2009 to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
in Burlingame. Over the last decade, the City has implemented multiple programs and efforts to
significantly reduce GHG emissions from City operations and the community and is on track to
achieve the 2020 GHG reduction goal set by the original 2009 CAP.
A GHG reduction target was first set by the State in 2006 with the passage of AB 32, the Global
Warming Solutions Act. The legislation called for the State to achieve 1990 GHG emissions levels
by 2020 and encouraged local cities to follow suit. In 2016, the State Legislature passed SB 32,
setting a mandated reduction target for GHG emissions of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and an
intermediate target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, set in Executive Order S-3-05. These
targets are in-line with the scientifically established levels needed to limit global warming below
3.6° F. (2° C.) in this century, which is the warming threshold at which scientists say there will likely
be major climate disruptions such as super droughts and rising sea levels.
In 2015, the City initiated a process focused on a community-led effort to update the City’s General
Plan. The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in June 2018 that analyzed
the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the
General Plan, including potential impacts from GHG emissions, energy use, and other effects of
global climate change (State Clearinghouse No. 20170820180). The DEIR analysis showed
mitigation measures were needed to reduce GHG emissions to levels consistent with the State’s
GHG goals. The preparation of a 2030 CAP Update was introduced in the DEIR as a mitigation
measure to reduce GHG emissions levels consistent with the State’s GHG goals. The City adopted
Adoption of the 2030 CAP Update September 3, 2019
2
the General Plan and certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019. Both the General Plan and
EIR anticipated the 2030 CAP Update as a necessary component.
Staff worked with the assistance of the General Plan consultant, MIG, to develop the 2030 CAP
Update. The 2030 CAP will replace the previous 2009 CAP.
The Draft CAP was introduced at the Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting on April
27, 2019. Since that time, staff has conducted outreach and sought feedback on the CAP. The
CAP was posted on the City’s website and announced through the eNews and social media. Copies
of the Draft CAP were made available to the public at the Main Library, Easton Branch Library, and
Planning Division Counter. The Draft CAP was also presented to the public at the Citizens
Environmental Council (CEC) meeting on May 8, with a question and answer session, and the CEC
subsequently provided comments on the Draft CAP.
An official Notice of Availability of an Addendum to the City of Burlingame General Plan
Environmental Impact Report was posted on June 19, 2019, with a comment period from June 19,
through July 3. City staff contacted and received informal comments from Bay Area Air Quality
Management District staff.
Based on the comments received on the Draft CAP and EIR Addendum, staff and MIG have
prepared a revised draft with proposed revisions shown as tracked changes (attached). All
comments have been reviewed and considered for the revised draft. MIG has also prepared a
memorandum addressing the comments received (attached).
The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft CAP, General Plan Amendment, and EIR Addendum
meeting at its August 12, 2019 meeting. The Commission recommended that the City Council
approve the CAP, General Plan Amendment, and EIR Addendum (meeting minutes attached).
DISCUSSION
Key sources of GHG emissions data are identified in the 2005 and 2015 Community-Wide
Emissions Inventory. The 2015 Inventory reflects the best available information for actual GHG
emissions levels within the city. Projections for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 are based on growth
projections from 2015 consistent with the General Plan.
While the State uses 1990 as a baseline year, the City uses 2005 as a baseline. Local governments
tend to not have reliable GHG data prior to 2005. According to the California Air Resources Board,
a reduction target of 15% below the 2005 level is considered to be comparable to a return to 1990
levels.
As a brief outline, the 2030 CAP Update:
Provides necessary background, purpose and objectives, climate change context, inventories,
forecasts and reduction targets in Chapters 1 - 3
Presents 20 GHG Reduction Measures in Chapter 4. The measures address:
Adoption of the 2030 CAP Update September 3, 2019
3
o Built Environment and Transportation (Measures 1 – 10)
o Energy (Measures 11 – 15)
o Water and Wastewater (Measures 16-17)
o Waste (Measure 18)
o Municipal (Measures 19 -20)
Summarizes the steps the City is taking to address sea level rise and other climate change
impacts in Chapter 5
Provides an Implementation and Monitoring Plan to Track Progress in Chapter 6
General Plan Amendments: The adoption of the CAP will involve amendments to the General
Plan to include two policies and two amended policies designated in the CAP. Please refer to the
MIG response to comments memorandum (attached) for a summary of the new and amended
policies proposed in the CAP.
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR): The General Plan EIR has also been
amended to reflect the adoption of the CAP. An Addendum to the EIR has been prepared, to be
considered in conjunction with the CAP. Adoption of the CAP will allow EIR Impact 10-1 (Increases
in GHG Emissions) to no longer be considered a significant and unavoidable impact, and therefore
be removed from the General Plan EIR.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibits:
Resolution (Proposed) – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Resolution (Proposed) – Adoption of the Climate Action Plan and General Plan Amendment
MIG Memorandum
MIG Response to Public Comments Received on the City of Burlingame 2030 Climate Action
Plan (CAP) Update and Addendum to the City of Burlingame 2040 General Plan Environmental
Impact Report (EIR)
Draft City of Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan Update – Revised Public Review Draft
Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – August 12, 2019
The original unedited Draft CAP may be downloaded at: www.burlingame.org/climateactionplan.
RESOLUTION NO. __________
1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR ADOPTION
OF THE ADDEDNUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
BURLINGAME CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND AMENDMENT TO THE BURLINGAME
GENERAL PLAN
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDS:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65300
et seq., the City of Burlingame prepared a new general plan for the physical development of the
City (2040 General Plan); and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in June 2018
that analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and
implementation of the 2040 General Plan, including potential impacts from GHG emissions,
energy use, and other effects of global climate change (State Clearinghouse No. 20170820180);
and
WHEREAS, the preparation of a 2030 CAP Update was introduced in the DEIR as a
mitigation measure to reduce GHG emissions levels consistent with the State’s GHG goals; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the General Plan and certified the General Plan
Final EIR (FEIR) on January 7, 2019; and
WHEREAS, a Draft 2030 CAP Update was prepared as a mitigation measure to reduce
GHG emissions levels consistent with the State’s GHG goals, and to further augment and
inform the Goals, Policies and Actions of the 2040 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the 2030 CAP Update would include amendments to the 2040
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res.
Code, §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.), the City
Council of the City of Burlingame ("Council") is the lead agency for the Project, as the public
agency with general governmental powers; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame, as lead agency, determined that an Addendum to
the General Plan EIR should be prepared as the appropriate CEQA document to address
project revisions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum to the FEIR found that the proposed 2030 CAP Update and
associated General Plan amendments would result in similar or lower magnitude environmental
impacts than identified in the certified 2040 General Plan EIR; and there are no new significant
environmental impacts or previously identified significant impacts made more severe by project
changes, new circumstances, or new information; and
2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame reviewed the findings of the
Addendum to the FEIR at a duly noticed public hearing held on September 3, 2019, at which
time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, as
follows:
A. On the basis of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) certified by the
Burlingame City Council on January 7, 2019, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum
dated June 19, 2019 and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and
addressed by the Planning Commission who recommended approval to the City Council at a
public hearing on August 12, 2019, it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the 2030
CAP Update and General Plan Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment
beyond those that were previously evaluated in the certified FEIR for the 2040 General Plan,
dated June 2018, and the Addendum to the FEIR is hereby approved.
B. The findings of the City Council articulated herein represent the independent
judgement of the City Council following its deliberations relative to the project during a duly
noticed public hearing on September 3, 2019.
C. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the
official records of the County of San Mateo.
D. This Resolution is effective upon its adoption.
____________________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of
September 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. __________
1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR ADOPTION
OF THE BURLINGAME 2030 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND AMENDMENT TO THE
BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDS:
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame prepared its first Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2009
to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Burlingame; and
WHEREAS, since the adoption of the CAP in 2009, the City has implemented multiple
programs and efforts to significantly reduce GHG emissions from City oper ations and the
community, and is on track to achieve the 2020 GHG reduction goal set by the original 2009
CAP; and
WHEREAS, in 2016, the State Legislature passed SB 32, setting a mandated reduction
target for GHG emissions of 40% below 1990 by 2030, and an intermediate target of 80% below
1990 levels by 2050, set in Executive Order S-3-05; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65300
et seq., the City of Burlingame prepared a new General Plan for the physical development of the
City (2040 General Plan); and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in June 2018
that analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and
implementation of the 2040 General Plan, including potential impacts from GHG emissions,
energy use, and other effects of global climate change (State Clearinghouse No. 20170820180);
and
WHEREAS, the preparation of a 2030 CAP Update was introduced in the DEIR as a
mitigation measure to reduce GHG emissions levels consistent with the State’s GHG goals; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the General Plan and certified the General Plan
EIR in January 2019; and
WHEREAS, a Draft 2030 CAP Update was prepared as a mitigation measure to reduce
GHG emissions levels consistent with the State’s GHG goals, and to further augment and
inform the Goals, Policies and Actions of the 2040 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the 2030 CAP Update would include amendments to the 2040
General Plan, as outlined in Exhibit “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Draft 2030 CAP Update was introduced at a Joint City Council and
Planning Commission meeting on April 27, 2019; and
2
WHEREAS, the Draft CAP was presented at the Burlingame Citizens Environmental
Council (CEC) meeting on May 8, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, after proceedings duly
and regularly held and noticed as provided by law, on August 12, 2019 reviewed and
considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said
hearing, and recommended to the City Council that it adopt said 2030 CAP Update and
associated amendments to the 2040 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission’s recommendation,
the staff report, and all other written materials and testimony presented at a duly noticed public
hearing on September 3, 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, as
follows:
A. The City Council finds as follows:
1. Key sources of GHG emissions data are identified in the 2005 and 2015
Community-Wide Emissions Inventory. The 2015 Inventory reflects the best available
information for actual GHG emissions levels within the city. Projections for 2020, 2030, 2040,
and 2050 are based on growth projections from 2015 consistent with the General Plan.
2. While the State uses 1990 as a baseline year, the City of Burlingame
uses 2005 as a baseline. Local governments tend to not have reliable GHG data prior to 2005.
According to the California Air Resources Board, a reduction target of 15% below the 2005 level
is considered to be comparable to a return to 1990 levels.
3. The 2030 CAP provides necessary background, purpose and objectives,
climate change context, inventories, forecasts and reduction targets.
4. The 2030 CAP presents twenty (20) GHG Reduction Measures to
address the Built Environment and Transportation; Energy; Water and Wastewater; W aste; and
Municipal Measures.
5. The 2030 CAP summarizes the steps the City is taking to address sea
level rise and other climate change impacts.
6. The 2030 CAP provides an Implementation and Monitoring Plan to Track
Progress.
7. The adoption of the 2030 CAP involves amendments to the General Plan
to include two new policies and two amended policies designated in the CAP, as outlined in
Exhibit “A” attached hereto.
3
8. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum to the
Environmental Impact Report to address the 2030 CAP and General Plan Amendment, and has
approved the Addendum to the EIR in compliance with all applicable requirements for the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council affirms the Planning
Commission’s recommendation and approves and adopts the 2030 Burlingame Climate Action
Plan and General Plan Amendments.
C. This Resolution is effective upon its adoption.
____________________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of
September 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
4
EXHIBIT “A”
Amendments to the 2040 General Plan to implement the 2030 Climate Action Plan
Update:
New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 – Electrification of Yard and Garden
Equipment: Support the transition of yard and garden equipment from gasoline to
electric fuel sources.
Amend General Plan Policy HP-3.12 – Construction Best Management Practices:
Require construction projects to implement the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s Best Practices for Construction to reduce pollution from
dust and exhaust as feasible; require construction projects to transition to
electrically-powered construction equipment as it becomes available; and seek
construction contractors who use alternative fuels in their equipment f leet.
New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 – Alternatively-Powered Residential Water
Heaters. Support the transition from tank-based, natural gas water heaters to
solar, or electrically-powered water heaters in residential development.
Amend General Plan Policy CC-2.2 – Increase the Public Street Tree Population:
Identify ways to increase the overall population of street trees in Burlingame to
stem the natural decline of the urban forest and create a more equitable
distribution of tree canopy.
2635 NORTH FIRST STREET, STE. 149
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
650.327.0429
WWW.MIGCOM.COM
Memo
To: Sigalle Michael, Sustainability Coordinator, and Andrea Pappajohn, Sustainability
and Climate Management Fellow, City of Burlingame
From: Chris Dugan and Phillip Gleason
CC: --
Date: August 8, 2019
SUBJECT: Response to Public Comments Received on the City of Burlingame 2030
Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update and Addendum to the City of Burlingame
2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
This memorandum addresses the comments received on the the City of Burlingame’s (City)
Draft 2030 CAP Update and Addendum to the City’s 2040 General Plan EIR. This memorandum
includes the following attachments:
• Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update
• Attachment 2: Revised Public Draft 2030 CAP Update with Text Changes in
Strikethrough and Underline
1. 2030 CAP Update
As a community committed to protecting the environment, Burlingame prepared its first CAP in
2009 to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the city through the year 2020. Over the
last decade, Burlingame has implemented multiple programs and efforts that significantly
reduced GHG emissions from City operations and the community and brought other benefits to
Burlingame.
In 2015, the City commenced a three-year endeavor that updated the community’s vision for the
future and set forth policies to implement this vision. These policies constitute the Burlingame
2040 General Plan, also known as Envision Burlingame. On January 7, 2019, the Burlingame
City Council certified an EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2017082018) for the 2040 General
Plan, and adopted the 2040 General Plan (Burlingame, 2019a). An underlying theme of the
Envision Burlingame General Plan is sustainability through smart growth, resource
conservation, green design, urban forest protection, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, and
transit oriented development. The General Plan contains numerous policies and measures that
will reduce GHG emissions by conserving resources, promoting alternative transportation, and
reducing waste.
The City completed its Draft 2030 CAP Update in April 2019. The 2030 CAP Update compiles
all the climate action related goals and policies contained in the 2040 General Plan into a single,
comprehensive document for addressing GHG emissions in the city. The 2030 CAP Update
also addresses Goal HP-2 of the 2040 General Plan (achieve GHG emissions consistent with
State goals) and is one of the specific implementation programs identified in the General Plan
(IP-52: Climate Action Plan). The Draft 2030 CAP Update provides new estimates of existing
GHG emissions within the city; forecasts future GHG emissions for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050;
and identifies GHG emission reductions resulting from State legislation and GHG Emission
Reduction Measures contained in the CAP. Nearly all the GHG Emission Reduction Measures
identified in the 2030 CAP Update are directly tied to the City’s General Plan policies; however,
2030 CAP Update and Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR Page 2
Response to Public Comments
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
the 2030 CAP Update modifies and adds several policies to the General Plan, requiring an
amendment to the General Plan.
2030 CAP Update Public Review Processes
The City provided the following opportunities for public review of the Draft 2030 CAP Update:
• The Draft 2030 CAP Update was made available for public review through the City’s
Climate Action Plan website beginning on April 24, 2019.1
• The Draft 2030 CAP Update was presented at the Annual Joint Meeting of the City
Council and Planning Commission on April 27, 2019.
• The Draft 2030 CAP Update was presented to the City’s Citizens Environmental Council
on May 8, 2019.
• The Draft 2030 CAP Update was provided to staff of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s (BAAQMD) Planning and Climate Protection Division on June 4,
2019.
• A Notice of Availability (NOA) of an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR, requesting
comments on the 2030 CAP Update, associated General Plan amendments, and
Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR from any agencies, persons, or organizations
concerned with the environmental effects of the 2030 CAP Update and associated
General Plan amendments was released on June 19, 2019. This noticing effort involved:
o Posting the NOA at the City Planning Department and Libraries
o Email notification through the Envision Burlingame Website
o A 15-day public comment period (concluding on July 3, 2019)
The City received eight comment letters/transmittals during the review period on the Draft 2030
CAP Update’s emissions inventories, GHG Emission Reduction Measures, and other
information, including two letters from a regional agency (the BAAQMD), five letters/transmittals
from a community group (Citizens Environmental Council of Burlingame), and one letter from a
member of the public. In addition, the City received and responded to oral comments from
members of the public at the April 27 and May 8, 2019 public meetings at which the 2030 CAP
Update was discussed. Each written comment/transmittal was assigned a letter (i.e., “A”, “B”,
etc.) and each specific comment was assigned an alpha-numeric identification number, as
summarized in the Table below.
Summary of Written Public Comments Received on the Draft 2030 CAP Update
ID Commenter (Affiliation) Comments
A Steven Cady (Citizens Environmental Council of Burlingame (CEC)) A-1
B Ash McNeeley (CEC) B-1 and B-2
C Mike Dunham (CEC) C1
D Former Mayor Terry Nagel (CEC) D1 and D2
E Christine Yballa (Interested Individual) E1 to E8
F Michael McCord (CEC) F1 to F12
G Jakub Zielkiewicz (Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)) G1 to G27
H Jakub Zielkiewicz (BAAQMD) H1
1 https://www.burlingame.org/departments/sustainability/climate_change.php
2030 CAP Update and Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR Page 3
Response to Public Comments
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
The comments received on the Draft 2030 CAP Update addressed topics ranging from clarifying
text edits, to suggestions for specific GHG emission reduction strategies, to requests and
recommendations for more aggressive timing and implementation procedures for the CAP
Update. The City has reviewed the comments received on the Draft CAP Update and revised
the 2030 CAP Update, where necessary, to reflect public comments. The changes incorporated
into the 2030 CAP Update add clarity and specificity to the 2030 CAP Update, but do not result
in substantial changes to emissions inventories, GHG emission reduction targets, GHG
Emission Reduction Measures, or GHG emission reductions.
Attachment 1 includes the public comments received on the 2030 CAP Update and the City’s
responses to these comments.
Attachment 2 provides amended text and graphics for the 2030 CAP Update. Additions to the
2030 CAP Update text are shown in underline and text removed from the 2030 CAP Update is
shown with strikethrough.
2. Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
In 2018, the City prepared a Draft and a Final EIR (collectively, EIR; State Clearinghouse
Number 2017082018) that evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with the
potential growth that may occur with implementation of the 2040 General Plan. The 2040
General Plan EIR identified significant environmental effects in the following areas, even with
the incorporation of mitigation measures intended to avoid and/or substantially reduce potential
impacts associated with General Plan implementation: Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Paleontological Resources, Noise, and Transportation and Circulation. As noted in Section 1,
the City Council certified the EIR for the 2040 General Plan and adopted the 2040 General Plan
on January 7, 2019.
The Draft 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments constitute a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Although nearly all of the GHG
Emission Reduction Measures identified in the Draft 2030 CAP Update are directly tied to the
City’s 2040 General Plan policies, the 2030 CAP Update proposes the modification and addition
of several policies to the General Plan, including:
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 9, Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment,
would add a new policy to the General Plan, Policy HP-2.16: Electrification of Yard and
Garden Equipment, that would support the transition of lawn and garden equipment from
combustion fuels to electric power.
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 10, Construction Best Management Practices, would
amend existing General Plan Policy HP-3.12: Construction Best Management Practices
to support the transition of certain construction equipment from combustion fuels to
electric power.
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 15, Alternatively-Powered Residential Water
Heaters, would add a new policy to the General Plan, Policy HP-2.17: Alternatively-
Powered Residential Water Heaters, to support the transition from tank-based, natural
gas water heaters to solar, electrically-powered, or natural gas tankless water heaters in
residential development.
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 20, Increase the Public Tree Population, would
amend existing General Plan Policy CC-2.2: Increase the Public Street Tree Population
to support planting of trees in other public areas besides streets.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162(a), the City has reviewed the 2030 CAP Update,
associated General Plan amendments, and the certified EIR for the 2040 General Plan EIR to
determine:
2030 CAP Update and Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR Page 4
Response to Public Comments
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
1) The extent to which potential project impacts have been addressed by the previously
certified EIR for the 2040 General Plan EIR;
2) Whether project changes create new significant or more severe project impacts;
3) Whether new circumstances or new information create new significant or more severe
impacts or require new analysis; and
4) Whether any identified new significant or more severe impacts are adequately
addressed by previously approved project mitigation.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and General Plan amendments have been designed with the
expressed purpose of reducing environmental effects. The City determined that the proposed
2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments would result in similar or lower
magnitude environmental impacts than identified in the certified 2040 General Plan EIR. The
City, therefore, determined that an EIR addendum should be prepared as the appropriate CEQA
document to address project revisions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. The
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council
in January 2019 still apply to the project.
Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR Public Review Process
CEQA Guidelines §15164(c) provides that an Addendum need not be circulated for public
review but can be included in or attached to a final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
Nonetheless, as described in Section 1, the City provided a 15-day public review period for
interested individuals and public agencies to submit comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update,
associated General Plan amendments, and Addendum to the General Plan EIR from June 19,
2019 to July 3, 2019. The City did not receive any comments on the Addendum, and none of the
changes made to the Draft 2030 CAP Update summarized above and presented in Attachments
1 or 2 change the information, analyses, or conclusions contained in the Addendum. Therefore,
there are no changes to the Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR required.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
Attachment 1
Responses to Comments on the 2030 Draft CAP Update
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
A-1
Comment
Letter
"A"
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 2
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 3
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
Response to Comments from Steven Cady, Vice Chair, Citizens Environmental Council
Comment A-1: Mr. Cady recommends the City examine and improve existing bicycle paths of
travel in the City and provides a specific recommendation for improving the intersection of
Bernal Avenue and Hillside Drive.
Response to Comment A-1: The 2030 CAP Update incorporates several strategies to
reduce automobile vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and increase alternative modes of
transportation such as bicycle travel, including, but not limited to GHG Emission
Reduction Measure 2 (Transportation Demand Management), GHG Emission Reduction
Measure 3 (Complete Streets), and GHG Emission Reduction Measure 5 (Electric
Vehicle, Bicycle, and Scooter Sharing). GHG Emission Reduction Measure 3 specifically
requires the City to develop and implement a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan by
2025 that includes detailed information on the existing transportation network and
identifies multi-modal infrastructure improvements, including expanded safe bicycle
routes, that reduce VMT, and increase pedestrian and bicycle use, safety, comfort, and
accessibility. The feasibility and suitability of specific multi-modal infrastructure
improvements would be considered during the development and implementation of the
City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. No changes to the 2030 CAP Update are
required at this time.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 4
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Comment
Letter
"B"
B-1
B-2
B-1
con't.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 6
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 7
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
Response to Comments from Ash McNeely, Member, Citizens Environmental Council
Comment B-1: Ms. McNeely questions why school districts are not included in the 2030 CAP
Update and suggests the City contact the San Mateo County Office of Education for potential
sustainability practices that could be implemented by school districts.
Response to Comment B-1: The 2030 CAP Update is a comprehensive roadmap that
outlines the activities the City will take to reduce GHG emissions and address climate
change. To clarify, the emissions associated with the operation of existing schools within
Burlingame (e.g., resident trips to and from schools, natural gas and electricity
consumption at a school site, etc.) are part of the 2030 CAP Update’s baseline,
business-as-usual (BAU), adjusted BAU, and GHG Reduction Strategy emissions
estimates. The 2030 CAP Update; however, does not separately track school-related
emissions because it is not possible to do so at this time.
Although the 2030 CAP Update does not include specific GHG Emission Reduction
Measures pertaining to school operations, page 55 of the 2030 CAP Update does
include a list of other GHG Emission Reduction Measures included in the General Plan
that provide GHG emission benefits, including measures pertaining to school gardens
(HP-1.13) and public education and outreach (CC-1.12). These measures would be
implemented through the General Plan, and the City may coordinate with local schools,
school districts, and the County’s Office of Education during implementation of the 2030
CAP Update and Envision Burlingame General Plan. In addition, the City has revised
Chapter 6 of the 2030 CAP Update to indicate the City’s Sustainability Coordinator
would work with the Burlingame School District to inform students of the City’s goals for
addressing climate change and the importance of sustainable practices.
Comment B-2: Ms. McNeely asks if the City can provide a faster permit processing time or
financial incentives to projects that go 100% electric.
Response to Comment B-2: In general, the City processes permit applications according
to set procedures that include schedules and timelines for determining application
completeness, processing, etc. The 2030 CAP Update, at this time, does not propose to
adjust permit processing procedures or provide lower permit processing fees (because
such fees are intended to cover administrative staff time that would occur even if a
project is LEED certified or 100% electric, etc.). As described on page 63 of the 2030
CAP Update, the City has prepared the CAP Update to satisfy all of the qualifications set
forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5, which
may allow projects that are consistent with or which exceed the measures and
requirements contained in the CAP to be eligible for a streamlined environmental review.
Such reviews typically proceed faster and require lower costs to complete.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 8
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Comment
Letter
"C"
C-1
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 10
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 11
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
Response to Comments from Mike Dunham, Member, Citizens Environmental Council
Comment C-1: Mr. Dunham comments the 2030 CAP Update does not capture GHG emissions
from “upstream” activities such as food and material productions and, therefore, should set
more aggressive GHG emission reduction targets and strategies, such as reach codes that
eliminate natural gas from new residential construction or net-zero GHG emissions targets.
Response to Comment C-1: Mr. Dunham is correct the 2030 CAP Update does not
include GHG emissions from upstream activities associated with food and material
production.1 Rather, the 2030 CAP Update uses a sector- or production-based GHG
emissions quantification methodology to estimate existing and future GHG emissions
from sources and activities that are, in general, located within the City’s boundaries. This
approach is consistent with the City’s previous (2009) CAP efforts, the U.S. Community
Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Version 1.1), and,
in general, the State’s GHG emissions reporting protocols used to track progress
towards meeting State annual GHG emission reduction goals. The production-based
approach allows for consistent tracking and comparison to State GHG emission
reduction goals. The 2030 CAP Update does include certain voluntary reach code
provisions (e.g., see GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
and Initiatives, GHG Emission Reduction Measure 11, Green Building Practices and
Standards, and GHG Emission Reduction Measure 12, Energy Efficiency) that may,
depending on the specific project being evaluated, apply to new and/or modified
development projects. The 2030 CAP Update did not apply a net-zero GHG emission
target, because the 2030 CAP Update is intended to reduce GHG emissions from both
new and existing GHG emission-generating sources and activities within the City, and a
net-zero GHG emission threshold was not considered feasible for the City given it’s
specific demographics and GHG emissions profile.
1 The inclusion of upstream GHG emissions sources is usually referred to as a consumption-based methodology. A
consumption-based emissions inventory is based on a full life-cycle analysis of the emissions generated by the
production, shipping, use, and disposal of each product consumed in an area, regardless of where the GHG
emissions associated with production, shipping, etc. were released to the atmosphere. Since consumption-based
inventories capture upstream emissions generating activities, they typically result in higher GHG emissions levels or
estimates.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 12
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
On May 24, 2019, at 3:27 PM, Terry Nagel wrote:
HI Andrea and Syed--
thought I would share some minor
questions and a few typos I saw while reading the Climate Action Report.
CEC is going to submit a group memo summarizing some suggestions for
the CAP. The following is just from me.
Typos
ES-2 – 1st paragraph third from last line – change “its businesses are
shown on below” to “its businesses are shown below”
Page 21 – 8th line – change “made-up” to “made up”
Page 31 – last paragraph, 2nd line – change “of City’s CAP” to “of the
City’s CAP”
Page 60 – 1st paragraph, 3rd line – change “for seal level rise” to “for sea
level rise”
Page 65 – Close up space between 1st two lines
Questions (when you have time)
Page ES-3 - I'm curious as to what percent of streetlights have been
replaced with LEDs and what percent of homes have been installed solar
power.
Page 7 - Menthane is mentioned. Is there anything we can do to channel
the methane from the City's landfill to a positive use?
Page 21 - Shouldn't we have a goal of electrifying all City vehicles and
incentives for disposal of old refrigerators?
Page 59 - Paragraph 2 says, “Much of the City’s aging storm drain system
has a ten-year design storm capacity, not the standard 30-year capacity
for regional facilities.” We are currently overhauling all our water systems,
and I'm wondering why the new storm drain system isn't being built for 30-
year capacity.
Thanks very much,
Terry
---
Terry Nagel
Comment
Letter
"D"
D-1
D-2
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 14
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 15
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
Response to Comments from Former Mayor Terry Nagel, Member, Citizens
Environmental Council
Comment D-1: Former Mayor Nagel identifies several typographical errors in the Draft 2030
CAP Update.
Response to Comment D-1: Comment noted. The identified errors have been corrected
in the 2030 CAP Update (see Attachment 2).
Comment D-2: Former Mayor Nagel asks several questions regarding specific information in
the Draft 2030 CAP Update.
Response to Comment D-2: In response to Ms. Nagel’s questions:
• Street lights: Within the City, PG&E maintains 849 street lights on wooden poles
and the City’s Public Works Department maintains 2,035 streetlights on metal
poles. The 1,677 street lights replaced by the City over the past several years
represents approximately 82% of the City’s street lights.
• Residential solar power: The 300 homes that have installed solar power over the
past several years represents approximately XYZ% of the City’s residential
housing stock as of 2015.
• Methane: The Burlingame landfill, located at 1001 Airport Boulevard, was in
operation from 1957 to 1987. The site accepted only inorganic construction
debris, concrete rubble, wood, plastic, garden refuse, metal, and clean soil; no
household garbage or hazardous waste was accepted. Although the site is now
capped and built upon, methane emissions are still collected via a landfill gas
collection system and combusted to prevent the release of methane to the
atmosphere.
• Electrification of city vehicles: The City’s vehicle fleet encompasses a variety of
vehicle types intended for different uses (e.g., passenger cars, emergency
vehicles, other types of vehicles) and a one-sized fits all approach to fleet
electrification is not considered feasible at this time. The City is committed to
evaluating the specific characteristics of its vehicle fleet and evaluating the
feasibility of acquiring electric vehicles in the future. The City has revised GHG
Emission Reduction Measure 6 to include a specific evaluation and study of the
hurdles and opportunities for converting the City’s fleet to electric vehicles as part
of the development of its Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan (see Attachment 2).
• Disposal of old refrigerators: The energy and cooling efficiency of refrigerators is
established by the California Energy Commission. GHG Emission Reduction
Measure 12 encourages energy efficiency improvements in the City’s existing
building stock. The City could provide financial incentives to upgrade appliances
as part of this measure if a funding source became available for such incentives.
• Storm drain systems: The sentence referred to on page 59 of the Draft 2030 CAP
Update refers to the City’s existing stormwater system. According to the Public
Works Department, the storm drain upgrades planned for in the City are
designed to meet current standards, which provide capacity for the 30-year
design storm event.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 16
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
From: Christine
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 6:04 PM
To: apapppajohn@burlingame.org
Subject: CAP comments
Hello Andrea,
I came to the May CEC Meeting and heard the CAP introduction from the consultant.
I attached some of my thoughts on the CAP and also included a flyer from Kaiser that I saw a while
ago that I thought was interesting. Maybe something like this could be designed by the city? You
sure have your work cut out for you! This is a big job! As I mentioned in my comments, I believe it is
important to get the community together on these issues. I would be willing to volunteer a bit in
these efforts. I have very little expertise in this area but am willing to help out for the cause!
Sincerely,
Christine Yballa
650-740-3391
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Comment
Letter
"E"
E-1
E-2
Comment
Letter
"E"
Burlingame CAP suggestions – from Christine Yballa, resident of Burlingame
The CAP is very well thought out and I believe it is going to be valuable to the city of Burlingame. Below,
I listed some of my thoughts as I read through the CAP.
A CAP is not going to change views of the community unless the community is aware of the CAP and
why it is necessary. In other words, the city needs to encourage residents to come together and have
discussions regarding climate change and make it our business too. There is a great need to influence
Burlingame as a community to make those necessary steps to change and I believe they will step up to
the challenge if they are aware of the need and are involved in the process. It will be necessary for an
aggressive outreach program. It may be helpful to start with educating the city employees initially and
then including them in a whole city- wide town hall meetings prior to adoption.
I think it is important that the municipal operations purchase electric vehicles for staff as cars are retired
out. I know some city authorities have already purchased these vehicles on a voluntary basis. I realize
some electric vehicles may not be available for specific uses, but all others should be mandatory. There
also needs to be more infrastructure built to accommodate the charging of these city cars. There is a
great opportunity here to set an example of how serious Burlingame is in combatting climate change.
I would hope that as the city of Burlingame begins to tackle the CAP and reduce our greenhouse gases
that other agencies may follow suit such as hospitals, schools, and neighboring cities. I think it is very
important for the school district to be aware of what the city’s goals are and hopefully they would
include any improvement to their school plans to strengthen our citywide contributions to cut our
carbon footprint together. I worked at the Burlingame School District for a short period and I became
aware of how important it is to get the younger generation involved in caring for our planet. When
the children are educated about the subject, they not only understand it, they are passionate about it.
The City of Burlingame could consider moving their investments out of institutions that contribute to the
funding of fossil fuel industries. There is a common trend to move in this direction due to the values of
providing a livable future and for pure investment reasons such as financial risks due to climate change.
They could explore the possibilities.
The CAP should include the GHG Reduction measures “not quantified.” All those ideas are important to
include in discussions with the community and are vital to include in some aspect of the plan.
I feel the Burlingame CAP is a great start but needs more input from the community from beginning to
end.
Comment
Letter
"E"
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-8
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 20
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 21
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
Response to Comments from Christine Yballa, Interested Individual
Comment E-1: Ms. Yballa provides an example of public education and outreach document
pertaining to sustainability that the City could implement.
Response to Comment E-1: Comment noted. The City provides similar information
graphics through its sustainability website and will consider this document as it prepares
future education and outreach materials pertaining to the 2030 CAP Update.2
Comment E-2: Ms. Yballa comments it is important to involve the Burlingame community in the
implementation of the 2030 CAP Update and offers assistance to the City in doing so.
Response to Comment E-2: The City concurs with Ms. Yballa and appreciates her offer
of assistance. Please also see Response to Comment E-8.
Comment E-3: Ms. Yballa reiterates it is important to involve the Burlingame community in the
implementation of the 2030 CAP Update.
Response to Comment E-3: The City concurs with Ms. Yballa. General Plan Policy CC-
1.12 requires the City to continue to educate the community about sustainable
development strategies, programs, and opportunities. As noted on page 61 of the 2-30
CAP Update, the City’s Sustainability Coordinator will work closely with other City staff,
residents, and businesses on CAP-related planning efforts. The Sustainability
Coordinator would also continue to provide an Annual Sustainability Report to the City
Council summarizing the programs and policies implemented by the City to improve
sustainability. Finally, the City notes the Draft 2030 CAP Update was reviewed by and
reflects the comments received from other City Departments, and the Sustainability
Coordinator would continue to coordinate with City Departments that are integral to
implementing the CAP as identified in the 2030 CAP Update Implementation and
Monitoring Program (Table 36).
Comment E-4: Ms. Yballa states it is important that City purchase electric vehicles for staff as
fleet vehicles need to be replace and that more infrastructures I need to support electric vehicle
charging.
Response to Comment E-4: The City is committed to evaluating the specific
characteristics of its vehicle fleet and the feasibility of acquiring fleet electric vehicles in
the future. The City has revised GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6 to include a
specific evaluation and study of the hurdles and opportunities for converting the City’s
fleet to electric vehicles as part of the development of its Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan
(see Attachment 2). The Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan will also identify priority areas for
installing new electric vehicle infrastructure in the City and opportunities to public/private
partnerships to support future expansion and use of electric vehicles in the City.
Comment E-5: Ms. Yballa states it is important the Burlingame and San Mateo Union High
School Districts be aware of the City’s 2030 CAP Update and its GHG emission reduction
targets.
Response to Comment E-5: As explained in more detail in Response to Comment B-1,
the General Plan includes measures pertaining to school gardens (HP-1.13) and public
education and outreach (CC-1.12), and the City may coordinate with local schools,
school districts, and the County’s Office of Education during implementation of the 2030
CAP Update and Envision Burlingame General Plan. In addition, the City has revised
2 https://www.burlingame.org/departments/sustainability/index.php
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 22
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
Chapter 6 of the 2030 CAP Update to indicate the City’s Sustainability Coordinator
would work with the Burlingame School District to inform students of the City’s goals for
addressing climate change and the importance of sustainable practices.
Comment E-6: Ms. Yballa states the City should consider moving investments out of institutions
that contribute to the funding of fossil fuel industries.
Response to Comment E-6: Comment noted. This recommendation would not change
the information contained in the 2030 CAP Update.
Comment E-7: Ms. Yballa states the 2030 CAP Update should include the measures listed at
the end of Chapter 4 that are “not quantified”.
Response to Comment E-7: To clarify, the nine measures listed in the sidebar on page
55 of the 2030 CAP Update are part of the CAP and the City’s General Plan. These
measures would be implemented through the CAP and General Plan development
review processes; however, the potential GHG emissions reductions associated with
these measures could not be quantified and thus they do no not numerically contribute
towards the City reaching its annual GHG emission reduction targets.
Comment E-8: Ms. Yballa states more input from the community is needed on the 2030 CAP
Update.
Response to Comment E-7: Comment noted. The City provided several opportunities
and methods to review the Draft 2030 CAP Update. As explained in Chapter 6 of the
2030 CAP Update, the City’s Sustainability Coordinator would continue to monitor and
publically report on the implementation of the 2030 CAP Update on an annual basis at
minimum. The CAP would also be periodically updated for public review and
consideration.
-& FG5GEFN
-*$!& % !,1'-&!$5!,1
& *5& -+,!&!$!,1
& *@+A
JEF*!%*'+ 8
-*$!& % 5NIEFE
7 #'&, GEHE( , * ,
'&'*$ -*$!& % !,1'-&!$
% *+5!,1
& *5& -+,!&!$!,1
& *@+A5
& $ ' , '* ' !* ,'*+' , !,!2 &+&.!*'&% &,$'-&!$' -*$!& % 5
/*!, ,'+ * '-* #'&, GEHE( , * ,* $ + ,', (-$!'&(*!$GJ5
GEFN8
/'-$ !*+,$!# ,', '- '*, '(('*,-&!,1,'(*'.! , !+ #8 * ,*-$1
((* !,!. ' , +-(('*,1'-:. (*'.! -+'. *, $+,FE1 *+& , '( && ++,'
'&+! *!& '-** '%% & ,!'&+,' '+, *%'* &.!*'&% &,$$1+-+,!&$ -*$!& % 8
.$- '-*(*,& *+ !(& * ($ + / /'*#/ $$,' , *+, %8
'& 5/ : $!# ,''%% & , !,1'&!,+.'$-% +' (+,/'*#,' * ++ * & '-+
+ %!++!'&+!&$- !& '2 &+' !%(, -$!&!,!,!. + . *11 *+'-,$!& !&,
-+,!&!$!,1
& *:+&&-$* ('*,+,', !,1'-&!$+!& GEFG8 '- '*
!,!& , + * +'-* +8 -%-$,!. * +-$,+* +! &! !&,& % &!& -$8
,!+
* ++-*!& , ,-*$!& % !+'&,*#,'% ,, ,, :+ * -,!'&,* ,+ '*GEGE5
& / * (*'- ' , /'*#, !,1 + '& +!& , GEEN8
!&$$15/ (($- 1'-* '-+'&'&,!&- -,+,' * & '-+ + %!++!'&+.!,
% +-* +'-,$!& !&, !+GEHE( , * ,5, &&-$%'&!,'*!& ' , '+ % +-* +5
& , '%%!,% &,,'-( , , . *1 !. 1 *+8 !+-( , !+&!%('*,&,
. &,!&'-*!,1:+ !+,'*15& / $!,!+&%2!& '(('*,-&!,1,'+ ,/!&&!&
'-& ,!'& '*$'& , *%+-+,!&!$!,18
'/, ,/ . +- !! &,$1* .! / , * ,5/ . , '$$'/!& '& *&+&
('++!$ +'$-,!'&+5', ' / ! / : $!# ,' * ++(*!'*,', !,1'-&!$'&+! *!& ,
'(,!'&' , GEHE( , 7
Comment
Letter
"F"
6-#! !##$$ ' $$ ! #&% ! %#%$
:+
1GEFM-%%*1 '*'$!1
# *+5,!,$ $'$*%!& ' F8J'5(* + &,+ -
0!+, &,!$, * ,+' , -** &,$!%, *!+!+8 * &!& , !+* ('*,5, GEHE( , * ,5'&
0 -,!. -%%*1( F5+1++! &,!+,+;(!&, *%'* !* (!,-* ' , !%% !, '&+ )- & +'
$!%, & , &(* .!'-+$1, '- ,8< * ('*,$+', $$+-+, ,, & 0,,/ $. 1 *+* *!,!$,'
(* . &,!& ,+,*'( ! $'$/*%!& 8
, *$*%!& +,, % &,+!&, GEHE( , * ,+ '/ $'$/*%!& +;-& )-!.'$5'-**!& ,
&-&(* &, *, 5<& /!, '&+ )- & +;, ,'-$ .+,, '+,$'%%-&!,! +!&$! '*&!8<
',+-*(*!+!& $15', ** &,+! &,! !* ('*,+ ', '+ !* /*&!& +5!&$- !& 7
F8 $!%, & /'*+ &+$! '*&!/!$ !* +@'.GEFMA
G8 !$$!'&>'$$* , *& $!%, !++, *+@GEFNA
H8
&, * '. *&% &,$! & >'$!1$, '*%'&+( ! + 0,!&,!'&@GEFNA
& !,+ %+& / .+,,!& * ('*,'*(* + &,,!'&!+-&. !$ . *1/ #8
!, , !+& /+! &,! ! .! & 5/ $! . '-*!,1:+,* ,++ '-$ 0 , '+ + ,1, +,, '
$! '*&!!&GEEK& GEFK7
• ! . GEGE %!++!'&+ )-$,'FNNE %!++!'&+@HG5 (GEEKA
• ! . GEHE %!++!'&+IEQ $'/FNNE %!++!'&+@HG5 (GEFKA
• ! . GEJE %!++!'&+MEQ $'/FNNE %!++!'&+@HG5 (GEFKA
1,! -+ '*, & 0,J1 *+,',* ,++ ,!&GEFK5$%'+,H1 *+ '4
&, !+$!%, *!+!+5/ '&:,
/&,,'* $ ,'$ * ('*,+, , '-+'&$!%!,!& $'$/*%!& ,'G'8, *5/ * '%% & + ,,!&
,* ,+, , ,-+ ' , +,, :+5& !&$!& /!, , !*& 0,%'. 5++-%!& , 1+ ,%'* * ++!.
,* ,+ '* '-*& 0,-( , !&GEGJ8
++- 5/ * '%% & '-*-*$!& % :+GEHE( , ,* ,+7
• ! . GEGJ %!++!'&+IEQ $'/FNNE$ . $+@$!# &*&!+'A
• ! . GEHE %!++!'&+MEQ $'/FNNE$ . $+@$!# $'$,'A
1%#!& , !+ * ++!. %'. 5/ $+'+ ,, & %*# '*& ! '*!& !,! +"-+, !&&!& , !*
* .!+!'&++- +
&$'*#& &
, '8 GEHE '$/'-$ $+' !. -*$!& % , !+,!&,!'&!&
&
, ''-&,1' , %'+,'-&,$ !& * ++!& $!%, & & (*'.! !& ((1& $, 1
$!.!& '*-** &,& -,-* & *,!'&+8
', F8F?&', *!%('*,&,* +'&5!&'-*'(!&!'&5,' . %'* * ++!. * -,!'&,* ,+!+, ,'-*
GEHE( , * ,-+ +(*' -,!'&% , ' '* %!++!'&+!&. &,'*1$-$,!'&+5. *+-+
'&+-%(,!'&% , ' +8+$-$, 1 *# $ 1:+''$$!%, ,/'*#5, '&+-%(,!'&% , '
+ '/++! &! !&,$1 ! * %!++!'&+ '*, -*$!& % '%%-&!,1@((*'0!%, $1G8K0 ! *+ '&
GEFH$-$,!'&+?NEI#.+HJE#,G A - ,''-** $,!. $1 ! % !&!&'% & ++'!, +( & !&
'&!, %+(*' - '-,+! '-*!,15& '-** $,!. $1$'/%&- ,-*!& '-,(-,& ++'!, %!++!'&+
!&+! '-*!,18 !$ / '&:,* )- +,, +/!, ,'(*' -,!'&$-$,!'&+5/ +,*'& $1 $! . '-*
,* ,++ '-$ %'* * ++!. -+ ' , !+ !+* (&18
Comment Letter "F"
F-1
F-2
', F8G?1'-*$-$,!'&+5JHQ' , (*'" , %!++!'&+* -,!'&+1GEHE!&, GEHE( ,
* ,'% *'%G -,!'&
+-* +, ,, !,1 ' +&', 0$-+!. $1%& '*!%($ % &,7
•
+-* I?$,*!&$ ,*! !,!'&@( HMA
•
+-* FH? &!&+-$$ && * 1FEE@( ILA
!$ / '&:, .', * %'.!& , + *'%, GEHE( , 5/ +- +,, 1'-$ %'.
'-,+! ' (, *I@('++!$1,'& /9'-&,1$!%, ,!'&+:+ ,!'&,, & ' (, *GA8 !+
/'-$ $( '-+, '%%-&!,1'&, FM!, %+, !,1 0$-+!. $1'&,*'$+8 ,+! 5/ * ,$1
((* !, !,1'-&!$& +, ,!% (* .!'-+$1 !, ,', + (*'" ,+/ ! /!$$*!& +-+,&,!$
-,-* * /* +8
7-#! !#$" %*! & ! % ! $ $&#$6.8+:.67+69.75
&1' , + FM * -,!'&% +-* +!& (, *I( +HJ>JI' , * ,5/ $5/'-$ & !,
*'% !,!'&$ ,!$+!&, !* +*!(,!'&5,!'&+5& *#!& 8-*, *%'* 5%&1,!.!,! +* $!+, +
;.'$-&,*1<& ; &'-* 5</ ! / $+ '-$ * ($ 1$& - * $ ,!& %'* '%%!,% &,8
++- 5/ * '%% & , * -,!'&% +-* +'&,!&%'* +( ! !!,1& '$! ,!'&+@+ $'/A8
8-#! % ! #&% ! $&#$%!"%#9 & ,
• )&%&#
" $>0 -, *&+('*,,!'& %&
& % &,($& '*,
-*$!& % . &- '%% *!$* & , *' /1'%% *!$* ,'! &,! 1& !%($ % &,
,!'&+& +,*, ! +, ,/'-$ * - +!& $ >'-(&1*,*!(+&
1JEQ $'/-** &,
$ . $+8
%($ % &,,!'&++- +*(''$!& 5 +! &, (*#!& '*$ &!*& *! + *!&
. !$ +5,*&+!,+-+! ! +5!1$ (*#!& 5& %($'1 *+('&+'* + -,,$ +8$'$,'* &,$1
'& -, +!%!$*($&8
• #%&# % %# % ! ? '(,&;!*+,<'* !&& 5$!# *% &,'5
* )-!*!& $$!,1 $ ,. !$ (-* + +,' 2 *' %!++!'&+'* $ ,*!. !$ +-&$ ++, * !+&'
+!$ 2 *' %!++!'&+'(,!'&8'+ ,& 0%($ '*, '%%-&!,15/ $+'* '%% & , , $ ,
. !$ +(*'%!& &,$1 !+($1& . *,!+ , !,1:++-+,!&!$!,1'%%!,% &,8
• ' + . %# 2 !(
&# #% ! %#?
&,! 1& !%($ % &,
,!'&+,' ! . 2 *'&,-*$ +& 2 *'& , & * 1!&-*$!& % :+& / * ,!'& &, *5$!#
, $
''&1 !**15& . *,!+ , !+ ! . % &,,', '%%-&!,18 & 5'& -,
($& '*, &, *, ,* - ++!& $ >'-(&1*,*!(+&
1JEQ $'/+,& * $ . $+8
• #%%%# $ % ! #! )& %!#! #+ . %# & $?'%%!,,' '(,
&!&+-$$ && * 1& , &
, ''-&,1 ! ' -+,!&!$!,1GEFN>GEGE!,$ GI
' $& - & %' ! 1 -,-* ' ,'%& , + *& ( *$$> $ ,*!-!$ !& +
'%% &+-*, /!, ', *$ !& !,! +!&, 8-*, *5&1* )-!* % &,'* &'-* % &, '*
;2 *'& , & * 1<-!$ !& ++ '-$ $+'!&$- ;$$> $ ,*!8<
• #%! & %*#!$%
? . $'(($&,' -! , '%%-&!,1!& !. *,!& !,+
/+, *'%$& !$$ !+('+$5%& * +'-* +,', !* ! +,& +,-+ 5& * - /+, ,
, +'-* 5, , ++( ! !+,*, ! +5!%($ % &,,!'&& )-&,! ! '$+8
• ! $ # ! #! # %* $>
&. +,! , & '&+! *"'!&!& (*' *%+, , -!
!,! +,' %'* +-+,!&$ 5+- +, *'& -,*$!,! +$$!& 5$!%, $!,1*'" ,:+
FEEQ'%%!,, %(! &5& :+$$>!&!,! +-+,!&!$!,1(*'" ,8
Comment Letter "F"
F-3
F-4
F-5
F-6
F-7
F-8
F-9
9-#! !#$" %*! %*$% % ! %!
$&$% %*% ' % $
,+#+& %& +, GEHE( , ($ +'&, -+,!&!$!,1''* !&,'*5& , %&1* $,
!&!,!,!. +-*$!& % !+$* 1 .&!& 5+- +,, !,1/!$$& ,'$$', %'* -%&* +'-* +&
- ,,'+-+,!&!$!,1,!.!,! +, &, +!& $ $ >,!% ('+!,!'&- , !&, (+,8++- 5/
* '%% & +, !& , +-+,!&!$!,1* /!, * +'-* +'%% &+-*, /!, , $* * +('&+!!$!,! +&
!%('*,& ,''-*'%%-&!,18
'- '* *!& '-*'& *&+& * '%% & ,!'&+3 #&'/$ , #/!, !&, + '-*
!, %+!++! &! !&,& -& *+,& , $$ & +++'!, /!, . $'(!& , ,% ,+ !. *+!,1'
0( ,,!'&+8 '/ . *5/ $+' $! . , , *$! *!&(-,%1 . & *, * ,/!, / *'& *&+
& $ ++ #8 !$ , $ & , 1 & *$$&(*' ++!&$- * )- &,!,!2 &'-,* (*' *%+5, !+
GEHE( , * ,/+/*!,, &1, %' 0( *,+& (* + &, +& *'%($ , '-% &,8
/!+ , * &%'* /'*#+ '(+& '-,* '(('*,-&!,! +,'"- '%%-&!,1!&, * +, -*!& , !+
(*' +++!+-** &,$1, + !& /'' !,15&
, '5& %&1', *!,! +*'-& , +,, 8
&$'+!& 5/ :* '& ! &,1'-$$* + ($1'-,, +-+,!&!$!,1' '-*'%%-&!,1+/ '5&
+ * '-*'&+! *$ '& *&+'-, $'$/*%!& 5$!%, & 5& $!.!& /!, !&'-* '$' !$
'',(*!&,8!, , !++ * !&, * +,5/ :* '& ! &,/ & */'&'-*+,*'& /'*#!& * $,!'&+ !(5&
,' , *5 & & , !+ '-% &, '*, & !,' -** &,& -,-* & *,!'&+!&'-*!,1& * !'&8
& '$$ ,!. $15/ &* ,($&, ,('*,*1+-++$ *+!& * ++!& $!%, & & +-+,!&$
$!.!& 5,*- /!&>/!& '*$$(*,! +8
!& * $15
! $
'*
!*5!,!2 &+&.!*'&% &,$'-&!$' -*$!& %
KJE>HIG>HKGM5!& 'B -*$!& % 8'*
Comment Letter "F"
F-10
F-11
& %! % 7!'.! $" &%!"%#9
$&#$
$/! " %%#%$0367585 $$ ! $#&% ! "%!6; $&#$ %*! %#! 1
• ( ! 1% ,*!+5, '*! +5& , + '*%-$,!>%' $!%(*'. % &,+5 8 8FE%!$ +' % !-%+!2
*' /1+!%(*'. /!, FE-* 0, &+!'&+1GEGG8
• !& & +( ! 1+ $!& &-% *+& &&-$!&* + + '*,*&+('*,,!'&!%(, , ,* /*
(*'" ,+++'!, /!, $'/
8
• *,!!(, !&& .', '*!&$-+!'&' -*$!& % *' +!&, &
, ''-&,1-+,!&$
,* ,+
+, *$&(*!'*!,!2,!'&8
$/
037 "%!6; %*! %#! 1
•
&* + '$,'* - +!& $ >'-(&1*,*!(+&
*'%GEQ,'JEQ8
• 0 -,
($& '*, & /!$$ ,-*$!& % & -*$!& % * ,!'& &, *, ,% ,
JEQ* -,!'&!&,*!( & *,!'&*, +& + ,+, & %*# '*+!%!$* -,-* ($&+8
• ( ! 1/ ' %($'1+,
+! &, ''* !&,'*5 '/' , && / ,!& '*%,!'&!+!&$-
!&, !*(*' *% ,!. & ++* ('*,& !&$- , (-$!!&, - ! & '*, + * ('*,
(* + &,,!'&+8
•
&+,!,-, % &!& -$ !& + '*&',% ,!& +!& $ >'-(&1*,*!(+&
* -,!'& '$+8
$A/! $%#&% ! $%
%
#% $038 "%!6; %*! %#! 1
• ($ ; &'-* </!, ;%& , 8<
• ++* +'$-,!'&1GEGG& * ($ ;/ & +!$ </!, ;-&$ ++', */!+ %'&+,*, , ,&'
$, *&,!. +!$ +'$-,!'&+ 0!+,8<
$C/ #* *039 "%!6; %*! %#! 1
• ($ ; &'-* </!, ;%& , <!& !*+,& + '& + &, & +'
• ($ /'* ;.'$-&,*1</!, ;%& , <!&
• ( ! 1, &-% *' /'*#+ '(+8
• ++-!$ !& & * 1+.!& +'* !&& @A5$!# '-$ *5& *# $ 1551GEGG, ,
* )-!* +* +! &,!$& '%% *!$(*'( *,1'/& *+,'!%(*'. & * 1 !! &1 '* +$ 8
$/#!$%03: "%!6; %*! %#! 1
• ;* , '%%-&!,1 *'+, $&<>>,' -! , '%%-&!,1!& !. *,!& !,+/+, *'%
$& !$$ !+('+$5%& !& * +'-* +,', !* ! +,& +,-+ 5& * -!& /+, ,, +'-*
>>, , ++( ! !+,*, ! +5!%($ % &,,!'&& )-&,! ! '$+5+!%!$*,'($&+ '(, !&
&$'*#& $'$,'8
%#
$&#$
•
+-* J?!&$- +'', *+5(' +5& * &,>( *> '-**>+ *!& @ 8 8!(*A8
•
+-* K? &+-* $$& /'%% *!$ . $'(% &,!&$- ++- !! &, ! >+( * *+,'
+(-* %& 8
•
+-* L?!&$- * G> '-*(*#!& & * !& '*+!&!,1(*#!& +( +8
•
+-* FF?* ($ GEHE/!, GEGH8
•
+-* FL?!&$- , + '*& * 1,** )-!* % &,+6'&+! * !& * 1/, * -$(!(
%& , + '*& /'&+,*-,!'&8
>>'&EK=FG=GEFN,''-&!$B-*$!& % 8'* 5((("' &B-*$!& % 8'* 5
+%! $B-*$!& % 8'*
Comment Letter "F"
F-12
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 28
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 29
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
Response to Comments from Michael McCord, Chair, Citizens Environmental Council
Note: In addition to their comment letter of June 12, 2019, the CEC provided the City with direct
edits to an electronic file of the Draft 2030 CAP Update on July 2, 2019. Many of these direct
edits were similar to the comments described below. The CEC’s direct edits are available for
review from the City’s Sustainability Coordinator upon request. The City and the CEC also held
a conference call to discuss the CEC comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update on July 17,
2019.
Comment F-1: The CEC recommends more aggressive annual GHG emission reduction
targets for the 2030 CAP Update.
Response to Comment F-1: The City has carefully reviewed the CEC’s recommendation
and elected not to incorporate more aggressive annual GHG emission reduction targets
into the 2030 CAP Update for several reasons.
First, the City’s 2030 CAP Update builds, in part, on the City’s sustainability efforts
completed as part of the City’s 2009 CAP, which set a target to reduce GHG emission
15% below 2005 levels by 2020. This target was consistent with Assembly Bill 32, which
initiated many of the State’s major climate planning initiatives, such as the Climate
Change Scoping Plan. As shown in Chapter 4 of the 2030 CAP Update, the City is on
track to meet its 2020 GHG emission reduction target, which sets a logical starting point
and trend for future GHG emissions reduction targets.
Second, the City’s 2030 CAP Update annual GHG emission reduction targets were
developed in consultation with the BAAQMD, and are consistent with the BAAQMD’s
GHG emission reduction targets established in the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan, as
well as BAAQMD Resolution 2013-11, A Resolution Adopting a Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Goal and Commitment to Develop a Regional Climate Protection Strategy.3,4
Third, the City’s 2030 CAP Update annual GHG emission reduction targets also align
with the State’s current GHG emission reduction goals established by AB 32, Senate Bill
(SB) 32, and the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which were developed using the
United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate
change assessment reports and are intended to keep global temperature increases
below 3.6 °F.
Finally, more aggressive GHG emission reductions are not required for the City’s 2030
CAP Update because the City’s 2030 CAP Update includes measures that would reduce
GHG emissions from both existing and new development. A more aggressive target
would be more appropriate if existing sources of emissions would not be reduced. But
the City’s 2030 CAP Update reduces GHG emissions from existing and future VMT,
existing and future energy sources, existing and future solid waste generation, etc.
For the reasons outlined above, the City’s 2030 CAP Update sets GHG emission
reduction targets that are consistent with regional, state, and international climate
planning efforts. The City appreciates the CEC’s desire to set more aggressive targets,
and recognizes that climate change science is constantly evolving. For this reason,
Chapter 6 of the 2030 CAP Update incorporates the development of an Annual
Sustainability Report and a periodic CAP update (every five years, beginning in 2025).
These reports and periodic updates will allow the City to track progress towards meeting
current GHG emission reduction targets and consider new targets as additional scientific
3 http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans 4 http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/climate-protection/climate-protection-program
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 30
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
evidence becomes available and incorporated into regional, state, and international
planning efforts.
Comment F-2: The CEC comments on the 2030 CAP Update’s sector- or production-based
GHG emission quantification methodology.
Response to Comment F-2: Please see Response to Comment C-1. The 2030 CAP
Update’s methodology is consistent with the City’s previous 2009 CAP efforts, the U.S.
Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(Version 1.1), and, in general, the State’s GHG emissions reporting protocols used to
track progress towards meeting State GHG emission reduction goals (which do not use
a consumption method).
Comment F-3: The CEC recommends GHG emissions reductions associated with GHG
Emission Reduction Measure 4 (Caltrain Electrification) and GHG Emission Reduction Measure
13 (Peninsula Clean Energy) should be moved from Chapter 4 because the City does not
exclusively manage or implement these measures.
Response to Comment F-3: The CEC is correct that the City does not solely manage or
implement GHG Emission Reduction Measure 4 or 13; however, City staff have worked
over the years to support Caltrain electrification efforts, and have enrolled all municipal
accounts in Peninsula Clean Energy’s ECO100 program. City staff will continue to
support Caltrain electrification efforts and will provide information and support for
expanding non-municipal enrollment in Peninsula Clean Energy’s ECO100 program.
Furthermore, moving the emission reductions from the City’s GHG emission reduction
strategy to the Adjusted BAU or another scenario would not change the City’s annual
GHG emission reduction targets or bottom line future year emission estimates.
Comment F-4: The CEC recommends the 2030 CAP Update include more specific language in
Chapter 4 regarding GHG Emission Reduction Measure descriptions, actions, and tracking
requirements. The CEC also recommends GHG Emission Reduction Measures not be voluntary
in nature.
Response to Comment F-4: Regarding the voluntary nature of some of the GHG
Emission Reduction Measures contained in the 2030 CAP Update, the City has
incorporated voluntary measures because such measures allow for a case by case
consideration of project specific variables, including costs, by each project proponent
that are not currently known and which control whether any particular technology or
equipment is feasible for a particular project. The 2030 CAP Update incorporates lower
participation rates and lower total equipment turnover rates to account for the voluntary
nature of these measures. Should such measures become mandatory as a result of
future State or City actions, the additional GHG emissions reductions would be realized
within the City.
Please refer to Response to Comments F-5 through F-9 and F-12 for responses to the
City’s suggestions regarding more specific language for specific GHG Emission
Reduction Measures.
Comment F-5: The CEC recommends the City include a transportation demand management
(TDM) plan for the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial Areas that reduces single-
occupancy car trips by 50% below current levels.
Response to Comment F-5: 2030 CAP Update Measure 2 (Transportation Demand
Management) requires a 20% reduction in trip generation rates from residential and non-
residential development, beginning with new development projects and, over time,
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 31
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
transitioning to existing development projects. The City has added an action to this
measure to coordinate with local businesses in the Broadway and Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Areas on the development of a Transportation Management Association
that reduces existing trip generation rates in these areas (see Attachment 2). The City
cannot, at this time, require a 50% reduction in single occupancy vehicle trips from these
areas because tracking single occupancy vehicle trips would require significant data
collection efforts and a 50% reduction from carpooling, ridesharing, transit subsidies,
and other typical trip reduction measures is not considered feasible for the City.
Comment F-6: The CEC recommends the City accelerate its vehicle fleet electrification.
Response to Comment F-6: The City is committed to evaluating the specific
characteristics of its vehicle fleet and the feasibility of acquiring fleet electric vehicles in
the future. The City has revised GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6 to include a
specific evaluation and study of the hurdles and opportunities for converting the City’s
fleet to electric vehicles as part of the development of its Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan
(see Attachment 2).
Comment F-7: The CEC recommends the City identify and implement actions to achieve zero
net energy in certain City facilities, as well as a 50% reduction in single-occupancy car trips and
VMT below standard levels from the City’s new Recreation Center. The CEC also recommends
the City accelerate the transition from mixed fuel buildings to carbon-free, all electric buildings
by commit to adopting Peninsula Clean Energy and the San Mateo County Office of
Sustainability’s 2019-2020 Title 24 reach code requirements and including references in the
2030 CAP Update to zero net energy, all electric buildings.
Response to Comment F-7: GHG Emission Reduction Measure 19, Municipal Green
Building Measures, requires the City to aim for zero net energy in all new municipal
construction and major renovations of City facilities. New City facilities would also be
subject to the TDM requirements of GHG Emission Reduction Measure 2 (20%
reduction in trip generation rates); a 50% reduction in trip generation rates is not
considered feasible for a new civic-oriented facility that will draw vehicle trips from
across the City. GHG Emission Reduction Measure 11 (Green Building Practices and
Standards) and GHG Emission Reduction Measure 12 (Energy Efficiency) encourage
development projects to incorporate the voluntary provisions of the Title 24 building
standards. The City is currently exploring the development of a reach code that may
require the incorporation of voluntary energy efficiency standards and/or multiple or all
electric energy pathways. Should the 2030 CAP Update’s voluntary measures become
mandatory as a result of future State or City actions, additional GHG emission
reductions would be realized within the City.
Comment F-8: The CEC recommends the City create a Community Zero Waste Plan to support
waste diversion goals.
Response to Comment F-8: GHG Emission Reduction Measure 18, Zero Waste,
establishes increasing waste diversion goals within the City, reaching 85% waste
diversion by 2030 and 95% waste diversion by 2050. The City has revised this measure
to include the development and preparation of a Community Zero Waste Plan by 2025
that achieves 90% waste reduction by 2030 and 100% waste reduction by 2050 (see
Attachment 2).
Comment F-9: The CEC recommends the 2030 CAP Update include a measure requiring the
City to investigate and consider joining carbon free city alliances, such as the Carbon Neutral
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 32
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
Cities Alliance, Climate Reality Project’s 100% Committed campaign, and the Natural Resource
Defense Council’s All-in Cities Sustainability Project.
Response to Comment F-9: The City may consider resolutions supporting or joining the
CEC’s recommended programs in the future; however, such action would not result in
direct, quantifiable GHG emissions reductions. Therefore, this measure has not been
added to the 2030 CAP Update.
Comment F-10: The CEC recommends the City allocate additional resources to the 2030 CAP
Update and sustainability activities.
Response to Comment F-10: Comment noted. The 2030 CAP Update was developed
based on the City’s existing resource commitments. If additional resources become
available, additional GHG reductions may be realized within the City.
Comment F-11: The CEC states that the 2030 CAP Update would have benefitted from earlier
opportunities to review and provide comment on the City’s climate action planning efforts, such
as workshops, outreach events, etc. that could have judged community interest in the 2030 CAP
Update and its GHG Emission Reduction Measures.
Response to Comment F-11: Comment noted. As the CEC indicates in its remarks, the
City’s General Plan process did include multiple outreach efforts on all aspects of the
plan, including its sustainability initiatives. The City will consider the CEC’s remarks as
part of the periodic CAP updates described in Chapter 6 of the 2030 CAP Update.
Comment F-12: The CEC provides specific, recommended text edits to the GHG Emission
Reduction Measures contained in Chapter 4 of the 2030 CAP Update.
Response to Comment F-12: In response to the CEC’s specific text edits:
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 3 (Complete Streets): The CEC recommends
specific metrics, projects, transportation impact and fee information. As identified
in Table 18 of the 2030 CAP Update, the specific assumptions used to estimate
emissions reductions from GHG Emission Reduction Measure 3 are contained in
CAP Appendix C, page 3. The CAP assumes 10% of intersections and 25% of
street miles would be improved by 2030. The specific projects that would be
implemented would be identified as part of the Bicycle and pedestrian Master
Plan that is required to be prepared by 2025. The City would evaluate options for
reducing its transportation impact fee separately, in consultation with the Public
Works Department. Finally, the CEC recommends the City participate and
advocate for inclusion of the City’s roads in the County’s Sustainable Master Plan
prioritization. This action has been added to the 2030 CAP Update.
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 2 (Transportation Demand Management):
The CEC recommends increasing the targeted trip reduction from 20% to 50%
and identifying other specific information regarding TDM plan implementation. At
this time, a blanket 50% reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips from existing
and new development is not considered a feasible trip reduction target given the
type of trip reduction measures that are likely to be implemented through this
measure. As points of clarification, TDM coordinators would likely be an
employee or volunteer residential coordinator. In addition, the 2030 CAP Update
provides a programmatic evaluation of GHG emissions in the City; identifying
project-specific requirements is generally not the intent nor purpose of the CAP.
Finally, deterrents and penalties for failing to comply with the requirements of the
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 33
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
City’s TDM ordinance, once adopted, would be identified in the code provisions
implementing TDM requirements.
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 10 (Construction Best Management
Practices): The CEC recommends the City make this measure mandatory and
pass an ordinance prohibiting the use of petroleum-based fuel sources for
construction equipment less than 120 horsepower by 2022, instead of 2025 as
identified in the 2030 CAP Update. The City is not electing to accelerate the
schedule for the mandatory prohibition of petroleum-fueled equipment for several
reasons. First, the voluntary application of this measure is expected to provide
time for projects to acclimate to this requirement, as well as time for additional
technologies to develop for the specific equipment targeted by this measure.
Second, it is not feasible for City staff to accelerate the timeline for adopting the
ordinance identified in GHG Emission Reduction Measure 10. In developing the
CAP, the City considered existing resources and anticipated staffing
commitments to identify realistic timelines for implementation of the GHG
Emission Reduction Measures identified in the 2030 CAP Update.
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 12 (Energy Efficiency): The CEC
recommends this measure be mandatory, the 2030 CAP Update specific the
amount of energy efficiency workshops to be held per year, and the City include
a building energy savings ordinance that requires energy efficiency
improvements before the sale of a building. As explained in more detail in
Response to Comment F-7, G-5, and G-21 the City is maintaining the voluntary
status of the 2030 CAP Updates energy efficiency measures. In addition, the City
is not proceeding with a building energy savings ordinance because it is
anticipated that much of the City’s older building stock will be upgraded and
updated immediately following the sale of a building (as part of a redevelopment
or remodel process). The City has, however, clarified the language in GHG
Emission Reduction Measure 12 to indicate the City will hold up to three energy
efficiency workshops per year (see Attachment 2).
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 18 (Zero Waste): The CEC recommends the
City include a Community Zero Waste Plan as part of GHG Emission Reduction
Measure 18. The City has revised this measure to include the development and
preparation of a Community Zero Waste Plan by 2025 that achieves 90% waste
reduction by 2030 and 100% waste reduction by 2050 (see Attachment 2).
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 5 (Electric Vehicle, Bicycle, and Scooter
Sharing): As recommended by the CEC, the City has revised this measure to
include opportunities for electric vehicle and electric scooter sharing services if
such services are developed in the City.
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6 (Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and
Initiatives): GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6 requires the installation of Level
2 chargers in new residential development. GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6
also requires the City to develop and prepare an Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan
by 2022 that will identify priority areas for installing new electric vehicle
infrastructure in the City and opportunities to public/private partnerships to
support future expansion and use of electric vehicles in the City. The expansion
of high speed chargers in commercial areas and developments of the City would
be considered as part of the development of the Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 34
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 7 (Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements,
and Creative Parking Approaches): The CEC recommends free parking and
charging for electric vehicles. GHG Emission Reduction Measure 7 is aimed at
reducing parking availability as a means to reduce VMT; however, the City would
consider parking incentives for electric vehicles as part of the Electric Vehicle
Strategic Plan required by GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6.
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 11 (Green Building Practices and Standards):
As explained in more detail in Response to Comment F-7, G-5, and G-21 the City
is maintaining the voluntary status of the 2030 CAP Updates energy efficiency
measures. In addition, the City is not proceeding with a zero net energy
ordinance by 2030 (see Attachment 2); however, the City is currently exploring
the development of a reach code that may require the incorporation of voluntary
energy efficiency standards and/or multiple or all electric energy pathways. The
zero net energy requirement for non-municipal development was not included in
the 2030 CAP Updates GHG emission inventories and forecasts.
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 17 (Water Conservation for New Residential
Development): The City has clarified this measure to remove reference to
“Energy Star” faucets, as faucets and other water fixtures are not Energy Star
rated. In addition, gray water systems are currently allowed by State and City
plumbing codes. The City has revised this measure to encourage the installation
of gray water systems.
From:MGR-Andrea Pappajohn
To:Jakub Zielkiewicz
Cc:Chris Dugan;Phillip Gleason;MGR-Sigalle Michael
Subject:RE: Call re: Burlingame Climate Action Plan
Date:Monday, July 1, 2019 2:09:59 PM
Hi Jakub
Thanks for your informal comments below.
Thanks
Andrea
-----Original Message-----
From: Jakub Zielkiewicz [mailto:jzielkiewicz@baaqmd.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 1:54 PM
To: MGR-Andrea Pappajohn <apappajohn@burlingame.org>
Subject: RE: Call re: Burlingame Climate Action Plan
Hi Andrea,
We've reviewed the CAP and have some informal comments, which I include below. I want to emphasize that these
are staff informal comments that have not been routed for appropriate approval, and so they are not official
BAAQMD comments.
Thanks,
Jakub
Informal CAP comments
Executive Summary – in general, the sector summaries provide good insights into the city’s actions. However, the
summary lacks specificity in terms of substance and timeframe. Consider including specific time-bound targets and
actionable items.
ES1, 2nd paragraph (typo): “According to new research, unabated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could cause sea
levels to rise by to ten feet by the end of this century - an outcome that could devastate coastal communities in
California and around the world.”
ES4 - “Still, changing people’s behavior to drive less is one of Burlingame’s trickiest challenges in reducing GHG
emissions.” The Clean Transportation section ends with the sentence above. Consider a statement with more
Comment
Letter
"G"
G-1
G-2
G-3
definitive closure to the section. More importantly, Burlingame has the ability to influence people’s driving
behavior through the establishment of low emissions zones, road diets, etc. Burlingame should consider adoption of
such policies to change people’s behavior to drive less, or at least include timebound language in the CAP to study
these types of policies.
ES5 (also in footnote A of Table 13) - “Most recently, the State approved a shift to 100% renewable energy by
2045...” should read “100% carbon-free electricity." This is a minor word change, but it’s a big difference in
renewable energy circles. See the underlying law for additional information:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB100
ES5 - “however, the City recognizes that stronger policies will be necessary in the future.” Consider setting a goal,
i.e.: a commitment to electrify all municipal buildings or X% of housing; to conduct a technical and legal feasibility
study about fuel switching in Brisbane no later than 2020; to establish an energy benchmarking ordinance
(https://sfenvironment.org/existing-buildings-energy-performance-ordinance) or building energy saving ordinance
(https://www.cityofberkeley.info/BESO/) no later than 2020; etc.
ES5 - “The City is examining its own waste practices by striving for zero waste in municipal buildings and public
events. Burlingame also anticipates participating in future waste movements, similar to the plastic bag ban
movement, to reduce plastic pollution and promote source reduction.” This is great. Consider including a
timeframe to achieve zero waste and to pass a plastic bag ban.
ES5 – Urban forestry. How many trees to be planted annually?
ES-6, 2nd paragraph (typo): “Urban Forestry. Burlingame is proud of being a designated a “Tree City,” due to its
canopies of diverse, mature, and expansive trees along public streets, private property, and parks and natural areas.”
Figure 2: consider labeling Y-axis and plotting the 2020 and 2030 targets on the graph
ES8 - “Procures all electricity from 100% renewable energy sources by 2030” PCE has a goal of 100% by 2025.
Unless Burlingame is going to opt-out of PCE, consider changing this date to 2025.
ES8 - “Makes significant cuts in transportation related emissions” Consider quantifying and setting a target.
Page 5, 4th paragraph, consider including descriptions of the three policies that were introduced into the General
Plan as mitigation measures to help reduce GHGs
Page 10-12 – “state climate actions.” SB 32 (40% below 1990 levels by 2030) is missing as Executive Order B-55-
18 (carbon neutrality no later than 2045)
Page 11 – SB 100 “and requires 100% of all electricity supplied come from renewable sources by 2045.” This
should read "...supplied from carbon-free sources...”
Page 13, paragraph about Year 2005 inventory – a bit confusing to the reader if the data for 2005 are the original
numbers from the 2009 CAP or are the updated numbers generated for this CAP (text implies it’s the latter, but
might want to clarify to avoid confusion)
Page 14, graph: consider adding the 2015 total GHG emissions, and amounts for each sector
Page 15: Footnote 20. This guidance is dated and should not be used/referenced.
Page 16, 3rd full paragraph. Text about future emissions seems out of place in a discussion of the 2005 and 2015
inventories (“Emissions from electricity are anticipated to zero out in the future…”)
Page 16 - “Emissions from natural gas will be tougher to reduce since the cost of natural gas remains relatively low
and electrifying natural gas appliances and processes can be expensive and infeasible.” This statement makes the
case for the status quo, rather than provide a vision to reduce GHGs. Consider striking this statement and reframing
to offer a vision of reducing GHGs through less dependence on natural gas via building electrification.
Comment Letter "G"
G-3
con't.
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-9
G-10
G-11
G-12
G-13
G-14
G-15
G-16
G-17
G-18
Page 17, 3rd paragraph on transportation: language about what City could do seems out-of-place in inventory
section (“Local governments may limit the use of…”)
Page 25, Table 9. Add units to this table
Page 28 – what about alignment with State objective of carbon neutrality no later than 2045 (Executive Order B-55-
18)?
Page 29, graph: It is unclear what the orange area represents since it is not defined in the legend. Should this cut off
at 2015 since it seems this is meant to represent the historical emissions?
Chapter 4 – overarching comment: without Appendices, cannot comment/review calculations of emission
reductions. For example:
3. Complete Streets: How does the City justify the emission reductions associated with this measure? Not sure
it is reasonable to expect similar reduction amounts from street infrastructure improvements (which are also costly)
as from 2. TDM requirements outlined.
10. Construction Best Management Practices. What is the breakdown between equipment less than 120 hp
(covered by the ordinance) and that above 120 hp to be able to expect the emission reductions indicated?
18. Waste. Unclear how incremental increases in waste diversion of 5% every ten years would lead to
indicated emission reductions. Compared to ABAU solid emissions where 75% diversion required (Table 9): 39%
by 2030 (2760/7106), 59% by 2040 (4483/7640), 79% by in 2050 (6435/8181)
Chapter 4 – overarching comment: To increase the likelihood that measures achieve the emission reductions
indicated, measures should require, over just encouraging, actions
12. Energy Efficiency. Many of the actions focus on encouraging, informing, etc. While the description for
the measure indicates major remodels would be required to meet Title 24 standards, it is not clear how that would be
achieved (e.g., ordinance?).
13. Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100. The actions outlined in this measure do not require opting to ECO100,
yet the reductions claimed by 2020 seem very unlikely unless this opt up is required (or incentivized).
Page 47 - “By 2030, the entire portfolio will be 100% GHG free...” yet in the previous sentence you state the goal is
100% by 2021.
Page 49 – Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters – this section highlights solar water heaters, which is
great. However, it also advocates for tankless natural gas water heaters. Consider deleting the natural gas tankless
water heaters, and instead emphasizing the need to electrify water heaters to heat pump water heaters. In addition,
consider bolstering the “Actions” section to include working with PCE to establish rebate programs for building
electrification.
Page 66 – Table 36. Measures are classified as mandatory while the actions called for are focused on coordinating,
supporting, encouraging (e.g., 13, 14).
-----Original Appointment-----
From: MGR-Andrea Pappajohn <apappajohn@burlingame.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 5:37 PM
To: Jakub Zielkiewicz
Subject: Accepted: Call re: Burlingame Climate Action Plan
When: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).
Where: CR-7103 San Andreas and 1.888.204.5987x9915679#
Comment Letter "G"
G-19
G-20
G-21
G-22
G-23
G-24
G-25
G-26
G-27
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 38
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 39
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
Response to Comments from Jakub Zielkiewicz, BAAQMD
Note: The BAAQMD provided informal comments on the Draft CAP Update. Although these
comments are informal, the City has included its correspondence with the BAAQMD in this
document for information disclosure purposes. The City also discussed the BAAQMD’s informal
comments in a phone call with BAAQMD staff Jakub Zielkiewicz and Abby Young on July 3,
2019.
Comment G-1: The BAAQMD recommends adding additional information to the 2030 CAP
Update Executive Summary.
Response to Comment G-1: Comment noted. The 2030 CAP Update Executive
Summary was not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, it was meant to provide a high level
summary of the City’s CAP Update. Nonetheless, the City has revised the Executive
Summary to provide additional information on the 2030 CAP Update GHG emissions
targets, actionable items, and timelines for implementing GHG Emission Reduction
Measures. Specific information on time-bound targets and actionable items is also
contained in Chapters 4 and 6 of the 2030 CAP Update.
Comment G-2: The BAAQMD identifies a typographical error on page ES-1 of the Draft 2030
CAP Update.
Response to Comment G-1: Comment noted. This typographical error has been
corrected (see Attachment 2).
Comment G-3: The BAAQMD recommends the City consider policies to change people’s
behavior when it comes to driving.
Response to Comment G-3: Comment noted. The 2030 CAP Update includes several
measures that are intended to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled, including
GHG Emission Reduction Measure 1 (Mixed-Use Development, Transit-Oriented
Development, and Transit Supporting Land Use), GHG Emission Reduction Measure 2
(Transportation Demand Management), GHG Emission Reduction Measure 3 (Complete
Streets), GHG Emission Reduction Measure 5 (Electric Vehicle, Bicycle, and Scooter
Sharing), GHG Emission Reduction Measure 7 (Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements,
and Creative Parking Approaches), and GHG Emission Reduction Measure 8
(Burlingame Shuttle Service). Together, these measures are estimated to reduce VMT
by approximately 21% in 2030, or nearly 60 million VMT.
Comment G-4: The BAAQMD provides a clarification regarding the requirements of Executive
Order (EO) B-55-018.
Response to Comment G-3: Comment noted. The City has clarified the requirements of
EO B-55-018 (see Attachment 2).
Comment G-5: The BAAQMD recommends the City consider adopting strong policies for
energy efficiency and retrofitting natural gas appliances.
Response to Comment G-5: The 2030 CAP Update includes multiple strategies related
to energy efficiency and retrofitting natural gas appliances. GHG Emission Reduction
Measure 11 (Green Building Practices and Standards) and GHG Emission Reduction
Measure 12 (Energy Efficiency) encourage development projects to incorporate the
voluntary provisions of the Title 24 building standards. The City is currently exploring the
development of a reach code that may require the incorporation of voluntary energy
efficiency standards and/or multiple or all electric energy pathways. Should the 2030
CAP Update’s voluntary measures become mandatory as a result of future State or City
actions, additional GHG emission reductions would be realized within the City. In
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 40
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
addition, GHG Emission Reduction Measure 15 encourages the transition from tank-
based natural gas water heaters to solar or electric-powered water heaters in residential
development, and GHG Emission Reduction Measure 19, Municipal Green Building
Measures, requires the City to aim for zero net energy in all new municipal construction
and major renovations of City facilities.
Comment G-6: The BAAQMD recommends the City consider a time frame to achieve zero
waste and pass a plastic bag ban.
Response to Comment G-6: GHG Emission Reduction Measure 18, Zero Waste,
establishes increasing waste diversion goals within the City, reaching 85% waste
diversion by 2030 and 95% waste diversion by 2050. The City has revised this measure
to include the development and preparation of a Community Zero Waste Plan by 2025
that achieves 90% waste reduction by 2030 and 100% waste reduction by 2050 (see
Attachment 2). The City is not considering a plastic bag ban at this time.
Comment G-7: The BAAQMD requests information on the amount of trees that will be planted
annually under the 2030 CAP Update.
Response to Comment G-7: GHG Emission Reduction Measure 20, Increase the Public
Tree Population, requires the City to plant a minimum of 33 trees annually through 2050.
Comment G-8: The BAAQMD identifies a typographical error on page ES-6 of the Draft 2030
CAP Update.
Response to Comment G-8: Comment noted. This typographical error has been
corrected (see Attachment 2).
Comment G-9: The BAAQMD recommends changes to Figure 2 in the 2030 Draft CAP Update.
Response to Comment G-9: Comment noted. The City has revised Figure 2 to address
the BAAQMD’s comment (see Attachment 2).
Comment G-10: The BAAQMD recommends clarifying the dates identified in the 2030 CAP
Update for procuring all electricity from renewable energy sources.
Response to Comment G-10: Comment noted. The City has clarified text referring to the
date by when electricity would be procured from renewable energy sources (see
Attachment 2). As explained in GHG Emission Reduction Measure 13, Peninsula Clean
Energy has a strategic goal of sourcing 100% GHG emission-free electricity by 2021 and
100% California Renewable Portfolio Standard-eligible electricity by 2025. Since the
2030 CAP Update estimates emissions for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050, the GHG
emission benefits resulting from Peninsula Clean Energy are only included in the
estimates for years 2030, 2040, and 2050.
Comment G-11: The BAAQMD recommends the 2030 CAP Update quantify and set a target
for reducing transported related emission.
Response to Comment G-11: Comment noted. The 2030 CAP Update does quantify and
set targets for reducing transportation-related GHG emissions. Please see Response to
Comment G-3.
Comment G-12: The BAAQMD recommends the 2030 CAP Update include descriptions of the
General Plan policies / GHG Emission Reduction Measures included in the 2040 General Plan
EIR as mitigation measures.
Response to Comment G-12: Comment noted. The City has revised the 2030 CAP
Update to include brief descriptions of the policies/GHG Emission Reduction Measures
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 41
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
added as mitigation measures during the General Plan EIR process. These three
policies were: M-3.10: Bicycle Sharing, M-4.7: Shuttle Service, and IF-6.9: ECO100 (see
Attachment 2).
Comment G-13: The BAAQMD provides additional, relevant contextual information on State
climate actions.
Response to Comment G-13: Comment noted. The City included this additional
contextual information in the 2030 CAP Update (see Attachment 2).
Comment G-14: The BAAQMD suggests the text on page 13 of the Draft 2030 CAP be clarified
to indicate if the 2005 emissions data presented in the document has been updated or is the
original data from the City’s 2009 CAP.
Response to Comment G-14: The 2005 emissions data presented in the 2030 CAP
Update is updated emissions data based on the key updates to the 2009 methodology
described in Chapter 1 of the document. The City has clarified the 2030 CAP Update to
indicate this (see Attachment 2).
Comment G-15: The BAAQMD recommends adding an additional graphic showing 2005
emissions by sector
Response to Comment G-15: Comment noted. Since the 2030 CAP Update forecasts
emissions based on growth from the 2015 inventory year, a graphic showing 2005
emissions by sector has not been added to the 2030 CAP Update.
Comment G-16: The BAAQMD identifies obsolete information contained in the 2030 CAP
Update.
Response to Comment G-16: Comment noted. The City has deleted the information in
question from the 2030 CAP Update.
Comment G-17: The BAAQMD comments some of the information on 16 of the 2030 CAP
Update appears out of place.
Response to Comment G-17: Comment noted. The City has revised the 2030 CAP
Update to reflect this comment.
Comment G-18: The BAAQMD comments the discussion on page 16 of the 2030 CAP Update
should be revised.
Response to Comment G-18: Comment noted. The City has revised the 2030 CAP
Update to reflect this comment.
Comment G-19: The BAAQMD comments some of the information on 17 of the 2030 CAP
Update appears out of place.
Response to Comment G-19: Comment noted. The City has revised the 2030 CAP
Update to reflect this comment
Comment G-20: The BAAQMD recommends units be added to Table 9 of the 2030 CAP
Update.
Response to Comment G-20: Comment noted. The City has units (metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalents, or MTCO2e) to this table.
Comment G-21: The BAAQMD inquires whether the City considered a goal or target that aligns
with the State’s objective to be carbon neutral by 2045 pursuant to EO B-55-18.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 42
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
Response to Comment G-21: As explained on page 28, the 2030 CAP update primarily
focuses on reducing GHG emissions by 2020 and 2030. The 2030 CAP Update does not
include a goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 because the State has not yet set for
the measures or plan for achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. At the City level, based on
the baseline and forecasted GHG emissions included in the 2030 CAP Update,
achieving carbon neutrality would require substantial, economy-wide, technological
advancements that would drastically reduce transportation and natural gas emissions.
Such measures would be infeasible at the local level, and very likely be incompatible
with federal preemptions pertaining energy standards and interstate commerce. For
these reasons, the 2030 CAP Update does not include goal or target for carbon
neutrality. The 2030 CAP Update, however, does include multiple strategies related to
energy efficiency and retrofitting natural gas appliances. Please see Response to
Comment G-5. The City also notes the carbon neutrality goal established by EO B-55-18
explicitly states the goal is in addition to existing State GHG emission reduction goals,
including the goals set by EO S-3-05 (to reduce GHG emission 80% below 2050 levels).
In addition, as explained in Chapter 6 of the document, the City will update the CAP
every five years to ensure the City is on the right track towards addressing climate
change and to reflect new technologies, data, and trends in reducing GHG emissions,
including technologies and trends pertaining to carbon neutrality.
Comment G-22: The BAAQMD requests clarification on what the orange shading in Figure 6
represents.
Response to Comment G-22: The orange shading in Figure 6 does not represent
anything specific. It merely was presented as a background color to show the City’s
2030 CAP Update annual GHG emission reduction targets.
Comment G-23: The BAAQMD requests additional information on some of the GHG emissions
reductions.
Response to Comment G-232: In regards to the BAAQMD’s request for additional
information:
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 3 (Complete Streets): Estimates of GHG
emissions reductions associated with GHG Emission Reduction Measure 3 are
based on the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association document
Quantifying GHG Mitigation Measures. The estimate of reductions is based on
the existing intersection density in the City (106 intersections per square mile),
which is high, and the percentage of intersections and streets assumed to
improved (10 of intersections and 25% of street miles by 2030). Given the City’s
intersection density, the 2030 CAP Update generally assumes the mid-range of
reported effectiveness of complete streets traffic calming and infrastructure
improvements.
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 10 (Construction Best Management
Practices): This measure is estimated to apply to approximately 33.5% of the
construction equipment included in the off road equipment inventory used to
estimate off road emissions in the 2030 CAP Update.
• GHG Emission Reduction Measure 18: The 5% increase in solid waste diversion
constitutes nearly 20% of the remaining waste to be diverted from the City (since
the baseline emissions assume a 75% waste diversion). Thus, the 5% increase
in waste diversion results in an approximately 20% reduction in solid waste
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 43
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
emissions (since it is 1/5th of the amount of waste to be diverted to achieve 100%
waste diversion).
Comment G-24: The BAAQMD recommends that GHG Emission Reduction Measures related
to energy efficiency should be mandatory, and not voluntary in nature.
Response to Comment: Comment noted. Please see Response to Comments G-5, G-
10, and G-21.
Comment G-25: The BAAQMD identifies inconsistent text regarding Peninsula Clean Energy’s
renewable portfolio and GHG emissions profile.
Response to Comment G-25: Comment noted. The City has clarified text regarding
Peninsula Clean Energy’s renewable portfolio and GHG emissions profile (see
Attachment 2). As explained in GHG Emission Reduction Measure 13, Peninsula Clean
Energy has a strategic goal of sourcing 100% GHG emission-free electricity by 2021 and
100% California Renewable Portfolio Standard-eligible electricity by 2025.
Comment G-26: The BAAQMD recommends GHG Emission Reduction Measure 15 be revised
to exclude encouraging the installation of tankless natural gas water heaters, and to include an
action to work with Peninsula Clean Energy to establish rebate programs for building
electrification.
Response to Comment G-26: The City has revised GHG Emission Reduction Measure
15 to reflect the BAAQMD’s comments.
Comment G-27: The BAAQMD identifies inconsistent text in Table 36 of the Draft CAP Update.
Response to Comment G-26: The City has corrected inconsistencies regarding the
mandatory/voluntary nature of GHG Emission Reduction Measures as identified in Table
36 (see Attachment 2).
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 44
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
From:Jakub Zielkiewicz
To:MGR-Andrea Pappajohn;MGR-Sigalle Michael;Chris Dugan;Phillip Gleason
Cc:Abby Young;Axum Teferra;Geraldina Grunbaum
Subject:Burlingame CAP call follow-up
Date:Wednesday, July 3, 2019 12:54:54 PM
All,
Thanks for the call earlier today. I forgot to mention one additional item on the call that's not covered in the
comments in the email chain below...
On page 15, there's discussion about large industrial sources. Specifically:
"Large industrial sources are regulated by CARB and are part of California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. Since
the City does not have control over the emissions from large industrial sources, these emissions are presented for
informational purposes only."
I'd encourage you to reframe these statements on industrial sources to show that the city has a willingness to work
with industry to reduce emissions. This could be framed as no net GHG increase for future new industrial facilities
that require local/regional permitting; working with State (CARB) and regional agencies (BAAQMD/PCE) to
reduce existing industrial GHG emissions through Cap-and-Trade, innovative financing/funding mechanisms (i.e.,
Climate Tech Finance:http://www.baaqmd.gov/funding-and-incentives/businesses-and-fleets/climate-tech-finance),
potential local incentives from Burlingame/PCE, etc.
Thanks again,
Jakub
-----Original Message-----
From: Jakub Zielkiewicz
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 1:54 PM
To: MGR-Andrea Pappajohn <apappajohn@burlingame.org>
Subject: RE: Call re: Burlingame Climate Action Plan
Hi Andrea,
Just making sure the timing still works for you and MIG (i.e., Wed from 11-12).
We've reviewed the CAP and have some informal comments, which I include below. I want to emphasize that these
are staff informal comments that have not been routed for appropriate approval, and so they are not official
BAAQMD comments.
In a non-CAP related question, have you seen any information on the potential carbon that's stored in Burlingame's
wetlands or other natural lands? I'm trying to get an understanding if any carbon sequestration studies/assessments
have been undertaken locally or regionally.
Thanks,
Jakub
Informal CAP comments
Executive Summary – in general, the sector summaries provide good insights into the city’s actions. However, the
summary lacks specificity in terms of substance and timeframe. Consider including specific time-bound targets and
Comment
Letter
"H"
H-1
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 46
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 47
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
Response to Comments from Jakub Zielkiewicz, BAAQMD
Comment H-1: The BAAQMD recommends the City consider working with large industrial
sources to reduce GHG emissions that are not part of the City’s GHG emissions inventory.
Response to Comment H-1: The City has revised the 2030 CAP Update to indicate it is
willing to work with large industrial sources to reduce emissions when such opportunities
become available (see Attachment 2).
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments on the Draft 2030 CAP Update 48
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 2: Revised Public Draft 2030 CAP Update
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
Attachment 2
Revised Public Draft 2030 Climate Action Plan Update
with Text Changes in Strikethrough and Underline
Attachment 2: Revised Public Draft 2030 CAP Update
MIG Memorandum August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
2030 CLIMATE ACTION
PLAN UPDATE
Revised Public Draft
With text changes in strikethrough and underline
August 8, 2019
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents Page i
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
City of Burlingame
2030 Climate Action Plan Update
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... ES-1
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of the purpose, development, objectives, and methodology for the 2030 CAP
Update.
2 Climate Change Context ............................................................................................... 11
Background information on climate change science, state initiatives that reduce GHG
emissions, and important changes to the 2009 CAP methodology.
3 GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Annual Targets ............................................... 17
The City's GHG emission baseline inventory, forecast of GHG emissions, and GHG emission
reduction targets.
4 Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy ........................................................... 41
Review of the GHG emission reduction measures and for reducing GHG emissions within
the city.
5 Preparing for Climate Change ....................................................................................... 71
The City’s vulnerability to climate change risks and the approach to adapting to these
risks.
6 Implementation and Monitoring .................................................................................. 77
Plan for implementing the 2030 CAP Update’s GHG emission reduction strategy and
monitoring progress.
Appendix A, spreadsheets detailing the methodologies and calculations used to estimate the
2005 and 2015 community-wide and municipal GHG emission inventories.
Appendix B, data sources and projection calculations for the community-wide GHG emissions
forecast.
Appendix C, calculations for estimating GHG emission reduction from GHG emission reduction
measure implementation.
Table of Contents Page ii
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary Page ES-1
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Executive Summary
Welcome
Welcome to the City of Burlingame’s (City) 2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update – a blueprint
for our community’s response to the challenges posed by climate change. Scientists, including
the United Nations’ scientific Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, paint a far more dire
picture of the immediate consequences of climate change than previously thought 1. Absent
aggressive action, many effects once expected decades into the future are likely to arrive by
2040. The U.N.’s latest climate assessment report clearly shows that global warming and other
shifts in the climate system observed over the past century are unequivocal, occurring at an
unprecedented rate, and are extremely likely to be caused by human activities 2.
According to new research, unabated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could cause sea levels to
rise byto ten feet by the end of this century - an outcome that could devastate coastal
communities in California and around the world 3. California is already feeling the effects of
climate change, and projections show that these effects will continue and worsen over time.
The impacts of climate change have been documented in California including details of
changing temperatures, increasing wildfires and heat waves, decreasing snowpack, and changes
in species sightings and food production.
Locally, we can expect future climate impacts in Burlingame to include more storm and flood
events near shorelines and streams, extreme hot days, and severe local air quality impacts
1 IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of
global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the
context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and
efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A.
Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E.
Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland,
32 pp. <https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf>
2 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A.
Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/>
3 Gary Griggs, et al. Rising Seas in California An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science. California Ocean Protection
Council. <http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level-rise-
science.pdf>
Executive Summary Page ES-2
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
caused by regional wildfires. In addition, the anticipated future decrease of snowpack in the
Sierras and longer drought conditions will impact the City’s fresh water supply.
Burlingame is committed to addressing the climate crisis locally. The City, in coordination with
County and State governments, is taking steps to reduce GHG emissions and create new
programs and services that will support the community and businesses in doing the same. The
2030 CAP Update presents the City’s climate strategy and best estimates of emissions in the
community, based on the most current data and methodologies available. Burlingame will
update the CAP every five years to ensure the City is on the right track towards addressing
climate change and to reflect new technologies, data, and trends in reducing GHG emissions.
Achievements to Date
As a community committed to protecting the environment, Burlingame prepared its first CAP in
2009 to address GHG emissions in the city. Over the last decade, Burlingame has implemented
multiple programs and efforts that significantly reduced GHG emissions from City operations
and the community and brought other benefits to Burlingame. The City has tracked its GHG
emissions and monitored progress toward reducing GHG emissions and is on target to achieve
the 2020 GHG reduction goal set by our original 2009 CAP. The substantial achievements
realized by the City, its residents, and its businesses are shown on below in Figure 1. These
achievements lay a strong foundation for the City’s 2030 CAP Update and the City’s GHG
reduction goals.
Executive Summary Page ES-3
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
FIGURE 1: BURLINGAME CLIMATE ACTION ACHIEVEMENTS
Executive Summary Page ES-4
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Our Updated Goals
Since 2006, when California adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act,
the State has acted as a leader in addressing climate change and has encouraged local cities to
follow suit. AB 32 set a first-time GHG emissions target for the State to achieve 1990 GHG
emissions levels by 2020. Subsequently, in 2016, the State Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB)
32, which set into law an additional mandated reduction target for GHG emissions of 40%
below 1990 levels by 2030. Both of these mandates support the State’s long-range goal to
reduce GHG emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, which was established by Executive
Order S-3-05. These targets are in-line with the scientifically established levels needed to limit
global warming below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) in this century, the warming
threshold at which scientists say there will likely be major climate disruptions such as super
droughts and rising sea level.4
California’s mandates aim to push the State to respond to climate change more quickly and
effectively. The City plays a vital role in implementing on-the-ground solutions needed to
support the State’s actions, and has updated and aligned its annual GHG emission reduction
goals targets to be consistent with State GHG reduction goals.
The 2030 CAP Update specifically focuses on aligning the city’s annual GHG emissions with
statewide goals for 2020 and 2030, consistent with Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) recommendations. Annual GHG emissions are also estimated for 2040 and 2050;
however, it is speculative to demonstrate achievement with longer-term goals for 2040 and
2050 based on the information known today. The City’s CAP will undergo updates every five
years, and more aggressive goals for 2030, 2040, and 2050 may be established during the
update process. Alternatively, goals may be adjusted in future iterations of the CAP based on
the City’s progress toward reducing GHG emissions and/or newly established annual GHG
emissions reduction targets set forth by the State.
4 “Governor Brown Establishes Most Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target in North America”. Office of
Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. April 29, 2015.
<https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/2015/04/29/news18938/index.html>
Executive Summary Page ES-5
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Vision for the Future
(Bullets for new call-out)
• GHG Emissions – Emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
chlorofluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons.
• Annual GHG Emission Inventory – The total amount of GHG emitted, in metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e), over the course of one calendar year.
• Annual GHG Emission Target – The mass GHG emission target (MTCO2e) for Burlingame
over the course of one calendar year; predominantly used for 2020, 2030, 2040, and
2050.
• GHG Emission Reduction Measures – An action, plan, or program identified herein the
CAP that when executed by the City will reduce GHG emissions; predominantly
quantified on an annual GHG emission basis for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050.
Achieving our 2030 GHG emission goaltarget calls for large reductions in GHG emissions across
all sectors and a mix of many solutions working together. Transformations will occur over the
next decades as we decrease our carbon intensity in transportation, energy, waste, and water.
California’s Legislature and policies intend to shift the State toward cleaner transportation,
efficient buildings, renewable energy, less waste and pollution, and healthier communities. This
CAP, and its future updates, is tasked with keeping Burlingame at pace and consistent with the
State’s climate actions.
Clean Transportation. Cleaner transportation generally means reducing the amount of single
occupancy driving, supporting alternative fuels, and implementing stricter fuel efficiency
standards. While Burlingame cannot control fuel efficiency standards, it can influence individual
and local patterns and modes of driving and support the use of alternative fuels and travel
modes. The City, through this CAP and its new Envision Burlingame General Plan, is working on
building more housing and jobs near transit, promoting the use of electric vehicles, supporting
electrifying Caltrain, and making it easier for people to get around by walking and cycling. Still,
changing people’s behavior to drive less is one of Burlingame’s trickiest challenges in reducing
GHG emissions.
As discussed in detail in this document, the City will implement GHG emission reduction
measures to help curb the amount of vehicle miles traveled within the city, as well as provide
Executive Summary Page ES-6
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
incentives that encourage residents and employees within the city to utilize non-petroleum
powered vehicles (e.g., electric vehicles). These strategies include, but are not limited to:
transportation demand management (TDM) programs, improvement of non-vehicular
infrastructure (i.e., pedestrian and bicycle pathways), additional electric vehicle infrastructure
(e.g., charging stations), and managing parking supply. By 2020, the City will adopt a TDM policy
that requires new development demonstrate a 20% reduction in trip generation, compared to
standard rates.
Efficient Buildings. In the building and energy sectors, California’s Legislature is pushing the
envelope with comprehensive and ambitious goals. Most recently, the State approved a shift to
100% renewable carbon-free electricity energy by 2045 and a mandate requiring certain new
residential construction to install solar energy starting in 2020. Burlingame made its own
significant contribution to clean energy when it joined Peninsula Clean Energy in 2016.
Peninsula Clean Energy is San Mateo County’s new electricity utility charged with purchasing
and providing electricity with higher renewable energy content than Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E). In 2017, the City enrolled all its municipal accounts in ECO100, Peninsula Clean Energy’s
100% renewable energy program, and encourages residents and businesses to do the same. By
2021, Peninsula Clean Energy intends to source all its electricity from 100% GHG emission-free
sources, thereby, zeroing out GHG emissions from electricity in Burlingame’s emission
inventory5. This action undertaken by Peninsula Clean Energy, which is supported by the City,
will reduce GHG emissions in Burlingame by more than 24,000 MTCO2e in 2030.
The larger challenge, and opportunity, for GHG emissions reductions in buildings is natural gas
usage in heating and eatingcooking. Currently, Burlingame intends to reduce natural gas usage
with voluntary energy efficient measures that promote retrofitting natural gas appliances for
water heating; however, the City recognizes that stronger policies will be necessary in the
future. For example, some cities are exploring fuel switching policies to electrify natural gas
uses in new and existing homes and the purchase of renewable energy credits to offset natural
5 PCE, 2017. 2018 Integrated Resource Plan. Peninsula Clean Energy. Approved by Board December 14, 2017.
<https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PCE-FINAL-2017-IRP-Updated.pdf>
Executive Summary Page ES-7
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
gas emissions. Though not quantified for GHG emission reductions in this CAP, the City is
currently exploring ways to eliminate natural gas consumption in almost all new development;
an action that would be similar to, but not exactly like, an ordinance recently adopted by the
City of Berkeley. The implementation of an action such as this in Burlingame would further
reduce the GHG emission reductions this CAP, which are on par to meet and exceed the City’s
annual GHG emission targets for 2020 and 2030.
Zero Waste. Reducing the amount of waste discarded in landfills presents an important
strategy for GHG emission reductions and overall sustainability. Emissions from landfills
represent a relatively small portion of the City’s GHG emission inventory, but the benefits of
diverting waste spread far and wide. Waste reduction benefits water and air quality, resource
conservation, wildlife habitats, and the principles of a circular economy. The circular economy
rethinks how waste is used; rather than being disposed, waste should generate new products of
equal or higher quality (not lower). The circular economy requires higher demands on product
design, material use, and behavior change. Composting, which takes waste and turns it into
usable, rich soil, is a strong element of the circular economy.
With the help of State recycling laws, Burlingame seeks to improve its diversion rate with
increased recycling and composting by residents and businesses. The City is examining its own
waste practices by striving for zero waste in municipal buildings and public events. Burlingame
also anticipates participating in future waste movements, similar to the plastic bag ban
movement, to reduce plastic pollution and promote source reduction. To support the goal of
transitioning to zero waste, the City will develop a Community Zero Waste Plan by 2025 that
guides the community in diverting its waste from landfill disposal, highlights a strategy for
managing resources to their highest and best use, and identifies ways to reduce waste at the
source.
Water Conservation. GHG emissions associated with the pumping, delivery, and treatment of
water make up a small sliver of the City’s community-wide GHG emissions. Yet, with respect to
California’s drought history, water conservation is vital to the State’s sustainability and will
continue to remain a key priority in Burlingame. The City will continue to pursue innovative
Executive Summary Page ES-8
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
monetary and nonmonetary incentives to motivate businesses and residents to conserve water
in landscaping and indoor use. Actions that will be undertaken by the City, as identified in this
CAP, include incentives for retrofitting existing business with newer, more water-efficient
plumbing, and requiring high-efficiency indoor water fixtures in new development (e.g., energy
star washing machines and dish washers).
Urban Forestry. Burlingame is proud of being a designated a “Tree City,” due to its canopies of
diverse, mature, and expansive trees along public streets, private property, and parks and
natural areas. The trees contribute to Burlingame’s walkable nature and community character.
Trees are also very good at sequestering carbon and are being utilized more and more as a
climate action measure to address the effects of climate change. Burlingame will plant a net
positive of 33, new trees annually to maintain its existing urban forests and benefit from the
sequestration of carbon.
Municipal Operations. Municipal operations, from vehicle fleets to parks and buildings,
generate just one percent of Burlingame’s GHG emissions; however, they have the power to
serve as a role model forto the community and demonstrate Burlingame’s leadership in climate
action. Burlingame intends towill lower its operational GHG emissions in its operations by
investing in electric fleet vehicles, striving for zero net energy in its future building construction,
retrofitting existing buildings to be more efficient, and implementing various water
conservation measures across buildings and parks.
2030 CAP Update at a Glance
This 2030 CAP Update outlines Burlingame’s strategy for reducing its GHG emissions. The CAP
specifically charts the City’s course to achieving its 2020 and 2030 GHG emission reduction
targets, and demonstrates continuedual, substantial progress towards achieving an aggressive
2040 and 2050 GHG emission targets reduction goal.
The chapters ahead detail and describe the 2030 CAP Update’s background, development
process, goalsannual GHG emission targets, action strategyGHG emission reduction measures,
and implementation plan. The 2030 CAP Update will significantly reduce GHG emissions into
Executive Summary Page ES-9
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
the decades to come. Together with the City’s General Plan, the 2030 CAP Update will advance
and guide the City’s sustainability effort.
FIGURE 2: BUSINESS AS USUAL VS CLIMATE ACTION 2030
Executive Summary Page ES-10
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
FIGURE 3: 2030 CAP AT A QUICK GLANCE
Executive Summary Page ES-11
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Executive Summary Page ES-12
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 1
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
1 Introduction
The City of Burlingame’s 2030 CAP Update represents a significant step in the City’s ongoing
efforts to quantify, monitor, and reduce GHG emissions within the city that contribute to global
climate change. The 2030 CAP Update builds on and replaces the City’s previous CAP, which
was prepared in 2009. It includes updated GHG emissions information and annual reduction
targets. It also contains the City’s new GHG reduction strategyemission reduction measures,
addresses the community’s potential vulnerability to climate change impacts, and provides
clear implementation and monitoring programs to direct climate action in Burlingame.
CAP Development Process
A CAP is a comprehensive roadmap that outlines the activities an agency will take to reduce
GHG emissions and address climate change. Although climate change is global in nature, the
effects of climate change occur at the local level and will influence local decisions. Since 2006,
California has led the way in addressing climate change by preparing plans and adopting
regulations to reduce GHG emissions. While the State has provided strong leadership, the
California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan acknowledges that
local government efforts are critical to achieving the State’s long-term GHG reduction goals.
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s
(OPR) General Plan Guidelines include guidance for preparing CAP documents.6,7 In general,
State guidance recommends CAP documents include: 1) a GHG emission inventory; 2) annual
GHG emission reduction targets; 3) forecasted GHG emissions for activities covered by the CAP
document; 4) GHG emission reduction measures; 5) mechanisms for implementing and
monitoring the CAP; and 6) a process for adopting the CAP in a public process following
6 CARB, 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. California Air Resources Board. Sacramento, CA.
November 2017. <https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf>
7 Sahar Shirazi et al., 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017. Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research. Sacramento, CA. July 31, 2017. <http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf>
Introduction Page 2
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
environmental review. The City has prepared the 2030 CAP Update to be consistent with
current guidance and recommendations for CAP document preparation.
The 2030 CAP Update builds on the work performed to prepare the City’s 2009 CAP and
Envision Burlingame General Plan.
Burlingame 2009 CAP
As a community committed to protecting the environment, Burlingame prepared its first CAP in
2009 to address GHG emissions in the city.8 The City’s 2009 CAP:
● Quantified community-wide and municipal GHG emissions within the city for 2005
● Established 2005 as the City’s baseline GHG emission inventory year
● Set a goal to reduce GHG emissions 15% below 2005 levels by 2020
● Identified 15 GHG emission reduction measures to reach the annual CAP GHG emissions
reduction goaltarget for 2020
Over the last ten years, City staff have worked on implementing and monitoring the 2009 CAP.
Table 1, on the next page, details actions taken on the 2009 CAP measuresGHG emission.
The City’s 2009 CAP, along with aggressive State actions and key regional GHG efforts, have led
to significant community-wide GHG reductions in Burlingame. While the City has not quantified
the individual, actual reductions realized by each 2009 CAP measure, the City’s most recent
GHG emission inventory indicates that GHG emissions are decreasing within Burlingame.
This 2030 CAP Update fully replaces the 2009 CAP and is tasked with continuing the City’s
downhill GHG emissions trajectory for years to come.
8 Burlingame, 2009. Climate Action Plan. Burlingame, CA. June 2009.
<https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Sustainability/2009%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf>
Introduction Page 3
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 1: Summary of 2009 CAP GHG Emission Reduction Measure Implementation
GHG Emission Reduction Measure Implementation Status
1. Adopt a Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance.
Implemented. Burlingame is in compliance with
AB 1881 and is up to date in adopting a Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
2. Adopt a Residential Energy
Conservation Policy (voluntary) to
offer energy audits to residents at a
reduced cost.
Partially Implemented. Burlingame did not adopt
a policy but offered and outreached other energy
audit programs run by San Mateo County for free
and subsidized energy audits and co-hosted
energy workshops with the County. The City also
adopted five PACE (property assessed clean
energy) programs, which provide incentives to
residents and businesses for energy efficient
retrofits.
3. Research and consider a Solar and
Energy Efficiency Financing Program
for residents and small businesses.
Implemented. See CAP Measure #2.
4. Adopt a Residential Green Building
Ordinance for new construction and
major remodel projects and require a
minimum number of GreenPoints
using the Build It Green Regional
Program.
Implemented. Burlingame adopted a Green
Building Policy in December 2008 using Build It
Green and LEED criteria in 2009; however, in 2011
the policy was superseded by CALGreen - the
State’s ambitious green building policy.
5. Adopt a Commercial Green Building
Ordinance to require new commercial
(greater than 10,000 sq. ft.)
construction and major remodels to
meet a minimum Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design standard.
Implemented. See CAP Measure #4.
6. Develop a Commercial Energy
Efficiency Policy to provide energy-
efficiency technical assistance to the
commercial sector and provide an
incentive and Recognition Program.
Encourage commercial businesses
applying for new or renewal of
Partially Implemented. Burlingame did not adopt
a policy; however, the City offered free audits to
businesses through PG&E and the County of San
Mateo. The City targeted outreach to business
sectors including hotels and auto dealerships for
audits; created a green business recognition
program; and encouraged businesses to join San
Introduction Page 4
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 1: Summary of 2009 CAP GHG Emission Reduction Measure Implementation
GHG Emission Reduction Measure Implementation Status
business licenses to complete a free
PG&E energy-efficiency audit. Expand
Burlingame’s participation in the Bay
Area Green Business Program and
provide incentives for businesses to
achieve Green Business certification.
Mateo County’s Green Business Program. Several
new businesses have joined annually since the
program’s revival - including Burlingame’s Corp
Yard building and Main Library.
7. Establish a policy that requires new
large commercial properties (larger
than 10,000 sq. ft.) to develop
Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) strategies that encourage the
use of shuttles, carpools, bicycles, and
public transportation. Provide TDM
guidelines in the permit packet for all
commercial developments.
Not implemented. The City did not adopt a TDM
policy; however, most of the large new
developments in the City have included TDM
measures as mitigation in the environmental
review process.
A TDM policy is included in the City’s Envision
Burlingame General Plan and as a measure in this
2030 CAP Update.
8. Adopt a policy to provide prioritized
parking for hybrid or alternative fuel
cars on city streets, in garages, and in
lots. Expand the policy as technology
advances to increase accommodation
of hybrids and/or alternative-fuel
vehicles.
Not implemented. The City did not implement this
measure mostly due to existing parking pressure
in downtown areas. Also, hybrid purchases have
grown significantly in the region, and electric
vehicles are increasing in popularity as well.
9. Incorporate bicycle friendly
intersections in street design and
modifications. Ensure new
developments provide safe and
convenient travel by walking,
bicycling, or public transportation.
Implemented. The City is continually working to
improve its bicycle network. The City has applied
for and received grants from the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission for bicycle network
improvements, new bike parking, and new bike
lanes.
10. Research methods to increase
ridership and expand shuttle service
and partner with local groups to
increase public transportation
alternatives.
Implemented. The City is currently exploring the
possibility of a new west side shuttle route to
service residents on the hillsides of Burlingame.
To increase ridership, the City posted new signs
with schedules at stops; created a website with
detailed and user-friendly route schedules; and
continually outreaches to increase shuttle
Introduction Page 5
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 1: Summary of 2009 CAP GHG Emission Reduction Measure Implementation
GHG Emission Reduction Measure Implementation Status
ridership.
11. Provide new residential and
commercial recycling service that
includes single stream recycling
collection for residential and
commercial and organics/food
collection.
Implemented. Under the City’s contract with
Recology - the City’s waste hauler - Recology
collects single stream recycling and organics from
residents. In order to meet State requirements,
Recology will be phasing in its recycling and
organics program to commercial businesses as
well.
12. Adopt a Commercial Recycling
Ordinance that requires businesses to
divert recyclable organics, containers,
cardboard, and paper.
Implemented. The City is in compliance with State
recycling regulations for the phasing in of all
businesses to recycle and compost (currently
applicable to businesses that generate more than
four cubic yards of solid waste a week).
13. Encourage the development of a
community group “Burlingame
Green,” to promote and educate the
community about climate action
programs.
Implemented. The City works closely with the
Citizens Environmental Council - a voluntary
community group that emerged from the City’s
Green Ribbon Task Force that spearheaded the
2009 CAP.
14. Dedicate a part-time Sustainability
Coordinator to implement and
coordinate climate action programs.
Implemented. The City hired a part-time
Sustainability Coordinator in December 2014. The
coordinator has carried through numerous
initiatives in the City from new electric vehicle
charging stations and a bike sharing program to
adoption of PACE programs and Peninsula Clean
Energy.
15. Develop “City Green Team”
composed of staff to promote and
expand sustainable programs within
the City and community.
Implemented. The City’s Sustainability
Coordinator organized a Green Purchasing group
to help the City purchase environmentally
preferred options. The Sustainability Coordinator
meets frequently with staff from different
departments to expand sustainable programs.
Introduction Page 6
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
“Envision Burlingame” General Plan
In 2015, the City began updating its General Plan for the first time in 40 years. The resulting
effort, known as Envision Burlingame, established a long-range policy document to guide future
development in the city. Through a robust community outreach process, the Envision
Burlingame General Plan identified guiding principles and contains numerous goals, measures,
and actions to achieve those principles.
An underlying theme of the Envision Burlingame General Plan and its principles is sustainability
through smart growth, resource conservation, green design, urban forest protection,
pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, and transit oriented development (TOD). The General Plan
contains numerous policies and measures that will reduce GHG emissions by conserving
resources, promoting alternative transportation, and reducing waste.
The Envision Burlingame General Plan was released for public review in August 2017. The City
prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that analyzed the potential
environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the Envision
Burlingame General Plan, including potential impacts from GHG emissions, energy use, and
other effects of global climate change, in June 2018 (State Clearinghouse No. 2017082018)9.
The DEIR analysis indicated adoption of the General Plan and the implementation of the
policies contained therein, as written at the time of the DEIR’s release, would not reduce the
City’s GHG emissions to levels consistent with State GHG emission goals and would therefore
have a significant impact on global climate change and GHG emissions. The DEIR acknowledged
the 2030 CAP Update was underway, and introduced three, new policies in the General Plan as
mitigation measures to help reduce GHG emissions. These three policies were: M-3.10: Bicycle
Sharing, M-4.7: Shuttle Service, and IF-6.9: ECO100. The City adopted the Envision Burlingame
General Plan and certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019.
9 Burlingame, 2018. Envision Burlingame Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH#2017082018. June 28, 2018.
<https://www.envisionburlingame.org/files/managed/Document/378/BurlingameGP_DEIR_FullDocument_06-
28-2018.pdf>
Introduction Page 7
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
This 2030 CAP Update updates the methodology, data sources, and GHG emissions information
presented in Chapter 10 of the City’s DEIR.
2030 CAP Update
The 2030 CAP Update achieves several objectives for the City:
1) The 2030 CAP Update replaces the City’s 2009 CAP and provides a strategic plan for
reducing GHG emissions in the near-term to achieve the established, annual reduction
targets for 2020 and 2030. The document also identifies long-term GHG emission reduction
strategies measures to keep the City’s GHG emissions on the necessary downward slope to
reach 2040 and 2050 GHG emission reduction targets. It provides the City’s most current
information on its GHG emission baseline, future emission projections, strategy for reducing
GHG emissions, and addressesing vulnerability to climate change, and how the City will
implement, and regularly monitor, and evaluate the City’s progress towards achieving CAP
goals.
2) The 2030 CAP Update fully integrates with and supports the growth, vision, and principles
set forth in the Envision Burlingame General Plan. The Envision Burlingame General Plan
identifies health and sustainability as topics deserving particular attention and references
the preparation of the City’s 2030 CAP Update. The GHG emissions information contained in
the 2030 CAP Update replaces the GHG emissions information presented in the City’s
Envision Burlingame General Plan EIR.
3) The 2030 CAP Update analyzes and mitigates the City’s community-wide GHG emissions at a
programmatic level. The City has structured the 2030 CAP Update to align with the GHG
emission reduction mandates established by the State Legislature for 2020, 2030, and 2050
and has prepared the 2030 CAP Update to satisfy all of the requirements set forth in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15813.5, Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. Once adopted by the City following the necessary public review process, the
2030 CAP Update may streamline the future environmental review of development projects
in the city.
Introduction Page 8
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
The 2030 CAP Update employs the best currently available information, research, and
methodologies for planning for and reducing GHG emissions. The 2030 CAP Update was
developed using the land use and growth assumptions developed by the City’s Envision
Burlingame General Plan. During the development of the General Plan EIR and the 2030 CAP
Update, the City contacted the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for guidance regarding the methodology and
data sources used to prepare the 2030 CAP Update.
Key Updates to 2009 CAP Methodology
The development of the 2030 CAP Update began with understanding the historical sources and
amounts of GHG emissions generated by activities within the city. The International Council for
Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and ICLEI Local Government Operations Protocol were used to
develop community-wide and municipal GHG emission inventories, respectively.10,11
As part of the 2030 CAP Update development, the City coordinated with the BAAQMD on the
methodologies used to prepare a GHG emission inventory, GHG emissions forecast, scope of
the GHG emissions, annual GHG emissions reduction targets, and GHG emission reduction
measures. This coordination led to several key changes in methodology between the 2009 CAP
and the 2030 CAP Update. These changes are summarized below. Due to these changes, GHG
emissions inventories and forecasts contained in this 2030 CAP Update are not comparable to
those presented in the 2009 CAP.
Global Warming Potential (GWP) Values
The potential for a particular GHG to absorb and trap heat in the atmosphere is considered its
global warming potential (GWP). The reference gas for measuring GWP is CO2, which has a
GWP of one. By comparison, methane has a GWP of 28, which means that one molecule of
10 ICLEI, 2013. U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Version 1.1).
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. July 2013.
11 ICLEI, 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol For the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas
emissions inventories (Version 1.1). ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. May 2010.
Introduction Page 9
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
methane has 28 times the effect on global warming as one molecule of CO2. Multiplying the
estimated emissions for non-CO2 GHG by their GWP determines their carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e), which enables a project’s combined GWP to be expressed in terms of mass CO2
emissions equivalents. The City’s 2009 CAP applied GWP values from the U.N. IPCC’s 1996
Second Assessment Report; however, as recommended by the BAAQMD, the 2030 CAP Update
uses GWP values from the U.N. IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).12 The GWP values
identified in the AR5 generally produce higher estimates of GHG emissions due to a change in
the GWP value for methane. The GWPs for the GHG evaluated in the 2030 Cap Update are
shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Comparison of 2009 and 2030 CAP Update GWP Values
GHG Second Assessment
Report GWP
Fifth Assessment
Report GWP
Carbon Dioxide 1 1
Methane 21 28
Nitrous Oxide 310 265
IPCC, 2014. Fifth Assessment Report.
Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
The key data used to estimate emissions from on-road transportation is vehicle miles travelled,
or VMT. Whereas the City’s 2009 CAP used the in-boundary method to estimate on-road
transportation emissions, the 2030 CAP Update uses the origin-destination method. Though
both approaches are allowed for in the ICLEI U.S. Community Protocol, the latest update to the
protocol in 2013 gives preference to the origin-destination, since it, “better captures a local
government’s ability to affect passenger vehicle emissions than the alternative [origin-
12 BAAQMD, 2018. Personal Communication. Email. Abby Young, BAAQMD, to Phil Gleason, MIG. “RE: Additional
Questions Re: Climate Action Plan and Baseline Inventory.” March 15, 2018.
Introduction Page 10
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
destination] method...”.13 The VMT data source used to estimate on-road emissions in this CAP
is also different than those used for the 2009 CAP. Previously, VMT estimates were obtained
from the Caltrans Highway Performance Monitoring System.14 This CAP uses the same VMT
data source as Plan Bay Area 2040, the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which was developed by the MTC and is supported by the
BAAQMD.15
13 ICLEI, 2013. U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Version 1.1).
Appendix D: Transportation and Other Mobile Emission Activities and Sources. ICLEI – Local Governments for
Sustainability. July 2013.
14 Burlingame, 2009. Climate Action Plan. Burlingame, CA. June 2009.
<https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Sustainability/2009%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf>
15 BAAQMD, 2019. “Vehicle Miles Travel Data Portal”. Climate Action Plan VMT Data. Web. <http://capvmt.us-
west-2.elasticbeanstalk.com/data>
Page 11
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
2 Climate Change Context
This Chapter provides a brief background on current climate change science and the State’s
initiatives to address climate change.
Current State of Climate Change
While some progress has been made over the last decade to reduce GHG emissions globally,
climate change poses a serious risk to communities around the world. The United Nations
(U.N.) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prepares regular assessments of the
scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and
mitigation. The objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific
information that they may use to develop climate policies. The U.N. IPCC’s 2014 Fifth
Assessment Report (AR5) represents the organization’s most current comprehensive study of
climate change. The Report finds that the global average temperature has increased by 1.5 °F
between 1880 and 2012, and that the period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year
period in the Northern Hemisphere over the last 1,400 years. Climate change forecasts
contained in the AR5 conclude that the global average temperature could rise by 2.7 to 14 °F by
the year 2100, depending on the level of action taken to reduce GHG emissions and climate
change risks.16
The AR5 affirms that substantial GHG emissions reductions are needed to limit global GHG
concentrations to 450 parts per million or less, which would likely limit global temperature
increases to 3.6 °F (2 degrees Celsius) or less over the 21st century, as compared to pre-
industrial levels. To achieve this goal, global GHG emissions reductions would need to be
reduced between 41% and 72% by 2050, and between 78% and 118% by 2100 (compared to
2010 global GHG emissions levels).
16 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M.
Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.
Climate Change Context Page 12
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
California has been an active leader in addressing climate change for more than a decade. The
State’s current comprehensive plan for addressing climate change is the 2017 Climate Change
Scoping Plan. According to the 2017 Scoping Plan, “The evidence that the climate is changing is
undeniable. As evidence mounts, the scientific record only becomes more definitive – and
makes clear the need to take additional action now.”17 The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
sets the State’s 2030 GHG reduction target emissions level (260 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalents), and identifies the strategies, programs, and actions that will achieve this
emissions target. The State’s 2030 GHG reduction target reflects the same science that informs
the U.N. IPCC climate change assessment reports, and is intended to keep the global
temperature increase below 3.6 °F (2 °C).
State Climate Actions
California, as a leader in the fight against climate change, has taken many actions at the State
level to curtail the amount of GHG emissions emitted into the atmosphere. Although these
actions were enacted at the State level, they result in GHG emissions reductions at the local
level. The State policies and regulations most relevant to the City’s 2030 CAP Update are briefly
described below. The first three bullet points present the major milestones that have driven all
climate change planning efforts across California.
Executive Order S-3-05 9 (2005): In June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 establishing the State’s GHG emission targets for 2010 (reduce
GHG emissions to 2000 levels), 2020 (reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels), and 2050 (reduce
GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels).
Assembly Bill 32 (2006): Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate
Solutions Act of 2006, mandating caps on Statewide GHG emissions, a deadline of December
31, 2020 for achieving GHG reduction levels, and the requirement for the State to prepare a
Scoping Plan with the State’s GHG strategy to achieve such reductions by such date.
17 CARB, 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. California Air Resources Board. Sacramento, CA.
November 2017. <https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf>
Climate Change Context Page 13
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Executive Order B-30-15 (2015): Governor Edmund Brown issued EO B-30-15 to set a GHG
emissions target for 2030 (reduce GHG emissions 40% below 1990 levels) and to require the
State’s climate adaptation strategy to be updated every three years.
SB 375 - Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (2008): The intent of SB 375 is to
better integrate regional planning related to transportation, land use, and housing to reduce
sprawl and ultimately reduce GHG emissions and other air pollutants. SB 375 tasks CARB with
setting GHG reduction targets for each of California’s 18 regional Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs). In 2010, CARB adopted GHG reduction targets for the San Francisco Bay
region. The targets were set as 7% and 15% reduction in per capita passenger vehicle GHG
reductions by 2020 and 2035 (relative to 2005). The regional strategy for achieving VMT goals
mandated under SB 375 is presented in Plan Bay Area 2040. In March 2018, CARB established
new regional GHG reduction targets for the San Francisco Bay region.18 The new targets are a
10% reduction in per capita passenger vehicle GHG reductions by 2020 and a 19% reduction by
2035 (relative to 2005).
AB 341 - Mandatory Commercial Recycling (2012): AB 341 requires that at least 75% of solid
waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. AB 341 works in
conjunction with SB 1018, which included an amendment that requires businesses that
generate four (4) cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week arrange for recycling
services.
Advanced Clean Cars Program (2012): In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean
Cars (ACC) Program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The
components of the ACC program are the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulation and the Zero-
Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation. The Program combines the control of smog, soot, and global
warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single
18 CARB, 2018. “SB 375 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets” California Air Resources Board.
Sacramento, CA. March 22, 2018.
<https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/finaltargets2018.pdf?_ga=2.116102214.1971771227.1549478758-
1507730002.1452616621>
Climate Change Context Page 14
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
package of standards. By 2025, new automobiles under California’s Advanced Clean Car
program will emit 34% less global warming gases and 75% less smog-forming emissions.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (2018): CARB initially approved the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
regulation in 2009. Originally, the LCFS regulation required at least a 10% reduction in the
carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2020 (compared to 2010). In 2018, CARB
approved changes to the LCFS regulation that require a 20% reduction in carbon intensity by
2030. These regulatory changes exceed the assumption in CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping
Plan, which targeted an 18% reduction in transportation fuel carbon intensity by 2030 as one of
the primary measures for achieving the State’s GHG 2030 target.
SB 100 - California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program (2018): SB 100 revised the State’s
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program to require retail sellers of electricity to serve 50%
and 60% of the total kilowatt-hours sold to retail end-use customers be served by renewable
energy sources by 2026 and 2030, respectively, and requires 100% of all electricity supplied
come from renewable carbon-free sources by 2045.
Executive Order B-48-18 - Zero Emission Vehicles (2018): EO B-48-18 establishes a target to
have five million ZEVs on the road in California by 2030. The executive order is supported by the
State’s 2018 ZEV Action Plan Priorities Update, which expands upon the State’s 2016 ZEV Action
Plan. While the 2016 plan remains in effect, the 2018 update functions as an addendum,
highlighting the most important actions State agencies are taking in 2018 to implement the
directives of EO B-48-18.
Title 24 Energy Standards (2019): The California Energy Commission (CEC) first adopted Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings in 1978 in response to a
legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Part 11 of the Title 24 Building
Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code).
California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three-year
cycle. The 2019 standards will go into effect on January 1, 2020, and improve upon existing
standards. The 2019 standards include new requirements for installation of solar photovoltaics
for newly constructed low-rise residential buildings and also propose several smaller
Climate Change Context Page 15
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
improvements in energy efficiency. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are
approximately 53% more efficient than the 2016 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for
residential development, and approximately 30% more efficient for non-residential
development.19
Executive Order B-55-18: Governor Edmund Brown issued EO B-55-18 on September 10, 2018,
which directs the State to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible and no later than 2045,
and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.
The actions enumerated above affect the GHG emissions produced in Burlingame. Accordingly,
the City has incorporated the expected level of emissions reductions associated with these
State initiatives into its GHG Emission Inventory presented in Chapter 3.
Regional and San Mateo County Climate Action Program
The San Francisco Bay Area and San Mateo County, as leaders in the fight against climate
change, have taken many actions at the regional and county level to curtainl the amount of
GHG emitted into the atmosphere. Although these actions are implemented at the regional and
county level, they result in some GHG emission reductions within the City of Burlingame. The
regional and county-based programs most relevant to the City’s 2030 CAP Update are briefly
described below.
Peninsula Clean Energy: Peninsula Clean Energy is a community choice energy (CCE) program. A
CCE is a locally controlled community organization that enables local residents and businesses
to have a choice regarding where their energy comes from. Peninsula Clean Energy specifically
serves San Mateo County, and has strategic goals of supplying 100% GHG-free electricity by
2021 and sourcing 100% California RPS eligible renewable energy by 2025.
San Mateo County Energy Watch: The San Mateo County Energy Watch (SMCEW) is a local
government partnership between PG&E and the City/County Association of Governments of
San Mateo County, and is administered by the County of San Mateo’s Office of Sustainability.
19 CEC, 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Fact Sheet. California Energy Commission. March 2018.
<https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/>
Climate Change Context Page 16
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
The SMCEW partners with Ecology Action, a non-profit organization, to provide no-cost
technical services to local governments, schools, non-profits, and businesses that helps increase
building energy efficiency.
Bay Area Regional Energy Network: The Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) is a
collaboration of the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. BayREN provides regional-scale
energy efficiency programs, services, and resources.
Sustainability Academy: The San Mateo County Sustainability Academy is free education and
outreach program administered by the County of San Mateo’s Office of Sustainability designed
to raise awareness around sustainability and empower San Mateo County community members
with knowledge and skills to promote sustainability.
Page 17
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
3 GHG Emission Inventor y, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual
Targets
This Chapter summarizes the City’s GHG emission inventory, forecasts the changes in City GHG
emissions levels that will occur over time, and establishes the City’s annual GHG emissions
targets to demonstrate consistency with and substantial progress towards the State’s 2030 and
2050 GHG emission reduction goalstargets, respectively.
Burlingame’s Annual GHG Emission Inventory
An annual GHG emission inventory identifies and quantifies the key sources of GHG emissions
within the city for a given calendar year. TheAn inventory can also provides a baseline scenario
that is used to forecast future changes in emissions, estimate GHG emissions targets, and
identify the amount of GHG emissions reductions needed to reach GHG emission reduction
targets. By understanding the key sources of emissions in Burlingame and how they change
over time, the inventory allows the City to evaluate and implement strategies necessary to
reach annual GHG emission reduction targets.
2005 and 2015 Community-Wide GHG Emission Inventory
The City prepared two community-wide annual GHG emissions inventories as part of the 2030
CAP Update:
Year 2005: The 2005 community-wide GHG emission inventory was originally prepared for the
City’s 2009 CAP. The City updated the 2005 community-wide GHG emission inventory as part of
the 2030 CAP Update to reflect updated GWP values and VMT calculation methodologies
consistent with the latest guidance and recommendations from ICLEI and the BAAQMD. The
updated 2005 community-wide GHG emission inventory serves as the City’s baseline year for
establishing the City’s annual GHG emissions targets for the 2030 CAP Update.
Year 2015: The 2015 community-wide GHG emission inventory represents the most current
snapshot of community-wide GHG emissions in Burlingame. The 2015 inventory reflects the
best available information for actual GHG emissions levels within the city. The City’s GHG
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 18
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
emissions projections for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 are based on the growth projections from
2015 as envisioned by, and consistent with, the Envision Burlingame General Plan.
Key findings of the 2005 and 2015 community-wide GHG emission inventoriesy include:
• GHG emissions levels fell by approximately 12,672 MTCO2e, approximately five percent,
from 2005 to 2015.
• Most of the GHG emission reductions are due to increased electricity supplied from
renewable sources (e.g., solar and wind power), as required under the State’s RPS
Programs.
• Transportation is the largest contributor to GHG emissions at 53%, followed by energy
use in buildings (primarily from heating and cooling) at 44%.
• GHG emission increases in the transportation sector are from additional off-road
equipment operation (e.g., construction and yard and garden equipment); on-road
emissions have decreased.
• The transportation and wastewater sectors are the only areas where emissions grew
over the last decade.
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 19
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
FIGURE 4: 2015 COMMUNITY-WIDE GHG EMISSIONS
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 20
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 3: Burlingame 2005 and 2015 Community-wide GHG Emission Inventoriesy (MTCO2e)
GHG Emission Sector
GHG Emission Inventory
(MTCO2e) Change from 2005
2005 2015 MTCO2e % Change
Residential Energy 47,344 38,249 -9,095 -19.2%
Commercial/Industrial Energy 78,215 67,669 -10,546 -13.5%
Transportation 118,556 129,041 +10,485 +8.8%
Solid Waste 9,333 6,321 -3,012 -32.3%
Water 1,376 707 -636 -48.7%
Wastewater 343 497 +154 +44.8%
City-owned Stationary Sources 28 6 -22 -77.9%
Total Inventory 255,195 242,489 -12,706 -5.0%
Large Industrial Sources 4,593 31,967 +27,374 +596.0%
Total with Large Industrial Sources 259,788 274,456 +14,688 +5.0%
Consistent with BAAQMD guidance, the community-wide inventories show GHG emissions from
the sectors presented above, plus emissions from large industrial sources.20 Large industrial
sources are regulated by CARB and are part of California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. Since the
City does not have control over the emissions from large industrial sources, tThese emissions
are presented for informational purposes only, since the City does not have direct control over
them. However, the City is open to working with industrial facilities within the city, as well as
CARB, the BAAQMD, and Peninsula Clean Energy, to find ways of reducing existing GHG
emissions through Cap-and-Trade and other financing/funding mechanisms. Refer to Appendix
20 BAAQMD, 2011. GHG Plan Level Guidance. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. November 3, 2011.
<http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ghg-plan-level-guidance.pdf>
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 21
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
A for detailed emissions assumptions and methodology information on the 2005 and 2015 GHG
emissions inventories.
Residential and Commercial/Industrial Energy
The energy sector identifies emissions generated by natural gas and electricity consumption in
single- and multi-family residential developments and in commercial and industrial land uses.
As is common in most cities, energy consumption is one of the largest contributors to GHG
emissions in Burlingame. Energy, comprised of electricity and natural gas consumption, made
up approximately 50% of the community-wide GHG emissions in 2005 and 44% in 2015. Most
energy use occurs in lighting, heating, and cooling buildings; and some in outdoor lighting,
traffic control signals, and other equipment.
The energy sector includes energy use as reported by PG&E and Peninsula Clean Energy, and
Direct Access energy. Direct Access energy is purchased on the wholesale market, rather than
from PG&E or Peninsula Clean Energy. Direct Access energy is used by large commercial and
industrial customers. Data on Direct Access energy use was provided by the CEC for all of San
Mateo County, and this energy use was estimated for Burlingame based on the ratio of Direct
Access energy use to other commercial/industrial energy use in the county.21
A comparison of GHG emissions generated by each energy subsector for 2005 and 2015 is
presented in Table 4.
21 CEC, 2018. Personal Communication. Email. Steven Mac, CEC, to Phil Gleason, MIG. “RE: Request for Historic
Electricity Consumption in San Mateo County.” March 2, 2018.
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 22
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 4: 2005 and 2015 Residential and Commercial/Industrial Energy Sector GHG Emissions
GHG Emission Sector
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) Change from 2005
2005 2015 MTCO2e % Change
Residential
Electricity 14,898 11,343 -3,555 -23.9%
Natural Gas 32,446 26,906 -5,540 -17.1%
Residential Subtotal 47,344 38,249 -9,095 -19.2%
Commercial/Industrial
Electricity 45,716(A) 38,315(B) -7,400 -16.2%
Natural Gas 32,499 29,353 -3,146 -9.7%
Commercial/Industrial Subtotal 78,215 67,669 -10,546 -13.5%
Total 125,559 105,918 -19,641 -15.6%
(A) Approximately 10,840 MTCO2e of these emissions are from direct access electricity consumption.
(B) Approximately 8,837 MTCO2e of the emissions are from direct access electricity consumption.
Emissions from electricity are anticipated to zero out in the future as the State and Burlingame
pursue renewable energy goals. Emissions from natural gas will be tougher to reduce since the
cost of natural gas remains relatively low and electrifying natural gas appliances and processes
can be expensive and infeasible. Most of the opportunity for natural gas reductions lies in
Burlingame’s existing building stock. Stringent energy efficiency measures and green building
standards apply to all new construction, but new buildings make up a small portion of the city’s
inventory. The City’s General Plan Housing Element, adopted in 2015, reported there were
about 13,027 housing units in Burlingame, and 87% of them were built prior to 1980, before
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 23
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
energy efficiency requirements existed.22 Over the past few decades only, a small number of
new buildings have been constructed annually (the City’s Housing Element reports that
between 2007 and 2013, 77 new housing units were added.23) The City does not keep data on
the number of homes retrofitted with energy efficient upgrades, but it can it can be assumed
that most housing units in Burlingame would benefit from energy efficiency upgrades.
Transportation
Transportation emissions are found in vehicle trips occurring within Burlingame on local roads
and highways and vehicles (on-road transportation); construction, landscape equipment, and
other pieces of off-road equipment (off-road transportation); Caltrain; and freight trains.
Vehicle travel on roads includes emissions from private, commercial, and fleet vehicles driven
within the city’s geographical boundaries, as well as the emissions from transit vehicles and
City-owned fleet and other public sector fleets. The key data used to estimate emissions from
on-road transportation is VMT. This CAP uses the same VMT data source as Plan Bay Area 2040,
the Bay Area’s RTP/SCS, which was developed by the MTC and is supported by the BAAQMD.
The challenge of the transportation sector is well recognized. The City’s planning vision in the
Envision Burlingame General Plan is centered around getting people to drive less and use
alternative fuels.
Off-road transportation emissions from the operation of lawnmowers, garden equipment,
construction equipment, light commercial equipment, and mobile industrial equipment were
estimated using CARB’s OFFROAD2007 model. Off-road transportation, while only 14% of
transportation emissions, represents an opportunity for emission reductions that local
governments can take on. Local governments may limit the use of off-road equipment by
requiring construction best practices and electric alternatives to gas powered equipment.
22 Burlingame, 2015.City of Burlingame 2015-2023 Housing Element. City of Burlingame. Adopted January 5, 2015.
<https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/1-Burlingame_2015-2023-
HE_Adopted_01.05.15_Final_01.29.pdf>
23 Burlingame, 2015.City of Burlingame 2015-2023 Housing Element. City of Burlingame. Adopted January 5, 2015.
<https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/1-Burlingame_2015-2023-
HE_Adopted_01.05.15_Final_01.29.pdf>
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 24
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Caltrain operates seven days a week and provides commuter train service from San Francisco to
San Jose. The City of Burlingame has two Caltrain stations: Burlingame station and Broadway
station. For Caltrain operations, the City calculated the total countywide emissions and then
allocated the miles of track within Burlingame to estimate emissions.
Freight trains also operate on the Caltrain tracks in the evenings, after Caltrain operations are
done. These trains do not stop in Burlingame, but just pass through the city on the rail track.24
For this reason, and because the City has no control or influence over freight train usage, the
freight train emissions are shown for informational purposes only and are not included in the
estimated emissions. A breakdown of transportation emissions between 2005 and 2015 is
provided in Table 5.
Table 5: 2005 and 2015 Transportation Sector GHG Emissions
GHG Emission Sector
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) Change from 2005
2005 2015 MTCO2e % Change
On-Road 102,768 102,465 -303 -0.3%
Off-Road 15,788 24,105 +8,317 52.7%
Caltrain N/A 2,471 +2,471 N/A
Total 118,556 129,041 +10,485 +8.8%
Freight Rail N/A 2,577 +2,577 N/A
Total with Freight Rail 118,556 131,618 +13,062 +11.0%
Solid Waste
The Solid Waste Sector is comprised of two separate categories: landfills and generated solid
waste. There is one landfill located in the Burlingame city limits, the Burlingame Landfill, which
24 Burlingame, 2014. Final City of Burlingame 2010 Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. City of
Burlingame. June 11, 2014. <https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Planning/1-Burlingame_2015-2023-
HE_Adopted_01.05.15_Final_01.29.pdf>
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 25
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
was closed in 1992. The site is owned by the City and has since been turned into Bayside Park.
Organic material deposited at the site while the landfill was in operation is in the process of
decomposing and generates emissions of methane. The reported emissions from the landfill are
based on the methane collected by the onsite landfill gas collection system. Since this landfill is
closed, emissions from this source will decrease over time, as the amount of organic material
decomposing decreases.
Solid waste is generated by residents and visitors, businesses, public entities, and other
organizations in the community. Emissions from waste result from organic materials
decomposing in the anaerobic (non-oxygen) environment of a landfill and producing methane.
Organic materials (e.g., paper, plant debris, food waste) generate methane, while non-organic
materials (e.g., metal, glass) do not. The majority of solid waste is disposed of at the Ox
Mountain Landfill in Half Moon Bay; small amounts of waste are disposed of at the Potrero Hills
Landfill in Suisun City, the Zanker Materials Processing facility in San Jose, the Monterey
Peninsula Landfill in Marina, and additional landfills in the region. In addition to solid waste
disposal, this category includes alternative daily cover, which is used to cover the landfill each
day in order to control vectors, odors, fires, blowing litter, and scavenging. The total amount of
solid waste generated and alternative daily cover is taken from the CalRecycle jurisdictional
database for the 2005 and 2015 calendar years. A comparison of GHG emissions in 2005 and
2015 from the inactive Burlingame Landfill, landfilled solid waste, and alternative daily cover
are presented in Table 6.
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 26
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 6: 2005 and 2015 Solid Waste Sector GHG Emissions
GHG Emission Sector
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) Change from 2005
2005 2015 MTCO2e % Change
Disposed Waste 8,526 5,773 -2,753 -32.3%
Alternative Daily Cover 454 271 -183 -40.4%
Landfill (Inactive) 354 277 -77 -21.6%
Total 9,333 6,321 -3,012 -32.3%
Water
Consumption of water is associated with GHG emissions produced from the energy and fuel
used to extract, treat, convey, and distribute potable water. In Burlingame, water is provided by
the City, which serves as the local water utility. The City of Burlingame purchases all of its water
from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which owns and operates the San
Francisco Regional Water System with water originating from spring snowmelt flowing down
the Tuolumne River to storage in Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. This water is mostly transported in a
gravity-based system, although a modest amount of energy is needed for water transportation,
treatment, and distribution.
Historical water information is known for 2005 and 2015. For 2005, consumption data was
sourced from the Burlingame 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. 25 For 2015, water
consumption data was obtained by evaluating the amount of water sold by the City of
Burlingame and subtracting customers outside the city limits (e.g., Hillsborough residents).
25 Burlingame, 2005. City of Burlingame Urban Water Management Plan. City of Burlingame. November 2005.
<https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/urbanwatermanagement/2005uwmps/Burlingame/City%20of%20Burlingame%
20-%20Urban%20Water%20Management%20Plan%20-%202005.pdf>
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 27
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Wastewater
The treatment of wastewater generates GHG emissions. The City of Burlingame owns and
operates a wastewater treatment plant. This plant serves all of Burlingame, and also serves
portions of Hillsborough and portions of unincorporated San Mateo County. Emissions from the
wastewater treatment plant are based on stationary fuel use other than natural gas (such as
diesel), and the types of treatment in place for the wastewater. Wastewater treatment leads to
process and fugitive emissions of methane and/or nitrous oxide. Natural gas and electricity
used at the wastewater treatment plant are included in the energy sector.
Since the wastewater treatment plant serves multiple jurisdictions, this inventory includes an
estimate of wastewater emissions allocated to Burlingame based on population.
Stationary Sources
Stationary sources include boilers, generators, co-generation, and industrial processing
equipment and may include a number of fuel types, including natural gas, propane, and diesel.
Stationary source data is provided by the BAAQMD since facilities receive a permit from, or
must otherwise report emissions to, the BAAQMD.
Stationary sources owned by the City of Burlingame, such as back-up generators and gas
pumps, are included in the inventory, because the City has control over them. Stationary
sources outside of the City’s control are listed for informational purposes only.
2005 and 2015 Municipal GHG Emission Inventory
The municipal inventory represents GHG emissions from City operations alone. This data is
folded into the community-wide inventory above; however, it is helpful to analyze these GHG
emissions separately to see how City-generated emissions contribute to overall emissions and
to identify reduction opportunities. As shown in Table 7, municipal GHG emissions made -up
approximately 1% of the community-wide GHG emissions in 2005 and 2015.
Emissions in City operations decreased across all sectors except refrigerants, which were not
estimated in 2005, and in the City’s vehicle fleet. It is unclear why GHG emissions from the
City’s vehicle fleet have gone up; however, it may be a result of growth occurring in Burlingame
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 28
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
and the additional resources used to serve the community (e.g., larger city vehicle fleet size and
more miles being driven).
Overall, the City reduced its emissions by approximately 11.5% due to various measures
implemented across its departments, including:
● Retrofitted lights in municipal buildings, parks, and streets
● Upgraded HVAC equipment in municipal buildings
● Converted City-owned lawns to water efficient landscapes, and reduced water usage
throughout parks
● Introduced composting in municipal buildings and improved recycling
● Certified the Corporation Yard and Main Library as green businesses with San Mateo
County
● Increased water efficiency by replacing old water fixtures, such as toilets and aerators
● Conserved water during the drought, which reduces the flow of wastewater to the
treatment plant.
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 29
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
FIGURE 5: BURLINGAME 2015 MUNICIPAL GHG EMISSION INVENTORYS
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 30
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 7: Burlingame 2005 and 2015 Municipal GHG Emission Inventoriesy
GHG Emission Sector
GHG Emission Inventory
(MTCO2e) Change from 2005
2005 2015 MTCO2e % Change
Energy 1,563 1,250 -313 -20.0%
Vehicle Fleet 604 703 +99 +16.4%
Landfill 354 277 -76 -21.6%
Wastewater Treatment 431 405 -26 -6.0%
Solid Waste Generation 39 16 -23 -58.4%
Employee Commute 537 475 -61 -11.4%
Generators 11 4 -8 -67.5%
Refrigerants 0 3 +3 N/A
Total 3,539 3,133 -406 -11.5%
Percent of Community Inventory 1.4% 1.3% -- --
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Projections for 2020 to 2050
This section summarizes the City’s projections of how community-wide GHG emissions will
change in the future. Projections are provided for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. These years
were selected to align with State GHG emission reduction goalstargets and the Envision
Burlingame General Plan build out year of 2040.
A GHG emissions projection forecasts emissions levels based on the continuation of current
trends and activities in GHG emissions sectors and accounting accounts for population and
employment growth. GHG emissions projections provide a basis for determining the amount of
GHG emissions reductions needed to achieve annual GHG emission reduction targets.
The 2030 CAP Update contains two different GHG emissions projections:
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 31
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
The “Business As Usual” (BAU) Projection – This forecast estimates what GHG emissions would
be if the Burlingame community continued to act as it currently does as it grows and takes no
actions to reduce emissions. The CAP BAU projection assumes population, housing, and
employment will increase over time from 2015, reaching General Plan buildout levels by 2040,
and result in a corresponding increase in GHG emissions from the various GHG emissions
sectors (e.g., energy, transportation, water, etc.). The CAP BAU projection assumes GHG
emission reduction policies, regulations, etc. in place in 2015 would remain unchanged over
time. The BAU projection does not account for GHG emissions reductions associated with State
or regional GHG emission reduction programs implemented after 2015, nor does it account for
emissions reductions associated with actions GHG emission reduction measures presented in
this CAP.
The “Adjusted Business As Usual” (ABAU) Pprojection – Fortunately, California is taking a
leadership role in climate action and adopting significant regulations to reduce emissions and
move the State toward a less carbon-intensive economy. The ABAU forecast accounts for
legislative actions adopted after 2015 (or resulting in GHG emissions reductions after 2015) that
would reduce future GHG emissions. These actions include:
● The 2019 Revised Energy Code and 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which
improve electricity and natural gas efficiency in residential and non-residential buildings
● The State Renewable Energy Portfolio Program, as modified by SB 100, which increases
the percentage of renewable energy serving the state
● Increased electric vehicle mode share pursuant to Executive Order B-48-18 and the
State’s 2016 ZEV Action Plan
● Increases in transportation fuel efficiency resulting from legislatively mandated
emissions standards
● The State Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which decreases the carbon content in fuel sold in
California
● Assembly Bill 341, which reduces landfilled solid waste
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 32
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Appendix B details how the projections were developed, the indicators used to estimate
emissions in each sector, and the data sources used.
Demographic Trends and VMT Data
The BAU and ABAU forecasts were developed using the housing units, population, and
employment projections identified in the Envision Burlingame General Plan and VMT data from
Plan Bay Area 2040. The values are based on the land use diagram contained in the General
Plan and build-out estimates for 2040, the General Plan’s horizon year.26 Population and
employment estimates for 2020, 2030, and 2050 were linearly interpolated based on the
average rate of growth between 2015 and General Plan build-out year 2040; this average rate
of growth was also applied to the 2040 to 2050 timeframe.
The annual VMT estimates used for all forecast years were derived using the origin-destination
method. Table 8, below, summarizes the housing units, population, employment, and VMT
values used to develop the BAU and ABAU forecasts.
Table 8: Demographic and VMT Growth in Burlingame, 2015 to 2050
Demographic
Variable 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050
Housing Units 13,144 13,728 14,897 16,065 17,233
Population 29,724 31,099 33,850 36,600 39,350
Employment 29,879 31,825 35,718 39,610 43,502
Annual VMT 254,793,946 264,495,198 271,492,453 307,367,222 332,725,017
26 Although Table CX-1 of the General Plan identifies 2016 as its baseline, this CAP uses those values for 2015, this
CAP’s “existing conditions,” since they are the most accurate metrics available.
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 33
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
BAU and ABAU GHG Emissions Forecasts
Table 9 summarizes Burlingame’s BAU and ABAU GHG emissions projections by sector.
Table 9: Burlingame BAU / ABAU GHG Emissions Projections - 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050
Projection / GHG Emission Sector
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
BAU GHG Emissions Projection
Residential Energy 39,949 43,349 46,749 50,149
Commercial/Industrial Energy 72,076 80,892 89,707 98,522
Transportation 135,315 140,643 157,585 170,297
Solid Waste 6,631 7,259 7,895 8,538
Water 746 825 903 982
Wastewater 520 566 612 658
City-owned Stationary Sources 7 7 8 9
Total BAU GHG Emissions 255,244 273,541 303,460 329,155
ABAU GHG Emissions Projection
Residential Energy 38,579 34,463 35,216 29,030
Commercial/Industrial Energy 67,712 55,906 59,452 36,554
Transportation 119,539 84,930 86,250 92,102
Solid Waste 6,580 7,106 7,640 8,181
Water 708 468 512 0
Wastewater 520 566 612 658
City-owned Stationary Sources 7 7 8 9
Total ABAU GHG Emissions 233,646 180,493 189,690 166,534
Another common methodology to presenting GHG emissions is to evaluate how efficiently a
project or community emits GHG. Under this methodology, a project’s or a community’s GHG
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 34
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
emissions are divided by its population (i.e., per capita) and compared to a regional or
statewide average per capita GHG emissions. This methodology is consistent with guidance
from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.27 The California Supreme Court
recently indicated that evaluating GHG emissions on an efficiency basis may provide a better
indicator for evaluating consistency with State GHG reduction goals.28 For projects designed to
accommodate long-term growth, such as a General Plan, the issue is not whether growth will
increase emissions (California's population and economic activity are forecasted to increase
under the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan), but whether the growth is occurring in an
efficient manner consistent with State goals. Table 10 presents the City’s BAU and ABAU GHG
emissions efficiency on a per capita basis.
Table 10: Burlingame BAU / ABAU GHG Emissions Efficiency - 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050
Projection / GHG Efficiency 2020 2030 2040 2050
City Population 31,099 33,850 36,600 39,350
BAU Total GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 255,244 273,541 303,460 329,155
Capita BAU GHG Efficiency (MTCO2e/Capita) 8.2 8.1 8.3 8.4
ABAU Total GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 233,646 180,493 189,690 166,534
Capita ABAU GHG Efficiency (MTCO2e/Capita) 7.5 5.3 5.2 4.2
Table 11 provides the future GHG emissions reductions associated with executive and
legislative actions included in the ABAU forecast. For a full, detailed breakdown of the BAU and
ABAU forecasts, see Appendix B.
27 CAPCOA, 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. A Resource for Local Government to Assess
Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association. August 2010.
28 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. The Newhall Land and Farming Company, Real Party in Interest. Supreme
Court of California. No. S217763. Decided November 30, 2015.
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 35
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 11: Summary of ABAU GHG Emissions Reductions
GHG Reduction Action
GHG Emissions Reductions (MTCO2e Per Year)
2020 2030 2040 2050
2019 Revised Energy Code / Building Energy
Efficiency Standards 2,281 9,915 16,525 23,134
Renewable Portfolio Standard 3,491 24,314 25,656 60,935
Executive Order B-48-18 / 2016 ZEV Action
Plan - 9,080 9,573 10,528
Advanced Clean Cars Program 9,752 29,831 41,018 45,542
Low Carbon Fuel Standard 6,024 19,756 20,744 22,126
Mandatory Commercial Recycling (AB 341) 51 153 255 357
Total 21,598 93,048 113,770 162,621
Burlingame’s Annual GHG Emission Reduction Targets
This 2030 CAP Update primarily focuses on reducing annual GHG emissions for 2020 and 2030,
consistent with legislatively-adopted State targetsgoals for those years. Although emissions
forecasts and reductions are included for 2040 and 2050, it is speculative to demonstrate
achievement with these longer-term goals with the information known today. As has been the
case over the last decade, it is anticipated that technological advances and future federal and
State law will assist Burlingame in reducing its emissions in line with State goals.
The State’s GHG emission reduction targets goals are:
● 2020: Reduce annual GHG emissions to 1990 levels (AB 32, 2006)
● 2030: Reduce annual GHG emissions by 40% below 1990 levels (SB 32, 2016)
● 2050: Reduce annual GHG emissions by 80% below 1990 levels (SB 32, 2016)
While the State uses 1990 as its baseline year, local governments tend to not have reliable GHG
emission data prior to 2005. According to CARB, an annual GHG emission reduction targetgoal
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 36
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
of 15% below 2005 levels is comparable to a return to 1990 levels. Burlingame, therefore, has
used data from 2005 to derive its 2020 goalGHG emission target, which is considered
representative of 1990 levels. The City also selected annual GHG emission reduction targets for
2030 and 2050 that align with the State’s GHG emission reduction targetsgoals, and a GHG
emission reduction target for 2040 to coincide with the Envision Burlingame General Plan
buildout year. The GHG emission reduction target for 2040 is based on the linear trend from
2030 to 2050 necessary to maintain progress towards the State’s GHG emission reduction
targetgoal.
The 2030 CAP Update GHG emission Rreduction targets are:
● 2020: Reduce annual GHG emissions by 15% below the City’s 2005 GHG emission
Bbaseline Iinventory (comparable to 1990 levels)
● 2030: Reduce GHG emissions by 40% below 1990 levels
● 2040: Reduce GHG emissions by 60% below 1990 levels
● 2050: Reduce GHG emissions by 80% below 1990 levels
Table 12 summarizes the City’s annual GHG emission reduction targets for 2020, 2030, 2040,
and 2050, and the emissions gap between the ABAU forecast and the City’s annual GHG
emission reduction target. Figure 63-5 presents this information graphically.
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 37
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 12: Burlingame GHG Emission Reduction Targets and Reductions Needed
CAP GHG Emission Scenario
Annual GHG Emissions Level (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
ABAU GHG Emissions 233,646 180,493 189,690 166,534
GHG Emission Reduction Targets 216,916(A) 130,3150(B) 86,766(C) 43,383(D)
Additional GHG Emission Reductions
Needed 16,730 50,343 102,923 123,151
(A) 216,916 MTCO2e is 15% below the City’s 2005 GHG emission baseline inventory (255,195 MTCO2e; see
Table 3).
(B) 130,1350 MTCO2e is 40% below the City’s estimated 1990 emissions level (216,916 MTCO2e).
(C) 86,766 MTCO2e is 60% below the City’s estimated 1990 emissions level (216,916 MTCO2e).
(D) 43,383 MTCO2e is 80% below the City’s estimated 1990 emissions level (216,916 MTCO2e).
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 38
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
FIGURE 6: BURLINGAME GHG EMISSIONS BASELINE, FORECASTS, AND GHG
ANNUAL REDUCTION TARGETS
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 39
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
GHG Emission Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Annual Targets Page 40
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 41
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
4 Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy
The City’s GHG emission reduction strategy is based on the Envision Burlingame General Plan –
the City’s long-range planning document that strongly emphasizes sustainability through
mobility, land use development, natural resources, and community health policy
considerations. The General Plan serves as the City’s guidance document, and this CAP acts as
its implementation tool for climate action.
Each of the climate actions GHG emissions reduction measures discussed below represents
GHG reduction measuresa policy selected from the City’s General PlanEnvision Burlingame
General Plan along with severalor a new policyies introduced in the sections below as a General
Plan amendment (the new and amended policies are duly noted).
The 2030 CAP Update focuses on 20 action measures, and each of those measures connects
with multiple supporting policies in the General Plan. For example, the Complete Streets action
measure relies on an array of supporting General Plan policies that encourage alternative
transportation and smart development. The quantified reduction estimates for each climate
actionmeasure below reflect both the primary and supporting General Plan policies.
The City is on a path to successfully achieve its 2020 and 2030 GHG emission reduction targets,
both in terms of total emissions and emission efficiency on a per capita basis. The City’s GHG
emission reduction strategy also partially reaches the interpolated 2040 GHG reduction targets
at General Plan buildout (on an efficiency basis), and makes serious headway towards reaching
the 2050 GHG reduction emission targets. Achievement of these longer-term GHG reduction
emission targets is very much a forecast and is not the primary focus of the 2030 CAP Update.
The additional, dramatic GHG emission reductions needed to reach the longer-term reduction
targets rely on continued technology and regulations toward renewable energy, net zero
energy building, carbon free transportation, zero waste, and efficient water conservation.
The emission reductions from implementation of the City’s CAP is broken down by individual
measures in Table 13. A summary of how the CAP GHG emission reduction measures combine
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 42
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
with the cCity’s ABAU forecast is summarized in Table 14, and Table 15 presents the CAP’s GHG
emission efficiency on a per capita basis after accounting for CAP measure reductions.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 43
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 13: CAP GHG Emission Reduction Measures Emissions Summary
CAP GHG Emission Reduction Measure GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
1. Mixed Use Development, Transit Oriented
Development, and Transit Supporting Land
Use
95 166 233 328
2. Transportation Demand Management - 4,563 8,632 9,286
3. Complete Streets - 5,488 6,686 8,726
4. Caltrain Electrification - 2,954 3,276 3,598
5. Bicycle Sharing 3,379 1,697 1,577 1,632
6. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Initiatives 5 29 53 79
7. Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements, and
Creative Parking Approaches - 424 821 1,209
8. Burlingame Shuttle Service 8 10 11 13
9. Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment - 516 556 596
10. Construction Best Management Practices - 3,618 4,871 5,218
11. Green Building Practices and Standards - 53 124 133
12. Energy Efficiency - 3,247 7,168 7,309
13. Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100 16,533 24,073 24,038 -
14. Residential Solar Power 345 617 1,028 -
15. Alternatively-Powered Residential Water
Heaters - 270 315 455
16. Retrofits - 1 2 -
17. Water Conservation - 2 3 -
18. Zero Waste
- 2,760
4,140
4,483
5,978
6,435
8,044
19. Municipal Green Building Measures 27 27 66 66
20. Increase in the Public Tree Population 5 17 29 40
Total Reductions from CAP GHG Emission
Reduction Measures 20,397 50,532
51,913
63,973
65,467
45,124
46,732(A)
(A) GHG emission reductions attributable to CAP measures decreased from 2040 to 2050, because of
greater actions taken by the state (e.g., requiring the entire electricity grid by supplied by 100%
renewable energycarbon-free electricity by 2045). These reductions are realized in the ABAU scenario.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 44
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 14: CAP GHG Emissions Reductions Summary
GHG Emissions Scenario GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
ABAU GHG Emissions Forecast 233,646 180,493 189,690 166,534
CAP GHG Emissions Reductions by Sector
Built Environment and Transportation 3,487 19,465 26,717 30,685
Energy 16,877 28,260 32,673 7,897
Water 0 3 5 0
Waste
0 2,760
4,140
4,483
5,978
6,435
8,044
Municipal 33 44 94 106
Total GHG Emissions Reductions 20,397
50,532
51,913
63,973
65,467
45,124
46,732
City GHG Emissions with CAP
ReductionsGHG Emission Reduction
Measures
213,249 129,961
128,581
125,717
124,222
121,410
119,802
2030 CAP Update GHG Emissions Target 216,916 130,150 86,766 43,383
GHG Emissions Target Achieved? Yes Yes No No
Additional GHG Emission Reductions
Needed
None None 38,950
37,456
78,027
76,418
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 45
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 15: CAP GHG Emissions Efficiency Summary
GHG Emissions Scenario GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
City GHG Emissions with CAP ReductionsGHG
Emission Reduction Measures(A)
213,249 129,961
128,581
125,717
124,222
121,410
119,802
Population 31,099 33,850 36,600 39,350
City GHG Emission Efficiency MTCO2e/Capita N/A(B) 3.8 3.4 3.1
3.0
2017 Scoping Plan Per Capita Efficiency Target(C) N/A(B) 6.0 4.0 2.0
Emissions Efficiency Targets Achieved? N/A(B) Yes Yes No
(A) GHG emissions fromwith CAP reductionsGHG emission reduction measures are from Table 14.
(B) CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan does not recommend an efficiency target for 2020.
(C) CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan recommends a Statewide GHG efficiency of 6.0 and 2.0
MTCO2e per capita in 2030 and 2050. The 2040 value has been interpolated.
Cost Considerations
The City’s GHG emission reduction strategy carries economic costs such as capital outlay costs,
operating costs, maintenance costs, etc. that will be borne by the City, its residents, and its
businesses and their patrons. While it is not possible to identify all the costs or co-benefits
(cleaner air, less traffic, etc.) associated with all facets of implementing a General Plan policy or
CAP-identified actionGHG emission reduction measure, the relative costs associated with
achieving GHG emissions reductions are estimated as follows.
Low Costs – Assumes that existing City employees and/or programs can implement the action
measure as part of normal job duties and functions, program operations, etc. Assumes that
incentives, rebates, or other financial programs are available to partially offset the additional,
upfront costs related to a voluntary action taken by a business or resident. Assumes the return
on investment or payback for undertaking a voluntary or mandatory action associated with the
measure is less than five years (inclusive of any financial incentive).
Moderate Costs – Assumes that existing City employees and/or programs could implement the
action measure as part of normal job duties and functions, but additional training or part-or
full-time staff may be required. Assumes that businesses or residents would bear most of the
upfront costs associated with a voluntary action or new mandatory requirement (e.g., extra
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 46
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
duties or new training). Assumes the return on investment or payback for undertaking the
voluntary or mandatory action associated with the measure is between five and 10 years
(inclusive of any financial incentive).
High Costs – Assumes new City employees and/or programs would be required to implement
the policy, measure, or actionmeasure. Assumes that businesses or residents would incur short-
and long-term costs associated with implementing and maintaining a new program, building
system, etc. Assumes the return on investment or payback for a voluntary or mandatory action
associated with the measure is more than 10 years.
Each action below notes the level of associated costs that will be needed to implement the
actionGHG emission reduction measure.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 47
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Built Environment and Transportation GHG Emission Reductions Measures
Vision: Establish the City as a bicycle and pedestrian accessible and friendly city with high use of
transportation alternatives to reduce single occupancy vehicle driving and associated emissions
and impacts.
1. Mixed-Use Development, Transit Oriented Development, and Transit Supporting Land Use
General Plan Policy CC-1.2: Mixed Use, Transit Oriented Infill Development. Promote higher-
density infill development with a mix of uses on underutilized parcels, particularly near
transit stations and stops.
General Plan Policy M-6.1: Transit Supportive Land Use. Plan for and accommodate land
uses that facilitate development of compact, mixed-use development with the density,
diversity of use, and local accessibility supportive of transit use.
Description: Having different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since
trips between land uses are shorter and may be accommodated by non-auto modes of
transport. For example, when residential areas are in the same neighborhood as retail and
office buildings, a resident does not need to travel outside the neighborhood to meet their
trip needs. Locating a project with high density near transit will facilitate the use of transit
and reduce VMT.
Actions: The City shall facilitate and encourage mixed-use and high-density residential
development near major transit nodes, consistent with the land use map contained in the
Envision Burlingame General Plan. Mixed-use and high-density residential developments
are located along Broadway, El Camino Real, in the Downtown Specific Planning Area, and
other locations throughout the city.
Tracking: The City shall track new development within Burlingame, if the development is
consistent with the General Plan land use designation, and its proximity to transit services
and infrastructure.
Relative Costs: Low.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 48
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 16: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Mixed-Use Development,
Transit Oriented Development, and Transit Supporting Land Use (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
95 166 233 328
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 2.
2. Transportation Demand Management
General Plan Policy CC-1.5: Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Require that all
new, major development projects include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program, as defined in the City’s TDM regulations, to reduce single-occupancy car trips.
“Major development” shall be defined in the TDM regulations by square footage for
commercial development, or minimum number of units for residential development.
Description: TDM programs identify ways to reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips and
VMT at the project-level. TDM programs allow developers and building managers flexibility
to select measures that reduce VMT. Strategies generally include, but are not limited to:
carpooling; designating parking for clean air and ridesharing vehicles; transit subsidies;
bicycle parking and amenities; employer-sponsored shuttles/bus services; and alternative
work schedules.
Actions: The City shall require new multi-unit residential developments of 10 units or more
and commercial developments of 10,000 square feet or more to incorporate TDM strategies
that achieve a 20% reduction in trip generation rates below the standard rate published in
the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th edition),
or other reputable source. This trip reduction level may be achieved through site design,
transit, bicycle, shuttle, parking restriction, carpooling, or other TDM measures. All TDM
plans shall have a designated coordinator who will track the effectiveness of the TDM
Program over time and provide a report to city staff annually regarding the effectiveness of
the TDM plan.
The City shall coordinate with businesses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and
the Broadway Commercial Area to identify and implement actions and strategies that would
reduce single-occupancy car trips and VMT. Strategies may include, but are not limited to:
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 49
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
carpooling, designated parking for clean air and ridesharing vehicles, transit subsidies,
bicycle parking, and employer sponsored shuttles.
Tracking: The City shall track the number of new projects subject to this measure and, if
known, the vehicle trip and/or VMT reductions resulting from TDM programs. TDM
coordinators will report program metrics and results effectiveness to the City annually.
Projects not meeting TDM requirements will be required to prepare an action plan to
achieve the required reductions.
Relative Costs: Low (County incentives for alternative transportation and requirements for
new development) to Medium (requirements for existing development that cannot readily
change parking areas, proximity to transit, etc.).
Table 17: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Transportation Demand
Management (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
- 4,563 8,632 9,286
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 4.
3. Complete Streets
General Plan Policy M-1.1: Complete Streets. Define and develop a well-connected network
of Complete Streets that can move all modes safely, efficiently, and comfortably to promote
efficient circulation while also improving public health, safety, and accessibility.
Description: Complete Streets are streets designed and operated to enable safe use and
support mobility for all users. Infrastructure Complete Streets infrastructure improvement
projectss includeing, but not limited to, marked or raised crosswalks, count-down signal
timers, curb extensions, speed tables, median islands, and street narrowing, etc. will reduce
VMT and increase pedestrian and bicycle use, safety, comfort, and accessibility.
Actions: The City shall pursue multi-modal enhancements for roadway segments,
intersections, and bikeways along City-maintained public roads, particularly near major
roads and development. The City shall develop and implement a Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan with detailed information on the existing transportation network and
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 50
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
additional multi-modal infrastructure improvements in the city (e.g., filling in sidewalk gaps,
expanded safe bicycle routes, etc.). The City will adjust its transportation impact fee to
reward projects associated with low VMT. Transportation impact fees are one-time charges
assessed by the City against a new development project to help pay for new or expanded
transit facilities (e.g., improvements) that address the increased demand and/or impact
created by the development. The City will participate in and advocate for inclusion of
Burlingame roads in the San Mateo County Sustainable Streets Master Plan prioritization.
Tracking: The City shall document track the number of multi-modal improvements projects
executed, including the number of roadways (measured in centerline miles) and
intersections improved and any other infrastructure projects that promote safe, efficient
multi-modal transportation.
Relative Costs: Moderate to High, depending on the infrastructure improvement.
Table 18: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Complete Streets (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
- 5,488 6,686 8,726
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 3.
4. Caltrain Electrification
General Plan Policy M-4.2: Caltrain Electrification. Support efforts to electrify Caltrain to
improve regional transit services to Burlingame, if these improvements do not result in
unacceptable safety or noise impacts on the community.
Description: Caltrain’s commuter rail line serves the San Francisco Peninsula and the Santa
Clara Valley. Its trains currently consist of diesel locomotive-hauled, bi-level passenger cars.
Burlingame is served by two Caltrain stations and is in proximity to the intermodal Millbrae
station. The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project will modernize Caltrain by installing an
advance signal system and electrifying the rail line. Since the Caltrain line in Burlingame
would be served by Peninsula Clean Energy (see Policy IF-1.9), the trains and stations would
utilize 100% GHG-emission free electricity by 2030.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 51
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Actions: The City shall support electrification of the Caltrain corridor and work with the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, where it can, to advance the modernization process.
Tracking: The City shall keep track of the Caltrain modernization process and any City efforts
to support this process.
Relative Costs: Low.
Table 19: Estimated Annual GHG Emissions Reductions from Caltrain Electrification
(MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
- 2,954 3,276 3,598
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 13.
5. Electric Vehicle, Bicycle, and Scooter Sharing
General Plan Policy M-3.10: Bicycle Sharing. Implement a bicycle sharing program to
provide an alternative to driving, enhance bicycle accessibility, and offer a last-mile option
to transit.
Description: In late 2017, the City welcomed Limebike, a dock-less, bikeshare program, as a
pilot program to test bikeshare in the community. A bikeshare system provides shared use
bicycles to individuals on a short-term basis. In addition to making it quicker to get around,
bikeshare programs help address the last mile of a commute for people who want to take
regional transit, but don’t want to walk an extended distance from the transit stop to their
destination. By providing a flexible means of transit that connects people with larger
regional transit amenities, electric vehicle (EV), bike- and scooter-share programs make it
easier for people to avoid single occupancy vehicle trips, thereby reducing VMT and /GHG
emissions.
Actions: The City shall continue working with a private electric vehicle, bike-, and scooter-
share providers, if available and as feasible, to offer City residents and employees a variety
of lower VMT and GHG emission non-vehicular transit options. The City shall also consider
other forms of shared-transit amenities as these options become available. The City shall
strategize on how to increase ridership in Burlingame (e.g., the placement and number of
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 52
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
bikes near transit hubs) and provide information to the community on the benefits of
reducing single vehicle occupancy trips.
Tracking: As long as there are EV, bike-, and scooter-share providers in the market, the City
shall maintain an operational bikesharesuch programs in its jurisdiction and track ridership
and document the effectiveness of the program to reach specified GHG emission reduction
goals.
Relative Costs: Low
Table 20: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Bicycle Sharing (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
3,379 1,697 1,577 1,632
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 14.
6. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Initiatives
General Plan Policy CC-1.13: Electric Vehicle Network. Support the electric vehicle network
by incentivizing use of electric vehicles and installations of charging stations.
Description: This measure will support battery electric vehicles (BEV) and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle (PHEV) purchases. An increasing share of electric vehicles on the roads in
and near the city will decrease vehicle fuel combustion and tailpipe emissions from the
current fleet of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.
Actions: The City shall target the installation of three public EV stations by 2020, 25 charging
stations by 2030, 50 by 2040, and 75 by 2050. The City shall require new residential
development to include Level 2 charging stations. The City will work with the County of San
Mateo and Peninsula Clean Energy to extend and expand rebates and incentives for Level 2
charging stations. The Level 2 charging station requirement will be enacted through an
amendment to the Municipal Code by 2020. The amendments shall affect the portion of the
Municipal Code covering the 2019 California Building Standards Code, CALGreen (Title 24,
Part 11). Single- and multi-family homes (less than or equal to 20 units) shall be constructed
such that each home/unit has at least one dedicated parking space with electric vehicle
supply equipment (EVSE) installed. The City shall work with Peninsula Clean Energy and the
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 53
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
San Mateo County Office of Sustainability to develop specific language for the amendment.
In addition, Tthe City shall develop an Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan (EVSP) that shall
identifiesy existing charging facilities and EV ownership characteristics in the city, priority
areas for installing new public EV infrastructure, opportunities for public/private
partnerships, and potential City constraints towards supporting local and statewide goals
for EV mode share in 2030 and beyond. The EVSP shall identify and document the actions
the City will take each year to promote increased EV use including, but not limited to: 1)
partnering with the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability to maximize efforts on
expanding the use and purchase of EV vehicles; 2) providing robust information on the
City’s website and at City functions regarding the benefits of EV vehicles; 3) encouraging the
installation of Level 2 high-speed chargers in residential and commercial developments; 4)
seeking opportunities to install signs and other wayfinding devices to assist with locating EV
charging infrastructure; and 5) developing a task force or working group comprised of City
staff and representatives of local automobile dealerships to identify and coordinate regional
EV rebate programs, promotions, and other opportunities for EV awareness; and 6) identify
a strategy for electrifying the City’s existing, municipal vehicle fleet.
Tracking: The City shall identify the number of EV stations installed in the prior year and
provide an annual update on the status of the EVSP development and implementation
results as part of its aAnnual Sustainability Report, which shall be advertised and made
available to the public.
Relative Costs: Low (EVSP preparation) to Medium (EV charging infrastructure)
Table 21: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
and Initiatives (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
5 29 53 79
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 15.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 54
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
7. Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements, and Creative Parking Approaches
General Plan Policy M-7.1: Parking Pricing. Manage public parking facilities effectively by
using dynamic pricing strategies that allow all parking facilities to achieve desired occupancy
rates in business and retail districts.
General Plan Policy M-7.3: Parking Requirements. Reduce or eliminate minimum parking
requirements and/or implement parking maximums for housing, commercial, office, and
other land uses in mixed use areas and in proximity to frequent transit services.
Comprehensively examine parking requirements in the Zoning Code and adjust as needed
to evolving vehicle ownership patterns and parking practices.
General Plan Policy M-7.5: Creative Parking Approaches. Promote and support creative
approaches to parking, including but not limited to use of parking lifts and shared parking,
particularly in mixed-use and retail areas. In Downtown and the Live/Work designation,
include consideration of “unbundling” parking from residential development projects,
whereby parking is provided as an amenity paid for separately from a lease.
Description: Reduced parking requirements encourage smart growth development and
alternative transportation choices by employees and consumers. To ensure parking does
not spill out onto local streets, the City shall utilize a dynamic pricing strategy that allows all
parking facilities to achieve desired occupancy rates. By controlling the amount of parking
that is available, employees and consumers are encouraged to carpool or use alternative
modes of transportation to reach their destination.
Actions: The City shall require all new non-residential development to reduce the number of
parking spaces provided by the project by 20% below the standard parking requirement
(based on ITE or other reputable source requirements). The City will update its Zoning
Ordinance to reflect this new requirement. The City shall evaluate and re-adjust public
parking pricing, as needed, to manage the parking supply, and evaluate offering free EV
charging in city owned public parking lots.
Tracking: The City shall report on parking requirement and pricing changes, including
observed effects of these strategies on parking demand and trip rates/VMT, if known.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 55
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Relative Costs: Low.
Table 22: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Parking Pricing, Parking
Requirements, and Creative Parking Approaches (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
- 424 821 1,209
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 16.
8. Burlingame Shuttle Service
General Plan Policy M-4.7: Shuttle Service. Increase the use of available shuttles in
Burlingame by improving signage, outreach, and coordination with co-sponsors.
Description: Five free shuttles currently operate in Burlingame: the Burlingame Trolley, the
Broadway Millbrae Shuttle, the Red Carpet Trolley, the Burlingame-Bayside Shuttle, and the
North Burlingame Shuttle. All shuttles, except for the Burlingame Trolley, have a stop at the
Millbrae Transit Station, which is a transfer station for Caltrain and BART served by a variety
of other transit services. The shuttles are funded by the City of Burlingame, the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board, the San Mateo County Transit District, the BAAQMD, the
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, the Downtown Burlingame
Business Improvement District, and the Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement
District.
Actions: The City shall continue to coordinate with its partners to provide free shuttle
services and strategize with shuttle co-sponsors on ways to raise awareness of shuttle
services and increase ridership. The City shall improve wayfinding (i.e., signage) to
disseminate information on the location of shuttle stops.
Tracking: The City shall coordinate with the San Mateo County Transit District to track
shuttle ridership and report on strategies implemented to increase ridership and overall
ridership trends. The City will actively engage with shuttle co-sponsors to identify strategies
to increase ridership if ridership data shows shuttle use is not matching expectations.
Relative Costs: Low.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 56
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 23: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Burlingame Shuttle Service
(MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
8 10 11 13
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 18.
9. Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment
(New) General Plan Policy HP-2.16: Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment. Support
the transition of yard and garden equipment from gasoline to electric fuel sources.
Description: GHG emissions are generated by the combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline)
in yard and garden equipment. By transitioning to electric equipment, emissions will be
greatly reduced since 1) there will be no direct emissions during use of the equipment, and
2) the electricity used to power the equipment will be supplied by an increasingly GHG-free
portfolio.
Actions: The City shall adopt an ordinance prohibiting the use of gasoline- and diesel-
powered yard and garden equipment within Burlingame. The City shall explore incentive
options for residents and entities who voluntarily transition to electric equipment before
the ordinance is enacted.
Tracking: The City shall provide updates on the progress it has made in adopting an
ordinance prohibiting the use of gasoline- and diesel-powered yard and garden equipment,
and identify any incentives it or other regional agencies (e.g. BAAQMD) are offering to
reduce GHG emissions from yard and garden equipment.
Relative Costs: Low to Medium. There is uncertainty on the specific costs of this measure. A
2004 CARB report on electrification for small off-road engines identified electric equipment
options that were generally three to five times more expensive than gasoline-powered
equipment.29 However, since then, CARB has added zero emission equipment as a
compliance option for meeting small off-road engine standards, and the 2016 SIP includes a
29 CARB, 2004. STAFF Report: Report to the Board on the Potential Electrification Programs for Small Off-Road
Engines. California Air Resources Board. Sacramento, CA. April 2, 2004.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 57
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
measure to incentivize zero emission equipment for this category. Several communities
near Burlingame have passed similar ordinances (Palo Alto, Los Gatos, Los Altos).
Table 24: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Electrification of Yard and
Garden Equipment (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
- 516 556 596
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 19.
10. Construction Best Management Practices
(Amendment) General Plan Policy HP-3.12: Construction Best Practices. Require construction
projects to implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Best Practices for
Construction to reduce pollution from dust and exhaust as feasible; require construction
projects to transition to electrically-powered construction equipment as it becomes
available; and seek construction contractors who use alternative fuels in their equipment
fleet.
Description: Construction emissions can be reduced by replacing fossil fuels used in
construction equipment with alternative fuels, such as renewable diesel (a fuel made from
nonpetroleum renewable resources such as natural fats, vegetable oils, and greases), or
replacing smaller equipment with electric alternatives, such as electric bulldozers,
excavators, loaders, or forklifts. As technology has advanced over the years, new options for
replacing smaller construction equipment (defined as less than 120 horsepower) with
cleaner, alternative options have become available. For example, a Class 1 electric forklift
with pneumatic tires can replace a Class 5 internal-combustion truck.30 Other, larger pieces
of equipment, such as the Cat 323F digger (162 horsepower) are also being targeted for
electrification, and Volvo recently completed testing of a diesel-electric hybrid loader north
of San Francisco.31 State and regional agencies, such as the BAAQMD, implement incentive
30 EPRI, 2015. Electric Forklifts. Electric Power Research Institute.
<https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/electricity/epri_2015.pdf>
31 Electrive, 2018. “Pon electrified Caterpillar digger Cat 323F”. Web. January 24, 2018.
<https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/excavators/medium-excavators/1000032600.html>
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 58
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
programs that provide monetary grants to public and private fleets to clean up emissions
from heavy-duty engines beyond that required by law. The City has undertaken a pilot
study, testing the efficacy to using renewable diesel for the City’s street sweepers.
Actions: During the environmental review process, the City shall encourage contractors and
developers to voluntarily commit to using a construction contractor that utilizes alternative
fuels, and/or employ the use of electrically-powered pieces of construction equipment. By
2025, the City will pass an ordinance prohibiting the use of petroleum-based fuel sources
for construction equipment less than 120 horsepower unless otherwise demonstrated that
no alternative, feasible solutions exist when feasible (i.e., such equipment shall be run on a
zero GHG emission fuel source).
Tracking: The City shall track the number of projects using alternatively-powered pieces of
construction equipment until ordinance adoption.
Relative Costs: Low to High, depending on the specific equipment being replaced.
Table 25: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Construction Best Management
Practices (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
- 3,618 4,871 5,218
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 20.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 59
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Energy GHG Emission Reduction Measures
Vision: Strive for 100% greenhouse gas emission -free power and electricity and reduce reliance
on fossil fuel generated power.
11. Green Building Practices and Standards
General Plan Policy CC-1.9: Green Building Practices and Standards. Support the use of
sustainable building elements such as green roofs, cisterns, and permeable pavement.
Continue to enforce the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Periodically
revisit the minimum standards required for permit approval. Adopt zero-net-energy
building goals for municipal buildings.
Description: The Title 24 Building Standards contain minimum standards and voluntary
measures for new commercial and residential development. The voluntary measures,
referred to Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards, increase resource efficiency, improve building and
building system performance, and are consistent with environmental, public health, and
accessibility statutes and regulations. For the 2019 Title 24 Building Standards, the Tier 1
standards for residential development are 30% more efficient than the baseline standards;
for non-residential development, the Tier 2 standards are 15% more efficient than the
baseline standards.
Actions: The City shall encourage new residential and non-residential development to
comply with the State’s Tier 1 and Tier 2 voluntary energy efficiency provisions. The City
shall provide project proponents with information on the benefits of designing their
buildings to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards during the environmental or building permit
review process. If Zero Net Energy (ZNE) standards have not been adopted for residential
and non-residential development by 2030, the City will amend its Construction Codes to
require that all new residential and non-residential developments meet ZNE standards.
The City shall explore ways to eliminate natural gas consumption in new development by
restricting and/or banning natural gas utility infrastructure from being supplied to new
structures. Alternatively, the City may explore ways to restrict and/or ban the installation of
appliances that consume natural gas (e.g., cooking ranges, water heaters, etc.).
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 60
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Tracking: The City shall track and report the number of new developments that comply with
the Tier 1 or Tier 2 voluntary energy efficiency requirements or which achieve a ZNE
standard and report this number, as well as the total amount of new development in the
city.
Relative Costs: Low (voluntary provisions) to High (ZNE standards).
Table 26: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Green Building Practices and
Standards (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
- 53 124 133
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 21.
12. Energy Efficiency
General Plan Policy HP-2.8: Energy Efficiency. Support energy efficiency improvement in the
aging building stock citywide. Encourage energy efficiency audits and upgrades at the time
of sale for existing homes and buildings. Host energy efficiency workshops, and distribute
information to property owners, tenants, and residents. Publicize available programs such
as PACE financing and San Mateo Energy Watch programs. Incentivize low-cost retrofits to
residents and businesses.
Description: Given Burlingame’s relatively older building stock, the City anticipates many
homeowners and property owners will pursue upgraded building systems (e.g., HVAC,
electrical, etc.) over time. Partial remodels featuring building systems consistent with the
2019 Title 24 building standards are estimated to be approximately 50% and 37% more
efficient than the existing building stock for residential and non-residential developments,
respectively. Major remodels will be required to demonstrate they meet the 2019 Title 24
building standards (or newer building code standards applicable at that time), as if they
were new developments entirely.
Actions: The City shall encourage energy efficiency audits and upgrades at the time of sale
for existing homes and buildings, host up to three energy efficiency workshops per year,
and distribute information to property owners, tenants, and residences. The City shall
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 61
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
encourage those doing major remodels, both residential and non-residential, to comply
with the voluntary CALGreen tiers that reach beyond the current State code requirements.
During the permitting processes, the City shall provide project proponents with information
on the benefits of designing their buildings to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards.
Tracking: The City shall track and report in its aAnnual Sustainability Report, advertised and
made available to the public, the number of minor and major addition, modification, and
renovation permits issued in Burlingame and report on the number of projects that
incorporated voluntary energy efficiency improvements above and beyond State
requirements.
Relative Costs: Low (Information Sharing) to High (Tier 2 voluntary provisions).
Table 27: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Energy Efficiency (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
- 3,247 7,168 7,309
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 24.
13. Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100
General Plan Policy IF-6.9: ECO100. Increase ECO100 enrollment by residents and
businesses. Coordinate with community champions and Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) to
expand outreach on ECO100.
Description: PCE is San Mateo County’s official electricity provider. PCE was formed by the
County of San Mateo and all 20 of its cities to help jurisdictions meet local climate
actionGHG emission reduction goals. PCE offers a choice of two electricity options, each
with a different percentage of sustainable energy. ECOplus is the default, with 50% of the
electricity provided to its customers being sourced renewably. With ECO100, 100% of the
electricity is sourced from renewable sources. PCE has a strategic goal of sourcing 100%
GHG-free electricity by 2021, and 100% California RPS eligible renewable electricity by 2025.
By 20302021, the entire portfolio will be 100% GHG emission free, and customers will no
longer have to opt into ECO100 to realize the strides made by PCE (i.e., 100% GHG-free
electricity will be the default plan). By the end of 2017, 98% of all accounts within the city
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 62
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
were enrolled in PCE; 2% of these accounts were enrolled in ECO100. All municipal accounts
are currently enrolled in ECO100.
Actions: The City shall support PCE’s goal of sourcing 100% of its electricity from GHG-free
sources by 2021 by keeping all municipal accounts in ECO100 and encouraging community
members to do the same. The City shall provide information on the benefits of ECO100 to
its citizens through community outreach (e.g., flyers at City events, electronic newsletters,
etc.).
Tracking: The City shall continue to monitor PCE’s current renewable energy portfolio and
track and report the number of Burlingame accounts enrolled in ECO100.
Relative Costs: Low.
Table 28: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100
(MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
16,533 24,073 24,038 -
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 27.
14. Residential Solar Power
General Plan Policy HP-2.7: Residential Solar Power. Encourage homeowners to install solar
power systems. Provide information to homeowners on the benefits of solar power and
funding opportunities. Promote Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs that
finance renewable energy systems. Offer incentives for home solar power systems.
Description: The PACE program allows property owners to finance the up-front cost of
energy or other eligible improvements on a property and then pay the costs back over time
through a voluntary assessment. The unique characteristic of PACE assessments is that the
assessment is attached to the property rather than to an individual. Over the last five years,
approximately 308 residential solar permits have been approved within the city, or about 62
permits per year. By continuing to support PACE programs, the City is helping to ensure that
more electricity consumed within Burlingame will be generated by photovoltaic (PV)
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 63
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
systems instead of the electricity grid, which may have electricity still generated by non-
renewable sources.
Actions: The City shall continue promoting PACE programs through community outreach
(e.g., signage, flyers at City events, social media, etc.) and providing information about PACE
programs on a City webpage.
Tracking: The City shall continue to monitor and track the number of residential solar
systems permitted and installed in Burlingame. Consistent with historical performance, the
City is targeting approximately 62 new solar applications per year. The City shall report
these metrics in its aAnnual Sustainability Report, which shall be advertised and made
available to the public.
Relative Costs: Low to Moderate.
Table 29: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Residential Solar Power
(MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
345 617 1,028 -
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 29.
15. Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters
(New) General Plan Policy HP-2.17: Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters.
Support the transition from tank-based, natural gas water heaters to solar, or electrically-
powered, or natural gas tankless water heaters in residential development.
Description: Historically, residential water heaters have consisted of a large tank (e.g., 40
gallons) that is heated by the combustion of natural gas. These tank-based systems, which
continuously heat the water throughout the day, are inefficient, because the water
temperature is maintained even when the water may not be used for some time. Tankless
water heaters, also known as demand-type or instantaneous water heaters, provide hot
water only as it is needed. They do not produce the standby energy losses and related heat
loss and cost impacts associated with traditional, tank-based water heaters. Tankless
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 64
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
systems can either be powered by natural gas or electricity and work by heating the water
instantaneously as it passes through the unit.
Solar water heaters convert sunlight into heat for water heating. There are generally two
types of solar water heaters: active, which have circulating pumps and controls, and
passive, which don’t. Most solar water heaters require a well-insulated storage tank to store
the energy harnessed by the sun. Since solar water heaters rely on the sun to generate hot
water, they are typically combined with another, more conventional system (e.g., natural
gas or electricity) to account for cloudy days and times of increased demand. This back-up
system can either be implemented in a one-tank system or two-tank system. In two-tank
systems, the solar water heater preheats water before it enters the conventional water
heater. In one-tank systems, the back-up heater is combined with the solar storage in one
tank.
Actions: The City shall provide permittees with information on the benefits of installing
alternatively-powered water heating systems during the permit process, and work with PCE
to establish rebate programs for building electrification.
Tracking: The City shall track and report the number of solar, electrically-powered, and
natural gas tankless water heaters that are installed in Burlingame as part of its aAnnual
Sustainability Report, which shall be advertised an made available to the public.
Relative Costs: Low (information sharing) to High (installation of alternative water heating
systems). The CEC’s evaluation of residential instantaneous water heating systems found
that such systems were, on average, $500 more than storage water heaters (not including
any component upgrade costs), but that such systems result in less maintenance,
replacement, and energy costs over an approximately 13-year period.
Table 30: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Alternatively-Powered
Residential Water Heaters (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
- 270 315 455
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 31.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 65
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Water and Wastewater GHG Emission Reduction Measures
Vision: Practice strong water conservation with residents, businesses, and City sectors; assist
existing and new construction to comply with water-related building standards; and integrate
green infrastructure in new development and redevelopment projects.
16. Water Conservation Retrofits for Businesses
General Plan Policy IF-2.11: Retrofits. Implement programs that incentivize businesses and
private institutions to replace existing plumbing fixtures with water-efficient plumbing.
Description: This measure targets the replacement of existing, indoor water consumption at
businesses and private institutions within Burlingame with newer, more efficient water
fixtures (e.g., low-flow faucets, toilets, etc.) and encourages the addition of gray water
systems for outdoor water use. This measure will reduce overall water consumption and
result in lower indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity needed to convey,
distribute, and treat water.
Actions: The City shall conduct outreach and provide audits to existing businesses and
private institutions, informing them of the water- and cost-saving benefits associated with
newer, water-efficient plumbing and gray water systems.
Tracking: The City shall track the number of businesses and private institutions that upgrade
to newer, water-efficient plumbing as part of its aAnnual Sustainability Report, which shall
be advertised and made available to the public.
Relative Costs: Low.
Table 31: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Retrofits (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
- 1 2 -
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 34.
17. Water Conservation for New Residential Development
General Plan Policy HP-6.2: Water Conservation. Promote best practices for water
conservation throughout the City, and continue to enforce City ordinances requiring high-
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 66
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
efficiency indoor water fixtures in new development. Educate the public about Burlingame’s
water rebate programs, and continue to establish tiered water rates that promote water
conservation. Consider water consumption when evaluating development projects.
Encourage drought-tolerant landscaping and efficient irrigation systems.
Description: This measure improves the water efficiency in new residential development
projects by requiring Energy Star rated kitchen faucets, dishwashers, and clothes washers,
as well as low-flow faucets, shower heads, and toilets, to reduce water consumption and
associated GHG emissions from the conveyance, distribution, and treatment of water. This
measure encourages existing residential properties to upgrade their water fixtures to
newer, water-efficient technologies; and supports outdoor water conservation by using
low-water use plants in the garden and smart irrigation systems.
Actions: The City shall require that new residential developments include the installation of
Energy Star rated kitchen faucets, dishwashers, and clothes washers, as well as low-flow
faucets, shower heads, and toilets. In addition, encourage the use of grey water systems for
outdoor water use.
Tracking: Prior to project approval, the City shall ensure all residential project designs
include a provision for the installation of Energy Star rated kitchen faucets, dishwashers,
and clothes washers, as well as low-flow faucets, shower heads, and toilets. The Planning
Department shall review project designs (e.g., site plans, engineering diagrams, etc.) to
ensure incorporation of this requirement.
Relative Costs: Low.
Table 32: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Water Conservation (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
- 2 3 -
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 35.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 67
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Waste GHG Emission Reduction Measure
Vision: Attain zero waste in everyday life where most consumables are either recyclable,
reusable, or compostable.
18. Zero Waste
General Plan Policy IF-5.16: Zero Waste. Participate in negotiations with waste vendor to
implement zero waste supportive contracts and services.
Description: This measure establishes future waste diversion rate goals for the City of
8590%, 9095%, and 95100% for 2030, 2040, and 2050, respectively.
Actions: The City (i.e., Sustainability Coordinator) shall coordinate with Recology and other
applicable waste utility providers to reduce the amount of organic and recyclable materials
going to the landfill and increase the waste diversions rate. The City shall perform
community outreach (e.g., flyers, electronic newsletters, etc.) informing community
members and businesses of the environmental benefits of reducing waste and disposing of
items properly. In addition, the City shall also develop a Community Zero Waste Plan to
guide the community in diverting its waste from landfill disposal, manage resources to their
highest and best use, and identify ways to reduce waste at the source. The Community Zero
Waste Plan shall set forth specific strategies, implementation goals, and quantifiable
metrics to track progress of the Plan.
Tracking: The City shall monitor its waste diversion rate by coordinating with Recology, and
monitoring waste reports released by CalRecycle. The waste diversion rate and the City’s
strategy for the upcoming year to meet or exceed waste diversion goals shall be provided in
its aAnnual Sustainability Report, which shall be advertised and made available to the
public.
Relative Costs: Low.
Table 33: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Zero Waste (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
- 2,760
4,140
4,483
5,978
6,435
8,044
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 37.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 68
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Municipal GHG Emission Reduction Measures
Vision: Position the City as a leader and role model in sustainability for the benefit of its
community, attract green businesses to the City’s growing roster of green companies, and
inspire climate action by residents in daily life.
19. Municipal Green Building Measures
General Plan Policy HP-2.10 Municipal Green Building. Aim for new construction and major
renovations of City facilities to be zero net energy.
Description: The term ZNE Standards refers to a building where the amount of energy
produced by on-site or adjacent renewable energy resources (e.g., solar panels) is equal to
the amount of electrical and natural gas energy consumed by the building annually.
Achievement is based on 12 consecutive months of actual energy performance data. The
City shall strive for new structures to not only be ZNE, but also all electric, thereby negating
potential emissions from natural gas consumption.
Actions: The City currently anticipates the need for a new Community Center by 2020, and
the reconstruction of City Hall in the next 5-10 years. The City shall require the new
Community Center, City Hall, and any other City facilities be designed to ZNE standards, as
feasible, and strive for all-electric design.
The City shall also pursue electrification of the City’s existing municipal vehicle fleet (see
GHG Emission Reduction Measure 6 for a discussion of the EVSP that will be developed).
Tracking: In the early design phases of the Community Center, City Hall, and other facilities,
the City shall work with the design team to ensure new structures are built to ZNE
standards, as feasible, and strive for an all-electric design.
Relative Costs: Moderate to High, depending on the technology at the time of construction.
Table 34: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Municipal Green Building
Measures (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
27 27 66 66
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 38.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 69
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
20. Increase the Public Tree Population
(Amendment) General Plan Policy CC-2.2: Increase the Public Tree Population. Identify ways to
increase the overall population of trees in Burlingame to stem the natural decline of the urban
forest and create a more equitable distribution of tree canopy.
Description: Plants and trees function as a natural sink for CO2 by taking the CO2 and
converting it into oxygen and carbon-based plant matter during the natural carbon cycle.
Trees are significant sources of carbon storage and sequestration due to their size and
longevity; increasing the number of trees planted in Burlingame will help offset GHG
emissions generated in the City’s jurisdiction.
Actions: At a minimum, the City shall ensure 33 new trees are planted annually on City-
owned or maintained land, in addition to any trees that are planted to offset the removal of
trees on City-owned or maintained land. Planting locations may include, but are not limited
to: public streets, parks, and government facilities.
Tracking: The City’s Parks and Recreation Department shall ensure there is a net positive
planting of 33 trees per year. Metrics on the number of trees planted and trees removed
are already tracked by the City and will be included in its aAnnual Sustainability Report,
which shall be advertised and made available to the public.
Relative Costs: Low.
Table 35: Estimated Annual GHG Emission Reductions from Increase the Public Tree
Population (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
5 17 29 40
Technical Reference: Appendix C, Page 39.
Burlingame’s GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Page 70
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
GHG Emission Reduction Measures Not Quantified
The General Plan contains numerous other measures that are difficult to quantify but
nonetheless offer GHG emission-reduction benefits. For example, policies for community
gardens do not directly create GHG emission reductions, but we know that supporting local
food programs can have positive impacts on public health and the environment and contribute
to reducing transportation emissions.
The list to the right highlights sustainability measures in the General Plan with GHG-reduction
benefits. These measures are not included in the implementation and tracking of the CAP. They
complement and support the CAP’s measures but are not relied on directly to achieve the City’s
GHG-emission reduction targets.
Integrate Green Infrastructure: CC-1.8: Green Infrastructure and HP-6.9: Green Infrastructure
Prevent Stormwater Pollution: CC-1.10: Site Design
Support Local Food Programs: CC-1.11: Urban Agriculture; HP-1.11: Access to Healthy Food;
HP-1.12: Community Garden Sites; HP-1.13: School Gardens; HP-1.14: Multi-Family Residential
Gardens; and HP-1.15: Agriculture in Single-Family Residential Neighborhoods
Provide Public Education on Climate Action: CC-1.12: Public Education and Outreach
Practice Environmental Purchasing: IF-1.4: Sustainable Practices
Explore Recycled Water: IF-2.12: Recycled Water
Implement Sustainable Landscaping: IF-2.13: Bay-Friendly Landscaping; HP-4.16: Sustainable
Landscaping; and HP-6.8: Water-Efficient Landscaping
Promote Green Businesses: HP-2.11: Innovative Technologies and HP-2.12: Green Businesses
Avoid Air Pollution: HP-3.5: Woodstove and Fireplace Replacement
Page 71
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
5 Preparing for Climate Change
The purpose of the City’s 2030 CAP Update is to reduce GHG emissions within the city that
contribute to global climate change, thereby reducing the impacts of climate change both at
the global and local level.
The potential impacts of climate change can include, but are not limited to, increases in
drought, extreme heat, changes in sea level, and increased flooding and weather events. Some
climate change impacts, specifically sea level rise, are already occurring.
This Chapter summarizes the steps the City is taking to ensure Burlingame is resilient to climate
change impacts.
Sea Level Rise
Water levels in the San Francisco Bay have risen eight inches over the past 100 years, and the
rate of bay rise is expected to quicken in the next century as climate change impacts accelerate.
The State projects sea level to rise 14 inches by 2050. In San Mateo County, researchers predict
sea level to rise six inches by 2030 and one to two feet by 2050.32 The Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC), the organization responsible for regulating the region’s
shoreline, found in a 2009 assessment that most of Burlingame’s Bayfront area could be
underwater by 2070. The assessment predicts that Burlingame will become increasingly
vulnerable to water inundation during both normal high tides and major storm events. Rising
sea level may inundate the land along the Bayfront and flood nearby industrial, commercial,
and residential areas.
Burlingame’s Bayfront is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. It is one of the few areas on
the Peninsula not protected by natural wetlands or levies. Ordinarily, wetlands create a natural
buffer between the Bay and built environment and can provide a cost-effective flood protection
strategy. The Bayfront has a hard-edge seawall along the waterfront. The low-lying area is
32 County of San Mateo, 2018. “A Prepared and Stronger Community The San Mateo County Sea Level Rise
Vulnerability Assessment.” Web. <https://seachangesmc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/SLR_VA_Highlights_v12_web-spread.pdf>
Preparing for Climate Change Page 72
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
composed primarily of fill materials. The Bayfront extends about 2.5 miles along the San
Francisco Bay and contains recreation and open spaces, office buildings, and destination
restaurants and hotels in proximity to San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Old Bayshore
Highway and Airport Boulevard are the area’s primary access routes and connect travelers from
the airport to at least 12 major hotels in the Bayfront. The hotels provide significant income to
the City; 35-40% of the City’s annual General Fund budget comes from transient occupancy
taxes from Bayfront hotels. The roads also protect underground water mains and utilities that
supply the businesses and hotels, and they provide access to a wastewater treatment plant.
The regional Bay Trail runs along the Bayfront, providing pedestrian and bicycle recreation
opportunities along the Bay.
San Mateo County is leading the charge on sea level rise in the region. In 2015, the County
launched an initiative called “Sea Change San Mateo County” to bring together and provide
resources to local governments and agencies.33 The first task of this effort was to complete a
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment to evaluate the impacts of flooding and erosion and
identify actionable solutions to protect people and places. Burlingame staff actively engaged
with the County on the effort and ongoing actions. The County’s Sea Level Rise Vulnerability
Assessment projected flooding assuming a baseline scenario (1% annual storm chance, also
known as 100-year flood), mid-level (1% annual storm chance plus 3.3 feet of sea level rise),
and high-end scenarios of sea level rise (1% annual storm chance plus 6.6 feet of sea level rise)
for each of the County’s 20 cities. According to the Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, the
following sea level rise scenarios are predicted for Burlingame:
● Baseline Sea Level Rise Scenario: 20 acres of land would be inundated, including a
portion of Old Bayshore Highway.
● Mid-level Sea Level Rise Scenario: 452 acres inundated, and nearly all of Old Bayshore
Highway and Highway 101 and stormwater and energy transmission infrastructure
vulnerable.
33 San Mateo County, 2019. “A Prepared and Stronger County”. About. Web. <https://seachangesmc.org/about/>
Preparing for Climate Change Page 73
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
● High-end Sea Level Rise Scenario: 813 acres inundated, and high risk of endangerment
across all infrastructure and accessibility.
The resulting change in sea level forecasted in each of the three scenarios above and the
impact on Burlingame is depicted in Envision Burlingame General Plan Figure CS-4, Anticipated
Sea Level Rise.
Burlingame staff anticipates seeing infrastructure impacts in the near terms as well, specifically
to the City’s storm drain system. Much of the City’s aging storm drain system has a ten-year
design storm capacity, not the standard 30-year capacity for regional facilities. Some local
storm drain systems also have less than a two-year design storm capacity, where the standard
is also ten years. Flood protection improvements to the storm drain system will be necessary to
protect life, property, and investments throughout Burlingame.
Staff is working with the County on the next phase of the Sea Change San Mateo County effort
to identify and implement actionable solutions. The City received a grant from the County for
further assessment of potential impacts of sea level rise on the City’s Bayfront. The program
will be to build upon the “Asset Vulnerability Profile” prepared for the San Mateo County Sea
Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment for the Old Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard study
area. The expected outcomes include the identification of potential near-term and long-term
adaptation strategies that would be applicable to the particular site conditions of the Bayfront
and a high-level assessment that could inform policies and future planning efforts. As part of
this effort, the City will be leading outreach with neighboring jurisdictions, including the City of
Millbrae, the City of San Mateo, and San Francisco International Airport, to provide consistent
messaging on risks across communities. City staff also welcomes regional collaboration
opportunities and has met with SFO and Stanford student design teams to explore solutions for
the Bayfront.
General Plan Policies Related to Climate Change Adaptation
Current climate vulnerability, adaptation, and resiliency planning practices build upon the State
Natural Resources Agency’s Adaptation Planning Guide and 2018 California Climate Adaptation
Strategy. In general, best practices for vulnerability include clear assessment and
Preparing for Climate Change Page 74
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
documentation of risk exposure, community and population sensitivity, potential physical
effects (e.g., infrastructure impacts, strains on public service providers), and adaptive capacity
(e.g., what resources are available to the community). Current best practices for development
and a climate adaptation management strategy focus on prioritizing adaptive needs, developing
strategies based on the needs, and implementing adaptive strategies in a phased or feasible
manner that promotes and does not preclude long-term/higher-capital adaptation responses.
Burlingame’s General Plan is the City’s best policy tool to address sea level rise in future land
uses and development. Consistent with the State’s Adaptation Planning Guide, the General Plan
considers sea level rise in the Bayfront and other vulnerable parts of Burlingame and contains
policies and goals to protect existing and future urban uses from sea level rise impacts. The
following policies from the Envision Burlingame General Plan specifically implement climate
adaptation planning principles:
Policy CC-6.7: Sea Level Rise. Require that new and existing development along the Bayfront
make provisions for seal sea level rise and flood risks, which may involve payment of
assessments to fund City or other efforts to build a unified defense system. Maintain minimum
water front set back, with the setback area providing space in the future to accommodate sea
level rise and flooding defenses. Design new buildings with habitable areas to minimize
potential damage from exceptional storm events.
Policy IF-4.2: Localized Flooding. Identify and correct problems of localized flooding. Promote
the use of green infrastructure, whenever feasible, to mimic a natural hydrologic system that
uses stormwater as a resource.
Policy IF-4.3: Guard against Sea Level Rise. Pursue the policies outlined in the Safety Element
related to sea level rise.
Policy IF-4.4: Green Stormwater Infrastructure. Plan for and implement Low Impact
Development (LID) retrofits, such as green infrastructure which uses vegetation and soil to
capture, treat, and retain stormwater runoff. Promote the use of pervious surfaces, green
streets, and rainwater harvesting to achieve multiple benefits, such as creating open space,
Preparing for Climate Change Page 75
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
improving stormwater quality, and increasing groundwater recharge. Avoid or minimize the
impact of stormwater discharges on local receiving waters, including San Francisco Bay.
Goal CS-5: Protect vulnerable areas and infrastructure from flooding related to rising sea levels
in the San Francisco Bay.
Policy CS-5.1: Monitor Rising Sea Level. Regularly coordinate with regional, State, and Federal
agencies on rising sea levels in San Francisco Bay and major tributaries to determine if
additional adaptation strategies should be implemented to address flooding hazards. This
includes monitoring FEMA flood map updates to identify areas in Burlingame susceptible to sea
level rise, addressing changes to State and regional sea and bay level rise estimates, and
coordinating with adjacent municipalities on flood control improvements.
Policy CS-5.2: Vulnerability Assessment and Planning. Continue to coordinate with San Mateo
County on the county-wide Sea Level Rise vulnerability assessments and planning that will
identify regional sea level rise risk factors and areas, as well as emerging options for response.
Policy CS-5.3: New Development in Vulnerable Areas. Continue to require appropriate setback
and building elevation requirements for properties located along the Bayshore, lagoons, and in
other low-lying areas that are susceptible to the effects of sea level rise. Consider other
strategies to support resiliency through design.
Policy CS-5.4: Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Provide to the public, as available, up-to-date Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that identify rising sea levels and changing flood conditions.
Monitoring and Updates.
Adaptation planning is a young field, and there is still much to learn as cities grapple with
climate change impacts. Burlingame will continue to monitor and participate in regional
adaptation planning efforts. The City expects to conduct future high-level assessments to
inform and refine its approach to protect and prepare the Bayfront and residents and
businesses for sea level rise.
Preparing for Climate Change Page 76
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Page 77
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
6 Implementation and Monitoring
This Chapter describes how the City will implement and monitor progress towards achieving its
annual GHG emission targets.
Responsibility and Implementation Methods
The City’s Sustainability Coordinator will have the primary responsibility for implementing and
monitoring CAP progress as follows:
● Overseeing implementation of CAP GHG emissions reduction strategiesmeasures
● Coordinating with City departments that have a primary or supporting role or
responsibility for implementing the City’s CAPGHG emission reduction measures
● Partnering with San Mateo County’s RICAPS to prepare annual municipal and
community-wide GHG emissions inventories
● Preparing and submitting an Annual Sustainability Report to the City Council
● Monitoring and evaluating CAP progress over time
● Providing recommendations to change, modify, or amend the CAP if it is not achieving
its proposed GHG emission reduction targets
● Updating the CAP document approximately every five years
● Participating (or designating participants) and working closely with City staff, residents,
and businesses during CAP-related planning efforts (e.g., development of the City’s
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan or a new specific plan), CAP-related meetings (e.g.,
work group, task force, or other City sustainability-related meetings), or other CAP-
related initiatives
● Securing funding, as necessary and feasible, that supports CAP implementation,
monitoring, and/or progress towards meeting CAP GHG emission reduction goals
Implementation and Monitoring Page 78
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
● Tracking new regional, State, and federal regulations that affect the City’s GHG
emissions levels
In addition to the above items, the City’s Sustainability Coordinator will also work with the
Burlingame School District to inform the younger generation of the City’s goals for addressing
climate change and the importance of sustainable practices. Outreach and educational
activities could include, but are not limited to, presenting at school assemblies or classrooms, or
working with teachers directly on ways to incorporate climate change and sustainability
segments into the science curriculum.
While the Sustainability Coordinator holds the primary responsibility for implementing and
monitoring the CAP, other City departments play an important role implementing the CAP and
contributing to its success.
Monitoring and Updates
The GHG emissions reductions in this CAP will be achieved through a combination of
regulations, ordinances, programs, incentives, and outreach activities. As time progresses,
technologies may change, development may proceed differently than forecasted, and new GHG
reduction regulations and/or programs may take effect. The CAP will need to be periodically
updated to reflect and respond to changing environmental, regulatory, technological,
demographic, and market conditions.
The City will monitor and update the 2030 CAP through the preparation of aAnnual
Sustainability Reports, annual emission inventory updates, and periodic updates, ensuring the
City’s CAP remains a dynamic document.
Annual Sustainability Report
The City’s Sustainability Coordinator will prepare and submit to the City Council an Annual
Sustainability Report, the presentation of which is marketed and available to the public. This
report provides a summary of the programs and policies implemented by the City to improve
sustainability in the City’s operations and on a community-wide level. Following adoption of the
2030 CAP Update, the Sustainability Coordinator will include an annual summary progress
Implementation and Monitoring Page 79
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
report of CAP implementation and monitoring. The summary shall include a brief description of
each measure’s implementation status and progress towards achieving the measure’s outcome
using the metrics and timeframes listed in Table 36, 2030 CAP Update Implementation and
Monitoring Program. Such a summary will be included in each subsequent annual reportAnnual
Sustainability Report presented to the City Council.
Emission Inventory Updates
The 2030 CAP Update’s GHG emissions inventories and forecasts are based on the best
available information and current best practices for preparing GHG emissions estimates.
However, emissions forecasts are based on projected market development and other
conditions that are subject to change. Accordingly, the City will continue to partner with San
Mateo County’s RICAPS program to provide an annual GHG emission inventory update for both
municipal and community-wide GHG emissions levels. These annual emissions inventories will
incorporate the latest data and assumptions regarding the City’s energy usage, VMT, waste
generation, etc. and will measure and track the City’s progress towards meeting its GHG
emission reduction goals.
Periodic CAP Update
To ensure the City remains on track to meet its GHG reduction goals, the City will update the
CAP every five years, including robust community input, beginning in 2025. CAP updates shall
reflect the City’s findings presented in its Annual Sustainability Report, advertised and made
available to the public, and annual GHG emission inventory update, and will include, as
necessary, updated GHG emissions inventories and forecasts and new or modified GHG
emission reduction measures. The need for new or modified GHG emission reduction measures
would be required if specific GHG emission reduction measures identified in the currently
adopted CAP are not fully implemented or effective at reducing GHG emissions. The City will
measure and evaluate the performance of individual GHG emission reduction measures
through its Annual Sustainability Report and updated emissions inventories. If a specific
measure is not achieving the desired outcome or performing as expected, the City will use the
CAP update to adjust its GHG emission reduction strategy and measures. By providing a CAP
Implementation and Monitoring Page 80
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
update in the 2025 timeframe, the City will have the opportunity to fully evaluate progress and
take additional actions necessary to meet its 2030 GHG emission reduction target.
CEQA Streamlining
The City’s Envision Burlingame General Plan and 2030 CAP Update analyze and mitigate the
significant effects of GHG emissions at a programmatic level and set forth the City’s strategy for
reducing GHG emissions from existing and new land uses and development projects. The City
has prepared the General Plan and 2030 CAP Update to satisfy all of the qualifications set forth
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, as well as the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines 34, by including the following
components:
● A quantified inventory of GHG emissions resulting from development within the city for
CAP baseline year 2005, existing inventory year 2015, projected year 2020, projected
year 2030, projected General Plan buildout year 2040, and projected year 2050
conditions.
● A level of emissions, based on substantial evidence, which the contribution to GHG
emissions from activities covered by the General Plan would not be cumulatively
considerable.
● Identification and analysis of GHG emissions anticipated because of development
pursuant to the Envision Burlingame General Plan.
● Specific General Plan policies and CAP actions, including all feasible GHG emission
reduction measures that will be implemented on a project by-project basis in
Burlingame.
● The quantification of GHG emissions reductions and evaluation of whether General Plan
policies and CAP actions would collectively achieve the City’s specified GHG emissions
levels and reduction targets.
34 BAAQMD, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management
District. May 2017.
Implementation and Monitoring Page 81
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
● Mechanisms to monitor the CAP’s progress toward achieving the City’s GHG emissions
levels and reduction targets and to require amendment if the CAP is not achieving the
specified GHG emissions levels.
● Adoption in a public process following environmental review.
The qualified 2030 CAP Update, by definition from the BAAQMD, provides opportunities for the
City to tier from and/or incorporate by reference the CAP’s programmatic review of GHG
emissions and impacts into future project-specific CEQA documents and streamline the
environmental review process.
Development projects that are consistent with the land use projections and GHG reduction
measures in the CAP will be eligible for CEQA streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15183.5 following CAP adoption. Projects that involve a General Plan amendment with
increased densities or development intensities beyond those allowed by the General Plan will
most likely not be eligible for CEQA streamlining because they would not be consistent with the
General Plan and the underlying assumptions in the CAP GHG emissions forecast and GHG
emissions reduction strategy.
The City will determine project-level consistency with the 2030 CAP Update through the CAP
Implementation Checklist. The Checklist is the mechanism City staff will use to demonstrate
consistency with General Plan policies and CAP actions on a project-by-project basis. In general,
new development projects will need to incorporate all applicable CAP measures and supporting
efforts to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. These measures will be enforced as
conditions of approval for ensuring that compliance is confirmed before the project can be
implemented. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 requires that an environmental document that
relies on a qualified CAP for a cumulative impacts analysis must identify those requirements
specified in the CAP that apply to the project and, if those requirements are not otherwise
binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to
the project. The Implementation Checklist will serve to specify the requirements for individual
projects and will be conditioned to ensure incorporation and implementation of CAP measures.
The Checklist will ensure that reductions are achieved on a project-by-project basis.
Implementation and Monitoring Page 82
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
CAP Implementation and Monitoring Program
The City would use the CAP consistency checklist to track project compliance on an individual
level. Newly proposed, residential and non-residential development projects would be required
to fill out the checklist, which documents project consistency with various CAP components.
The checklist should be included in a project’s submittal package to the City. Projects that are
consistent with the CAP could rely on the CAP for streamlining under CEQA. This checklist
generally serves as the City’s day-to-day document for tracking project compliance with the
CAP. For the checklist to be deemed complete, it must be filled out to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division.
Although the Checklist would be used most frequently by the City for assessing project
consistency with the CAP, there are a number of implementing actions that would be required
on the City’s end (i.e., independent of project review).
Funding
The implementation of the GHG reduction measures by Burlingame residents, businesses, and
municipal government operations requires financial resources derived from various sources.
The City will monitor funding opportunities and financing mechanisms to successfully
implement CAP measures. Potential funding sources to support GHG reduction measures
include:
Federal: Grants and energy efficiency tax credits offered by the federal government.
State Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF): Proceeds from the State’s Cap and Trade
Program support a wide range of programs and projects that reduce GHG emissions. Some
GGRF-funded programs that may benefit the City of Burlingame include: CARB Low Carbon
Transportation Investments and Air Quality Improvement Program; Recycling grants; CEC
programs; and California Growth Council climate programs.
State (non-GGRF): The State supports other programs and projects that reduce GHG emissions
with non-GGRF funds such as energy efficiency tax credits and Energy Upgrade and Solar Roof
programs.
Regional: The following regional agencies currently provide funding for GHG reduction efforts:
Implementation and Monitoring Page 83
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
● The BAAQMD offers grant funding to public agencies for trip reduction, bicycle facilities,
and clean air vehicle projects.
● The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency offers rebates to install water-
efficient indoor and outdoor fixtures.
● The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Climate Initiatives Program provides
funding for projects that reduce transportation-related emissions.
County: The San Mateo County Energy Watch Program provides certain no-cost energy
efficiency services and information on financing energy efficient projects.
City of Burlingame: The City’s General Fund and Capital Improvement Budget provide funding
for City projects.
Utility Providers: The City’s utility providers, including PG&E and Peninsula Clean Energy,
periodically offer rebates and incentives to replace old equipment with new equipment,
support electric vehicles, and install energy efficient upgrades.
Loan Programs: Municipal bonds and energy efficiency finance programs, such as the PACE
Program, are examples of loan funding and financing options for energy efficiency and other
GHG reduction measures and programs.
Private: Private equity and crowdfunding can support a variety of demonstration, energy
efficiency, and GHG reduction measures and programs.
Implementation and Monitoring Page 84
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 36: 2030 CAP Update Implementation and Monitoring Program
Measure Title and Action Expected Outcome Mandatory /
Voluntary Responsibility Timeframe
1.Mixed Use Development and Transit-Oriented Infill Development, and Transit Supportive Land Use
(General Plan Policies CC-1.2 and M-6.1)
Require new developments to comply with
the Implementation Checklist. Support
applications that are consistent with the
General Plan land use designations,
increase goods and services in proximity to
residential areas, and bring residential units
near transit stations.
Reduce VMT by 9% through
mixed-use development
City:
Mandatory
Community
Development
Ongoing
Enforce land use designations during the
early planning stages of new development,
particularly for land uses within PDAs
identified in Plan Bay Area 2040.
(https://www.planbayarea.org/pda-tpa-
map)
Reduce VMT by 15% by locating a
project with high density near
transit (i.e., in PDA)
City:
Mandatory
Community
Development
Ongoing
2. Transportation Demand Management (General Plan Policy CC-1.5)
Adopt TDM Policy for new developments
and integrate policy into Zoning Code by
2020.
Reduce VMT by 20% from new
development
City:
Mandatory
Sustainability
Coordinator,
Community
Development
By 2020
Adopt TDM Policy Incentive for existing
development.
Reduce VMT by 20% from existing
development
City:
Mandatory
Community:
Voluntary
Community
Development
By 2030
Update the Zoning Code to reflect the City’s
General Plan vision.
Reduce VMT by 20% from existing
development
City:
Mandatory
Community
Development
By 2040
3. Complete Streets (General Plan Policy M-1.1)
Prepare and Implement a Pedestrian and
Bicycle Master Plan
Reduce overall VMT by 10-15% by
increasing development intensity,
improving and expanding the
City’s non-modal infrastructure,
and implementing traffic calming
measures.
City:
Mandatory
Public Works By 2025
4. Caltrain Electrification (General Plan Policy M-4.2)
Support Caltrain’s efforts to electrify the rail
line.
Reduce GHG emissions from diesel
combustion.
City:
Mandatory
Public Works Ongoing
Implementation and Monitoring Page 85
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 36: 2030 CAP Update Implementation and Monitoring Program
Measure Title and Action Expected Outcome Mandatory /
Voluntary Responsibility Timeframe
5. Bicycle Sharing (General Plan Policy M-3.10)
Track annual bicycle ridershiprideshare use,
and coordinate with Limebike and/or other
companies to expand the use of EV, bike-
and scooter-share program(s) in the city as
long as such companies exist in the market.
Transition approximately 3% of
vehicle trips to EV, bicyclebike-
and/or scooter-share trips to
reduce VMT and associated GHG
emissions.
City:
Mandatory
City Manager’s
Office,
Sustainability
Coordinator
Ongoing
6. EV Infrastructure and Initiatives (General Plan Policy CC-1.13)
Develop and adopt an Electric Vehicle
Strategic Plan (EVSP).
Facilitate installation of a
minimum of 25 new, public
charging stations in Burlingame
per decade starting in 2020.
City:
Mandatory
Sustainability
Coordinator,
Community
Development,
Public Works
By 2022
Amend zoning code to require new
residential development to install Level 2
charging stations.
Increase number of new
residential units with access to
fast, EV ready charging stations.
City:
Mandatory
Community
Development
By 2020
7. Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements, and Creative Parking Approaches (General Plan Policies M-7.1, M-7.3, and M-7.5)
Update parking supply requirements in the
zoning code
Reduce parking supply by 20% in
all new, non-residential
development, when compared to
standard ITE parking rates.
City:
Mandatory
Community
Development,
Public Works,
Economic
Development
By 2025
Evaluate and re-adjust public parking
pricing
Implement dynamic pricing
strategies to minimize spill out
onto local streets and help parking
facilities achieve desired
occupancy rates
City:
Mandatory
Community
Development,
Public Works,
Economic
Development,
Code
Compliance
Ongoing
8. Burlingame Shuttle Service (General Plan Policy M-4.7)
Increase signage, outreach, and
coordination with shuttle co-sponsors
Increase shuttle ridership by
approximately 5% each decade.
City:
Mandatory
Public Works,
Sustainability
Coordinator
Ongoing
9. Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment (General Plan Policy HP-2.16)
Adopt an ordinance banning the use of
gasoline- and diesel-powered yard and
garden equipment
Eliminate GHG emissions from fuel
combustion
City:
Mandatory
Community
Development,
Code
Compliance,
By 2025
Implementation and Monitoring Page 86
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 36: 2030 CAP Update Implementation and Monitoring Program
Measure Title and Action Expected Outcome Mandatory /
Voluntary Responsibility Timeframe
Sustainability
Coordinator
10. Construction Best Management Practices (General Plan Policy HP-3.12)
Adopt an ordinance banning the use of
gasoline- and diesel-powered construction
equipment less than 120 horsepower
Eliminate emissions from
construction equipment with
engine rating of less than 120
horsepower
City:
Mandatory
Community
Development,
Code
Compliance,
Sustainability
Coordinator
By 2025
11. Green Building Practices and Standards (General Plan Policy CC-1.9)
Enforce the CALGreen Code and encourage
new development to comply with the
voluntary Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards.
Require new development to be
substantially more efficient than
previous construction.
City:
Mandatory
Community:
Voluntary
Community
Development
Ongoing
Amend the Municipal Code for ZNE
standards
Require buildings constructed
post-2030 to have zero net energy
GHG emissions
Mandatory Community
Development,
Economic
Development,
Sustainability
Coordinator
By 2030
12. Energy Efficiency (General Plan Policy HP-2.8)
Encourage energy efficiency audits at the
time of sale for existing homes and
buildings, and outreach existing County and
other incentives for low-cost retrofits to
residents and businesses.
Increase building owners’
awareness of current energy
consumption and the number of
retrofits occurring during the time
of sale. Target 1% of the building
stock for retrofits, annually.
City:
Mandatory
Community:
Voluntary
Community
Development,
Finance,
Sustainability
Coordinator
Ongoing
Encourage major remodels to comply with
voluntary Tier 1 and Tier 2 CALGreen
standards.
Improve the energy efficiency of
new buildings already subject to
the latest version of the CALGreen
requirements.
City:
Mandatory:
Community:
Voluntary
Community
Development,
Sustainability
Coordinator
By 2030
Implementation and Monitoring Page 87
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 36: 2030 CAP Update Implementation and Monitoring Program
Measure Title and Action Expected Outcome Mandatory /
Voluntary Responsibility Timeframe
13. Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100 (General Plan Policy IF-6.9)
Coordinate with community champions and
PCE to expand outreach on ECO100.
Increase the number of residents /
businesses signed up for ECO100.
City:
Mandatory
Sustainability
Coordinator
Ongoing
Support PCE’s efforts to supply the electric
grid with 100% renewable electricity.
Reduce GHG emissions by sourcing
100% of electricity used in the city
from renewable resources.
City:
Mandatory
Sustainability
Coordinator
By 2030
14. Residential Solar Power (General Plan Policy HP-2.7)
Encourage homeowners to install solar
power systems; provide information on
PACE programs; and offer incentives for
home solar power systems.
Install on average 62 PV systems
per year on existing residential
homes.
City:
Mandatory
Community:
Voluntary
Community
Development,
Finance,
Sustainability
Coordinator
Ongoing
15. Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters (General Plan Policy HP-2.17)
Encourage residents to install solar,
electrically-powered, or natural gas tankless
water heaters during the permitting
process.
Target 10% of all water heaters
replaced to be alternatively
powered.
City:
Mandatory
Community:
Voluntary
Community
Development,
Sustainability
Coordinator
Ongoing
16. Water Conservation Retrofits for Businesses (IF-2.11)
Conduct outreach to businesses and private
institutions, and develop programs that
incentivize businesses to replace existing
plumbing fixtures.
Reduce annual water consumption
by 2.58 million gallons each
decade.
City:
Mandatory
Community:
Voluntary
Community
Development,
Sustainability
Coordinator
Ongoing
17. Water Conservation for New Residential Development (HP-6.2)
Require high-efficiency indoor water
fixtures be installed in new residential
development.
Reduce GHG emissions associated
with water consumption.
City:
Mandatory
Community
Development,
Sustainability
Coordinator
Ongoing
18. Zero Waste (IF-5.16)
Develop a Community Zero Waste Plan Identify concrete strategies to
increase the waste diversion rate
to 90% by 2030, 95% by 2040, and
95% by 2050.
City:
Mandatory
Sustainability
Coordinator
By 2025
Coordinate with Recology and community Increase the waste diversion rate City: Sustainability Ongoing
Implementation and Monitoring Page 88
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update August 8, 2019
Table 36: 2030 CAP Update Implementation and Monitoring Program
Measure Title and Action Expected Outcome Mandatory /
Voluntary Responsibility Timeframe
leaders to increase the waste diversion rate
from Burlingame, and adopt policies
identifying these goals.
to 85% by 2030, 90% by 2040, and
95% by 2050.
Mandatory Coordinator
19. Municipal Green Building Measures (HP-2.10)
Design the new Community Center, City
Hall, and all other local government
facilities to ZNE standards to the extent
financially feasible.
Construct new government
buildings to be zero net energy to
the extent feasible.
City:
Mandatory
Public Works,
Parks and
Recreation,
Sustainability
Coordinator
Ongoing
20. Increase the Public Tree Population (CC-2.2)
Plant a net positive of 33 trees per year Plant 33 new public trees annually
to sequester CO2 in the
atmosphere.
City:
Mandatory
Parks and
Recreation
Ongoing
CAP Consistency Checklist
Submittal Application
City of Burlingame 2030 CAP Update
August 2019
➢The purpose of this checklist i s to ensure development projects in Burlingame are consistent
with the City’s 2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) and to provide a streamlined review process for
projects undergoing CEQA review.
➢The CAP represents Burlingame’s strategy to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15183.5. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, a project’s incremental
contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions ef fect may be determined to not be cumulatively
considerable, if it complies with the requirements of the CAP.
➢Projects that are consistent with the CAP (as demonstrated using this Checklist) may rely on the
CAP for the impact analysis of GHG emissions, as required under CEQA. Projects not consistent
with the CAP should prepare a project -specific GHG analysis, including a qualitative/quantitative
analysis of project GHG emissions and identification appropriate mitigation measures.
Application Information
Project Name and Location
Project No./Name: _______________________________________________________________________
Property Address: _______________________________________________________________________
Applicant Information
Applicant Name: _______________________________________________________________________
Applicant Company: _______________________________________________________________________
Applicant Phone: _________________________ Applicant Email : _________________________
Was a consultant retained to complete this checklist? ☐Yes ☐No If “Yes” complete the following
Consultant Name: _________________________ Consultant Phone _________________________
Consultant Company: _________________________ Consultant Email: _________________________
Project Information
1.What is the size of the project (acres)?___________________________________________
2.Identify all applicable proposed land uses:
☐Single-family Residential (# of units):___________________________________________
☐Multi -family Residential (# of multi -family units): ___________________________________________
☐Commercial (total square footage):___________________________________________
☐Industrial (total square footage):___________________________________________
☐Other (describe):___________________________________________
3.Is the project located in a Priority Development
Area? https://www.planbayarea.org/pda -tpa -map ☐Yes ☐No
4.Provide a brief description of the proposed project:
CAP Consistency Checklist Questions
City of Burlingame
Step 1: Land Use Consistency
Th e first step in the Checklist allows the City to determine whether a project is consistent with the land
use assumptions used in the CAP and Burlingame’s General Plan.
Step 1: Land Use Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd supporting
documentation for your answer)
Yes No
A.Is the proposed project consistent with the existing, General Plan’s
land use and zoning designations? OR
☐ ☐ B.If the proposed project is not consistent with the existing land use and
zoning designations, does the project include a land use or zoning
designation amendment that would result in an equivalent or less
GHG-intensive project, when compared to the existing designation?
If the answer to either of the questions above is “No,” this checklist cannot be used to streamline the
project’s GHG analysis under CEQA. The project should conduct a full, project -specific GHG analysis
during CEQA review, and incorporate each of the measures identified in the section below, as they
are appropriate to the project.
Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency
The second step in the Checklist review the project’s consistency with applicable CAP measures.
Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd explanation for
your answer)
Yes No N/A
Mixed Use Development and Transit -Oriented Infill Development, and Transit Supportive Land Use
The City shall Support new, mixed-use development and high -density residential development in proximity to
major transit stations and stops.
Is the project located within a quarter mile of a Caltrain Station? ☐ ☐ ☐
Is the project near any other transit stations? ☐ ☐ ☐
What is the project’s walking score?
https://www.walkscore.com/CA/Burlingame _____________________________
Details :
2030 CAP Update
August 2019
City of Burlingame
Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd explanation for
your answer)
Yes No N/A
Transportation Demand Management
Require all new, major development projects (10 units or 10,000 sq ft or more) include a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single-occupancy car trips by 20%. By 2040, require all
qualifying, existing businesses and residential developments to implement TDM programs.
Does the project have a TDM program, and does it meet the 20% reduction
in VMT when compared to standard ITE trip generation rates? ☐ ☐ ☐
Details (e.g., shuttles, carpool, transit incentives, TDM coordinator, % reduction in VMT achieved, etc.):
Complete Streets
Develop a well -connected network of Complete Streets that cane move all modes safely, efficiently, and
comfortably to promote efficient circulation, public health, and safety.
Does the project include a pedestrian, transit, or cycling improvements to
streets, such as, but not limited to: traffic calming measures, bike lanes, or
shuttle stops?
☐ ☐ ☐
Does the project qualify for an adjusted transportation impact fee or
achieving low VMT? ☐ ☐ ☐
Details (e.g., improvements):
EV Network and Electric Vehicles
Support the electric vehicle network by incentivizing use of electric vehicles and installations of charging
stations. The City shall target the installation of three (3) public EV stations by 2020, 25 charging stations by
2030, 50 by 2040, and 75 by 2050. The City shall expand upon the EV requirements outlined in the Title 24
Building Code by requiring new residential development to include Level 2 charging stations by 2020.
Does the project comply with the City’s EV charging station requirements?
(Residential projects are required to include level 2 charging stations, and
commercial projects are highly encouraged to install level 2 charging
stations.)
☐ ☐ ☐
Is the project utilizing any EV charging grant opportunities (e.g., from PCE or
the BAAQMD)? ☐ ☐ ☐
Details (e.g., how many EV charging stations, what grant opportunities, etc.):
2030 CAP Update
August 2019
City of Burlingame
Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd explanation for
your answer)
Yes No N/A
Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements, and Creative Parking Approaches
Manage public parking facilities to encourage alternative transportation and less driving. The City will update its
Zoning Ordinance to required new non -residential development reduce parking supply by 20 percent by 2025.
Does the proposed project include any creative parking approaches to
reduce parking supplies? ☐ ☐ ☐
Details:
Shuttle Service
Increase the use of available shuttles in Burlingame.
Will the project applicant provide tenants with shuttle information ? ☐ ☐ ☐
Details:
Yard and Garden Equipment
Support the transition of yard and garden equipment from gasoline to electric fuel sources. The City shall adopt
an ordinance by 2025 prohibiting the use of gasoline- and diesel -powered yard and garden equipment within
the City. The City will explore inventive options for residents and entities who voluntarily transition to electric
equipment before the ordinance is enacted.
Will the project applicant provide tenants with information on the City
intent to adopt an ordinance by 2025 to prohibit the use of such landscape
equipment?
☐ ☐ ☐
Details:
2030 CAP Update
August 2019
City of Burlingame
Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd explanation for
your answer)
Yes No N/A
Construction Best Management Practices
Require construction projects to implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Best Practices for
Construction. Also require construction projects to transition to electrically -powered construction equipment as
it becomes available, and seek construction contractors who use alternative fuels in their equipment fleet for
municipal construction projects.
Will the project comply with the BAAQMD’s BMPs and utilize available
electric /alternatively-powered construction equipment? ☐ ☐ ☐
Details:
Green Building Practices and Standards
Support, enforce, and expedite green building practices and standards .
Will the project comply with CALGreen voluntary tiers or other green
building elements that reach beyond CALGreen requirements? ☐ ☐ ☐
Details (e.g., which tier, and/or features):
Energy Efficiency
Encourage energy efficiency audits at the time of sale for existing homes, and incentivize low-cost retrofits for
residents and businesses .
Does the proposed project consist of either a minor or major retrofit? ☐ ☐ ☐
Has an energy efficient audit been conducted for the structure(s)? ☐ ☐ ☐
Details (e.g., what is being done to the building, did the audit influence any components of the retrofit, etc.):
2030 CAP Update
August 2019
City of Burlingame
Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd explanation for
your answer)
Yes No N/A
ECO100
Increase ECO100 enrollment by residences and businesses. Support PCE’s goal of sourcing 100% of its electricity
from GHG free sources by 2021 .
Will the project applicant either comply with, or provide tenants with,
information in Peninsula Clean Energy and specifically encourage enrollment
in ECO100?
☐ ☐ ☐
Details (e.g., strategy):
Residential Solar Power
Encourage homeowners to install solar power systems . The City is targeting 62 new solar applications per year.
Does the project include any renewable energy ? ☐ ☐ ☐
Details (e.g., strategy):
Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters
Support transition from traditional to solar, electrically-powered, or natural gas tankless water heaters in
residential development
Does the project include alternatively-powered water heaters? ☐ ☐ ☐
Details:
Water Conservation Retrofits
Replace existing plumbing fixtures with water -efficient plumbing in buildings.
Does the project include water conservation element that go beyond
CALGreen requirements (e.g., efficient landscaping, drip irrigation, and rain
barrels )?
☐ ☐ ☐
Details:
2030 CAP Update
August 2019
City of Burlingame
Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide explanation a nd explanation for
your answer)
Yes No N/A
Zero Waste
Implement zero waste supportive contracts and services and achieve waste diversion goals of 85% by 2030, 90%
by 2040, and 95% by 2050.
Does the project include facilities to collect garbage, recycling, and compost? ☐ ☐ ☐
Will the project applicant inform tenants of the benefits of recycling and
composting? ☐ ☐ ☐
Details:
Increase the Public Tree Population
The City’s Parks and Recreation Department shall ensure there is a net positive planning of 33 trees per year.
Does the project consist of a City project that include either the removal
and/or planting of trees? ☐ ☐ ☐
Details (i.e., how many trees removed, how many planted):
2030 CAP Update
August 2019
Addendum to the
2040 General Plan
Environmental Impact Report
SCH#: 2017082018
June 19, 2019
Consultant to the City
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame Table of Contents
June 19, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Regulatory Guidance ..............................................................................................1-2
1.3 Environmental Review Process ..............................................................................1-2
1.4 Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................1-3
1.5 Addendum Organization .........................................................................................1-5
Chapter 2 Project Description ...............................................................................................2-1
2.1 Project Location ......................................................................................................2-1
2.2 City of Burlingame 2040 General Plan and General Plan EIR .................................2-1
2.3 City of Burlingame Climate Action Plan ..................................................................2-1
2.4 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................2-8
2.5 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals .................................................2-8
Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist and Findings ...............................................................3-1
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Burlingame 2040 General Plan CEQA Analysis ......................................................3-1
3.3 Methodology for Analysis ........................................................................................3-2
3.4 Environmental Analysis ..........................................................................................3-3
Chapter 4 References and EIR Addendum Preparers .........................................................4-1
4.1 References .............................................................................................................4-1
4.2 EIR Addendum Preparers .......................................................................................4-1
TABLES
Table 2-1 Burlingame GHG Reduction Targets ........................................................................2-3
Table 2-2 BAU / ABAU GHG Emissions Projections – 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 ................2-3
Table 2-3 CAP GHG Reduction Measures Summary ...............................................................2-6
Table 2-4 2030 CAP Update GHG Emission Reductions Summary .........................................2-7
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame Table of Contents
June 19, 2019
LIST OF ACRONYOMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS
Acronym / Symbol Full Phrase or Description
AB Assembly Bill
ABAU Adjusted Business as Usual
ACC Advanced Clean Cars
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BAU Business as Usual
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GWP Global Warming Potential
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Regulation
LEV Low-Emission Vehicle
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
SB Senate Bill
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 1. Introduction
June 19, 2019 Page 1-1
1. Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND
As a community committed to protecting the environment, Burlingame prepared its first Climate
Action Plan (CAP) in 2009 to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the city through the
year 2020. Over the last decade, Burlingame has implemented multiple programs and efforts
that significantly reduced GHG emissions from City operations and the community and brought
other benefits to Burlingame. Since the 2009 CAP only targeted GHG emission reductions
through the year 2020, the implementation of a new strategy is required to address GHG
emissions in the future.
In 2015, the City of Burlingame commenced a three-year endeavor that updated the
community’s vision for the future and set forth policies to implement this vision. These policies
constitute the Burlingame 2040 General Plan, also known as Envision Burlingame. On January
7, 2019, the Burlingame City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR, State
Clearinghouse Number 2017082018) for the City of Burlingame 2040 General Plan, and
adopted the 2040 General Plan (Burlingame, 2019a). Chapter 10 of the EIR, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, included background information on climate change and GHG emissions; regulatory
climate actions to date; an overview of State, regional, and local GHG emissions levels; and a
preliminary analysis of the environmental effect of the General Plan on global climate change.
The EIR’s GHG analysis presented estimates of existing GHG emissions within the city,
forecasted future GHG emissions levels in the city, and estimated GHG reductions attributable
to State legislation and General Plan policies. The EIR analysis indicated adoption of the
General Plan and the implementation of the policies contained therein, as written at the time of
the EIR’s release, would not reduce the City’s GHG emissions to levels consistent with State
GHG reduction goals and, therefore, would have a significant impact on global climate change
and GHG emissions.
The proposed 2030 Climate Action Plan Update (2030 CAP Update) compiles all the climate
action related goals and policies contained in the General Plan into a single, comprehensive
document for addressing GHG emissions in the city (Burlingame, 2019b). The proposed CAP
update is intended to address Goal HP-2 of the General Plan (achieve GHG emissions
consistent with State goals) and is one of the specific implementation programs identified in the
General Plan (IP-52: Climate Action Plan). The proposed 2030 CAP Update provides new
estimates of existing GHG emissions within the city; forecasts future GHG emissions for 2020,
2030, 2040, and 2050; and identifies GHG reductions resulting from State legislation and GHG
reduction measures contained in the CAP. Although nearly all measures identified in the
proposed 2030 CAP Update are directly tied to the City’s General Plan policies, the 2030 CAP
Update modifies and adds several policies to the General Plan. These actions, adopting the
2030 CAP Update and amending the General Plan to incorporate all 2030 CAP Update GHG
reduction measures, are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
constitute the subject of this EIR addendum.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 1. Introduction
June 19, 2019 Page 1-2
1.2 REGULATORY GUIDANCE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) provides that when an EIR has been certified for a project,
no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the Lead Agency determines, on
the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that one or more of the
following circumstances exist:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions to the EIR
due to involvement of new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the
previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete shows any of the following:
A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
EIR;
B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
in the previous EIR;
C) Mitigation or alternatives previously found not feasible would in fact be feasible, and
would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the
project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D) Mitigation or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the
previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects on the environment but
the project proponent decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 provides that a Lead Agency can prepare a supplement to an
EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 is required
and only minor additions or changes are needed to make the previous EIR adequate to address
the changed situation.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 provides that the Lead Agency may prepare an Addendum to
a certified EIR if none of the conditions described in §15162 have occurred. A brief explanation
of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to §15162 must be included in the
addendum, Lead Agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation
must be supported by substantial evidence.
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the City has reviewed the 2030 CAP Update
and associated General Plan amendments, public comments received on the Draft 2030 CAP
Update to date, and the certified EIR for the 2040 General Plan to determine:
1) The extent to which the potential impacts resulting from the 2030 CAP Update and
associated General Plan amendments have been addressed by the previously certified
EIR for the General Plan;
2) Whether the 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments create new
significant or more severe project impacts,
3) Whether new circumstances or new information create new significant or more severe
impacts or require new analysis, and
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 1. Introduction
June 19, 2019 Page 1-3
4) Whether any identified new significant or more severe impacts are adequately addressed
by previously approved project mitigation.
The City has determined that the 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments
would have similar or reduced environmental impacts from those described in the certified EIR.
There are no new significant environmental impacts or previously identified significant impacts
made more severe by project changes, new circumstances, or new information. Therefore, the
City has determined not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15162.
Rather, the City has determined that an EIR addendum should be prepared as the appropriate
CEQA document to address adoption of the 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan
amendments in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15164.
CEQA Guideline Section 15164(c) provides that an addendum need not be circulated for public
review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
1.4 TIERING AND STREAMLINING THE ANALYSIS OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(a) includes the following provisions for addressing
GHG emissions:
(a) Lead agencies may analyze and mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas
emissions at a programmatic level, such as in a general plan, a long range development
plan, or a separate plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Later project-specific
environmental documents may tier from and/or incorporate by reference that existing
programmatic review. Project-specific environmental documents may rely on an EIR
containing a programmatic analysis of greenhouse gas emissions as provided in section
15152 (tiering), 15167 (staged EIRs) 15168 (program EIRs), 15175-15179.5 (Master
EIRs), 15182 (EIRs Prepared for Specific Plans), and 15183 (EIRs Prepared for General
Plans, Community Plans, or Zoning).
(b) Plan for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Public agencies may choose to
analyze and mitigate significant greenhouse gas emissions in a plan for the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions or similar document. A plan to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions may be used in a cumulative impacts analysis as set forth below. Pursuant to
section 15064(h)(3) and 15130(d), a lead agency may determine that a project’s
incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the
project complies with the requirements in a previously adopted plan or mitigation
program under specified circumstances.
(1) Plan Elements. A plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions should:
(A) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified
time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area;
(B) Establish a level, based on substantial evidences, below which the contribution to
greenhouse gas emission from activities covered by the plan would not be
cumulatively considerable;
(C) Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific
actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area;
(D) Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that
substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis,
would collectively achieve the specified emissions level;
(E) Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level
and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels;
(F) Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 1. Introduction
June 19, 2019 Page 1-4
This Addendum analyzes the the potential environmental impacts that may result from the
implementation of the 2030 CAP Update and corresponding General Plan amendments. It can
facilitate future environmental review of projects by enabling them to tier from and/or incorporate
by reference, the analysis presented in the City’s Envision Burlingame EIR, inclusive of this EIR
Addendum.
The City has prepared the 2030 CAP Update to satisfy all of the qualifications set forth in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15183.5, Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, as well as the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, by including the following
components in the 2030 CAP Update (BAAQMD, 2017).
• A quantified inventory of GHG emissions resulting from development within the City for
CAP baseline year 2005, existing inventory year 2015, projected year 2020, projected
year 2030, projected General Plan buildout year 2040, and projected year 2050
conditions (2030 CAP Update Chapters 2 and 3)
• A level of emissions, based on substantial evidence, below which the the contribution to
GHG emissions from activities covered by the General Plan would not be cumulatively
considerable (2030 CAP Update Chapters 2 and 3)
• Identification and analysis of GHG emissions anticipated because of development
pursuant to the Envision Burlingame General Plan (2030 CAP Update Chapter 3)
• Specific General Plan policies and CAP actions, including all feasible GHG reduction
measures identified by the City, that will be implemented on a project by-project basis in
the City (2030 CAP Update Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)
• The quantification of GHG emissions reductions and evaluation of whether General Plan
policies and CAP actions would collectively achieve the City’s specified GHG emissions
levels and reduction targets (2030 CAP Update Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)
• Mechanisms to monitor the CAP’s progress toward achieving the City’s GHG emissions
levels and reduction targets and to require amendment if the CAP is not achieving the
specified GHG emissions levels (2030 CAP Update Chapter 6)
• Adoption in a public process following environmental review
The 2030 CAP Update demonstrates the City’s efforts to address climate change by reducing
local GHG emissions, with an emphasis on improving the energy efficiency of buildings,
renewable energy, and preparing the City to adapt to a changing climate. The 2030 CAP
Update builds on General Plan policies and actions to reduce local GHG emissions, and
identifies how the City would achieve a GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below
baseline (i.e., year 2005) levels by the year 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year
2030. To achieve the community-wide GHG emission reduction targets for years 2020 and
2030, the City intends to implement a variety of GHG reduction measures addressing energy
efficiency and renewable energy, transportation, water consumption, solid waste, and City
government operations.
Following adoption, the 2030 CAP Update would be the City’s primary tool to implement
General Plan goals and policies related to the reduction of GHG emissions. The actions and
tracking requirements identified in the 2030 CAP Update and General Plan would be integrated
into City development review processes, trigger ordinance updates, and initiate policy and
procedure revisions. The City’s Sustainability Coordinator would lead implementation of the
2030 CAP Update in coordination with other departments, support integration of the 2030 CAP
Update into City operations, and work with City Planners to review future projects for
consistency with CAP measures and actions.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 1. Introduction
June 19, 2019 Page 1-5
1.5 ADDENDUM ORGANIZATION
This document is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1, Introduction, provides an introduction and overview describing the intended
use of the General Plan EIR Addendum.
• Chapter 2, Project Description, describes the project location, objectives, and
characteristics.
• Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, contains an analysis of environmental topic areas
that were addressed in the City General Plan EIR and their relationship to proposed
2030 CAP Update measures and actions.
• Chapter 4, References and EIR Preparers, provides a list of references and identifies the
individuals who were involved in the preparation of this document.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 1. Introduction
June 19, 2019 Page 1-6
This page intentionally left blank.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 2. Project Description
June 19, 2019 Page 2-1
2. Project Description
This Chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed Burlingame 2030 CAP Update.
Please refer to Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, for the evaluation of the potential
environmental effects of this project in relation to the the Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR.
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Burlingame is located on the San Mateo Peninsula, 16 miles south of San
Francisco. It is surrounded by the cities of Millbrae to the north, San Mateo to the south, the San
Francisco Bay to the east, and Hillsborough to the west (see Draft EIR Figure 2-1, Regional
Map). Major transportation facilities serving the City include Interstate 280, US Route 101
(Highway 101), two Caltrain commuter rail stations (Broadway and Downtown), and San
Francisco International Airport. A Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)/Caltrain multimodal transit
station is located just north Burlingame, in the City of Millbrae.
2.2 CITY OF BURLINGAME 2040 GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN EIR
California state law requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general
plan for the physical development of the city or county and any land outside its boundaries that
bears relation to its planning (California Government Code Section 65300). The general plan
expresses the community’s development goals and embodies public policy relative to the
distribution of future land uses, both public and private. A city or county’s zoning, specific plans,
subdivisions, capital improvements, development agreements, and many other land use actions
must be consistent with the adopted general plan.
In accordance with California Government Code Section 65302, a general plan must address
seven issue areas. These issue areas, typically addressed as general plan elements, consist of
land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. California
Government Code Section 65300.5 specifically requires that the elements and associated policy
provisions are internally consistent and that no one element or provision of a general plan
carries greater weight than another.
The 2040 General Plan identifies the City’s development tools and polices relative to the
distribution of future land uses, provides a basis for local governmental land use decisions, and
informs citizens, developers, and decision-makers of the guidelines for development in the city.
The City of Burlingame adopted and certified the 2040 General Plan and corresponding 2040
General Plan EIR, respectively, on January 7, 2019. The 2040 General Plan updated six of the
seven mandated elements for a General Plan, including the Land Use Element, Housing
Element, Circulation Element, Conservation and Open Space Element, and Health and Safety
Element. The only element not updated as part of the Envision Burlingame process was the
Housing Element. Integrated throughout the 11 chapters of the General Plan are goals and
policies that address sustainability, conservation, and climate change. The potential
environmental effects of these policies were analyzed in the certified 2040 General Plan EIR.
2.3 CITY OF BURLINGAME CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The City developed the 2030 CAP Update to carry out General Plan Implementation Program
52: Climate Action Plan, which directs the City to prepare a climate change sustainability
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 2. Project Description
June 19, 2019 Page 2-2
assessment strategy that evaluates the city’s susceptibility to climate change and identifies
tool/strategies to mitigate impacts, and General Plan Policy CC-1.1: Climate Action Plan, which
directs the City to maintain up-to-date Climate Action Plan policies and continue to provide
sustainability reports. The 2030 CAP Update’s GHG reduction goals are also consistent with
General Policy HP-2.3: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets, which requires the City to work to
achieve GHG emissions reductions locally that are consistent with the targets established in
Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (California Global Solutions Act of 2006) and subsequent supporting
legislation (e.g., Senate Bill (SB) 32).
2.3.1 Purpose of the Climate Action Plan
The City of Burlingame initiated the 2030 CAP Update as part of the 2040 General Plan. The
2030 CAP Update implements specific General Plan goals, policies, and programs to reduce
GHG emissions, addresses climate change adaptation, and is intended to improve overall
quality of life in the city. The 2030 CAP Update also supports statewide GHG emissions
reduction goals identified in AB 32 and SB 375. Implementation of the measures and actions in
the 2030 CAP Update would help the city grow efficiently, ensure long-term resiliency to a
changing environmental and economic climate, and improve transportation. The 2030 CAP
Update would also serve as a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy under CEQA, potentially
simplifying development review for new projects that are consistent with the General Plan and
2030 CAP Update.
Development of the 2030 CAP began with re-establishing the City’s baseline GHG emission
inventory to reflect new recommendations in GHG inventory development. Consistent with the
2009 CAP, the 2030 CAP Update retains 2005 as the City’s baseline GHG emission inventory
year. The 2005 community-wide inventory focuses on GHG emissions generated by certain
activities occurring within Burlingame City limits, including: residential energy,
commercial/industrial energy, transportation, solid waste, water, wastewater, and City-owned
stationary sources. In total, 2005 community-wide GHG emissions are estimated to be 255,195
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e)1. The updated 2005 community-wide
baseline GHG emission inventory provides the benchmark from which the 2030 CAP Update’s
GHG reduction goals are established.2
The 2030 CAP Update primarily focuses on reducing GHG emissions for 2020 and 2030,
consistent with legislatively-adopted State targets. Although emission forecasts and reductions
are included for 2040 and 2050, it would be speculative to demonstrate achievement with these
longer-term goals with the information known today. As has been the case with the last decade,
it is anticipated technological advances and future federal and State law will assist Burlingame
in reducing its emissions in line with State goals. The 2030 CAP GHG reduction targets are:
• 2020: Reduce GHG emissions by 15% below the City’s 2005 GHG Baseline Inventory
(comparable to 1990 levels; AB, 2006)
• 2030: Reduce GHG emissions by 40% below 1990 levels (SB 32, 2016)
• 2040: Reduce GHG emissions by 60% below 1990 levels
1 The potential for a particular GHG to absorb and trap heat in the atmosphere is considered its glob al warming
potential (GWP). The reference gas for measuring GWP is carbon dioxide (CO2), which has a GWP of one. By
comparison, methane has a GWP of 28, which means that one molecule of methane has 28 times the effect on
global warming as one molecule of CO2. Multiplying the estimated emissions for non-CO2 GHG by their GWP
determines their carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which enables a project’s combined GWP to be expressed in
terms of mass CO2 emissions equivalents.
2 While the State uses 1990 as its baseline year, local governments tend to not have reliable GHG data prior to 2005.
According to CARB, a reduction target of 15% below 2005 levels is comparable to a return to 1990 levels.
Burlingame, therefore, has used data from 2005 to derive its 2020 goal , which is considered representative of 1990
levels.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 2. Project Description
June 19, 2019 Page 2-3
• 2050: Reduce GHG emissions by 80% below 1990 levels (SB 32, 2016)
Table 2-1 summarizes the City’s GHG reduction targets for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050.
Table 2-1: Burlingame GHG Reduction Targets
CAP GHG Scenario GHG Emissions Level (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
GHG Reduction Targets 216,916(A) 130,350(B) 86,766(C) 43,383(D)
(A) 216,916 MTCO2e is 15% below the City’s 2005 GHG baseline inventory (255,195 MTCO2e).
(B) 130,350 MTCO2e is 40% below the City’s estimated 1990 emissions level (216,916 MTCO2e).
(C) 86,766 MTCO2e is 60% below the City’s estimated 1990 emissions level (216,916 MTCO2e).
(D) 43,383 MTCO2e is 80% below the City’s estimated 1990 emissions level (216,916 MTCO2e).
The 2030 CAP Update identifies how the City would achieve or demonstrate substantial
progress towards the GHG emissions targets presented in Table 2-1. The 2030 CAP also
identifies measures and actions to reduce emission from City government operations and adapt
to a changing climate.
2.3.2 State and Regional Climate Actions
Burlingame’s strategy for climate protection must be set within the context of the Bay Area and
the state, where much of the momentum for reducing GHG emissions originates. The State
policies and regulations most relevant to the City’s 2030 CAP Update are briefly described
below. The first three bullet points present the major milestones that have driven all climate
change planning efforts across California.
• Executive Order S-3-05 9 (2005): In June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 establishing the State’s GHG emission targets for
2010 (reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels), 2020 (reduce GHG emissions to 1990
levels), and 2050 (reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels).
• Assembly Bill 32 (2006): Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California
Climate Solutions Act of 2006, mandating caps on statewide GHG emissions, a deadline
of December 31, 2020 for achieving GHG reduction levels, and the requirement for the
State to prepare a Scoping Plan with the State’s GHG strategy to achieve such
reductions by such date.
• Executive Order B-30-15 (2015): Governor Edmund Brown issued EO B-30-15 to set a
GHG emissions target for 2030 (reduce GHG emissions 40% below 1990 levels) and to
require the State’s climate adaptation strategy to be updated every three years.
• SB 375 - Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (2008): The intent of SB
375 is to better integrate regional planning of transportation, land use, and housing to
reduce sprawl and ultimately reduce GHG emissions and other air pollutants. SB 375
tasks the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to set GHG reduction targets for each
of California’s 18 regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).
• AB 341 - Mandatory Commercial Recycling (2012): AB 341 requires that at least 75% of
solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020.
• Advanced Clean Cars Program (2012): In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced
Clean Cars (ACC) Program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through
2025. The components of the ACC program are the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV)
regulations and the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation.
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard (2018): CARB initially approved the Low Carbon Fuel
Standard (LCFS) regulation in 2009. Originally, the LCFS regulation required at least a
10% reduction in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2020
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 2. Project Description
June 19, 2019 Page 2-4
(compared to 2010). In 2018, CARB approved changes to the LCFS regulation that
require a 20% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030.
• SB 100 - California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program (2018): SB 100 revised the
State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program to require retail sellers of electricity to
serve 50% and 60% of the total kilowatt-hours sold to retail end-use customers be
served by renewable energy sources by 2026 and 2030, respectively, and requires
100% of all electricity supplied come from renewable sources by 2045.
• Executive Order B-48-18 - Zero Emission Vehicles (2018): EO B-48-18 establishes a
target to have five million ZEVs on the road in California by 2030. The executive order is
supported by the State’s 2018 ZEV Action Plan Priorities Update, which expands upon
the State’s 2016 ZEV Action Plan.
• Title 24 Energy Standards (2019): Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is
referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code).
CALGreen contains both mandatory and voluntary measures. California’s Building
Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. The
2019 standards will go into effect on January 1, 2020 and improve upon existing
standards. The 2019 standards include new requirements for installation of solar
photovoltaics for newly constructed low-rise residential buildings and also propose
several smaller improvements in energy efficiency.
2.3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emission Forecasts
After establishing the city’s 2005 community-wide baseline inventory, data were gathered to
evaluate how emissions within the city limits had changed over the course of a decade.
Community-wide emissions in Burlingame during 2015 are estimated to be approximately
242,523 MTCO2e, or about five percent less than the 2005 community-wide inventory. Using the
2015 community-wide GHG emission inventory and growth projections contained in the 2040
General Plan (for housing, population, and employment) and Plan Bay Area 2040 (for vehicle
miles travelled, or VMT), emission forecasts were developed for the years 2020, 2030, 2040,
and 2050.
A GHG emissions forecast predicts future emissions levels based on the continuation of current
trends and activities in GHG emissions sectors and accounting for population and employment
growth. GHG emissions forecasts provide a basis for determining the amount of GHG emissions
reductions needed to achieve GHG reduction targets. The 2030 CAP Update contains two
emissions forecasts:
• The “Business As Usual” (BAU) projection – This forecast estimates what GHG
emissions would be if the Burlingame community continued to act as it currently does as
it grows and takes no actions to reduce emissions. The 2030 CAP BAU projection
assumes population, housing, and employment will increase over time from Year 2015,
reaching General Plan buildout levels by 2040, and result in a corresponding increase in
GHG emission from the various GHG emissions sectors (e.g., energy, transportation,
water, etc.). The 2030 CAP Update also includes projections for 2050 to align with State
GHG reduction planning efforts.
• The “Adjusted Business As Usual” (ABAU) projection –The ABAU forecast accounts for
legislative actions adopted after 2015 (or resulting in GHG emission reductions after
2015) that would reduce future GHG emissions regardless of whether or not the City
adopted the 2030 CAP Update.
The inventory and forecasts presented in the 2030 CAP Update are based on the GHG
emissions inventory and forecasts contained in the General Plan EIR, but include several minor
revisions to data sources and methodologies that provide for a more accurate estimate of
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 2. Project Description
June 19, 2019 Page 2-5
community-wide GHG emissions3. The 2005 and 2015 baseline emissions inventory estimates
contained in the 2030 CAP Update are slightly lower than the emissions inventory estimates
contained in the General Plan EIR. Similarly, the BAU and ABAU forecasts are slightly smaller
than presented in the General Plan EIR. Finally, since baseline emissions projections are
slightly less than estimated in the Draft EIR, the 2030 CAP Update’s GHG reduction targets are
slightly lower than presented in the Draft EIR (in terms of total emissions, but not percentage
reduction). The 2030 CAP update also specifically quantifies and forecasts GHG emissions in
2050. These minor changes do not constitute new information of substantial importance as
identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)(A–D).
Table 2-2 summarizes the city’s BAU and ABAU forecasts, and identifies the emissions gap
between the ABAU forecast and the City’s GHG reduction targets.
Table 2-2: BAU / ABAU GHG Emissions Projections - 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050
Forecast Scenario Emissions (MTCO2e / yr)
2020 2030 2040 2050
BAU GHG Emissions Projection 255,244 273,541 303,460 329,155
ABAU GHG Emissions Projection 233,646 180,493 189,690 166,534
GHG Reduction Targets(A) 216,916 130,350 86,766 43,383
Additional GHG Reductions Needed 16,730 50,343 102,923 123,151
(A) See Table 2-1.
As shown in Table 2-2, legislative actions taken by the state would greatly reduce GHG
emissions in the decade to come; however, absent additional, local action, the City will not meet
its 2020 and 2030 GHG reductions target. The 2030 CAP Update identifies 20 measures to
reduce 2020 and 2030 GHG emissions below the established targets, and puts the city on a
path forward to meeting its GHG reduction goals in 2040 and 2050. These 20 GHG reduction
measures are described in the next section.
2.3.4 Climate Action Plan GHG Reduction Measures
The proposed 2030 CAP Update focuses on 20 GHG reduction measures that would reduce
GHG emissions to levels that meet the City’s goals for 2020 and 2030 and demonstrate
substantial progress towards meeting the City’s goals for 2040 and 20504. Due to the integral
relationship between the General Plan and the 2030 CAP Update (i.e., the CAP is one of the
General Plan’s implementation programs), many of the 2030 CAP Update’s GHG reduction
measures tied to policies contained in the 2040 General Plan. Of the 20 GHG reduction
measures:
• Sixteen (16) of the measures are directly tied to policies in the adopted 2040 General
Plan (and thus were evaluated and analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR);
3 The 2030 CAP update relies on actual water use estimates instead of estimates based on per capita consumptive
rates. The Draft EIR estimated emissions reductions associated with General Plan Policies C C-1.2, CC-1.5, CC-1.9,
HP-2.7, HP-2.8, M-6.1, and IF-6.9. The 2030 CAP Update includes these reductions plus additional reductions
associated with General Plan Policies CC-1.13, CC-2.2, HP-2.7, HP-2.8, HP-2.10, HP-2.16, HP-2.17, HP-3.12, HP-
6.2, IF-2.11, IF-5.16, M-1.1, M-3.10, M-4.2, M-4.7, M-7.1, M-7.3, and M-7.5.
4 The Draft EIR estimated emissions reductions associated with General Plan Policies CC -1.2, CC-1.5, CC-1.9, HP-
2.7, HP-2.8, M-6.1, and IF-6.9. The 2030 CAP Update includes these reductions plus additional reductions
associated with General Plan Policies CC-1.13, CC-2.2, HP-2.7, HP-2.8, HP-2.10, HP-2.16, HP-2.17, HP-3.12, HP-
6.2, IF-2.11, IF-5.16, M-1.1, M-3.10, M-4.2, M-4.7, M-7.1, M-7.3, and M-7.5.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 2. Project Description
June 19, 2019 Page 2-6
• Two (2) of the measures would amendment policies in the adopted 2040 General Plan;
and
• Two (2) of the measures are the new and are not part of the adopted 2040 General Plan.
These new policies are being proposed for inclusion the 2040 General Plan.
Table 2-3 shows the 20 proposed GHG reductions measures contained in the 2030 CAP
Update, identifies if the measure would amend an existing General Plan policy or create a new
General Plan policy, and presents the estimated GHG reductions attributable to the measure.
Table 2-4 summarizes how the GHG reduction measures combine with the ABAU forecast to
reduce GHG emissions in the city.
Table 2-3: CAP GHG Reduction Measures Emissions Summary
CAP Reduction Measure GHG Reductions (MTCO2e)
2020 2030 2040 2050
1. Mixed Use Development, Transit Oriented
Development, and Transit Supporting Land Use 95 166 233 328
2. Transportation Demand Management - 4,563 8,632 9,286
3. Complete Streets - 5,488 6,686 8,726
4. Caltrain Electrification - 2,954 3,276 3,598
5. Bicycle Sharing 3,379 1,697 1,577 1,632
6. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Initiatives 5 29 53 79
7. Parking Pricing, Parking Requirements, and Creative
Parking Approaches - 424 821 1,209
8. Burlingame Shuttle Service 8 10 11 13
9. Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment
(New General Plan Policy) - 516 556 596
10. Construction Best Management Practices
(Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12) - 3,618 4,871 5,218
11. Green Building Practices and Standards - 53 124 133
12. Energy Efficiency - 3,247 7,168 7,309
13. Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100 16,533 24,073 24,038 -
14. Residential Solar Power 345 617 1028 -
15. Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters
(New General Plan Policy) - 270 315 455
16. Retrofits - 1 2 -
17. Water Conservation - 2 3 -
18. Zero Waste - 2,760 4,483 6,435
19. Municipal Green Building Measures 27 27 66 66
20. Increase the Public Tree Population
(Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2) 5 17 29 40
Total Reductions from CAP Measures 20,397 50,532 63,973 45,124
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 2. Project Description
June 19, 2019 Page 2-7
Table 2-4: 2030 CAP Update GHG Emission Reductions Summary
Forecast Scenario Emissions (MTCO2e / yr)
2020 2030 2040 2050
ABAU GHG Emissions Projection 233,646 180,493 189,690 166,534
City GHG Emissions with CAP Reductions 213,249 129,961 125,717 121,410
GHG Reduction Targets(A) 216,916 130,350 86,766 43,383
GHG Emissions Target Achieved? Yes Yes No No
(A) See Table 2-1.
As shown in Table 2-3, the implementation of GHG reduction measures identified in the 2030
CAP Update would reduce GHG emissions by approximately 20,400 MTCO2e by 2020, and by
approximately 50,500 MTCO2e by 2030. These GHG reductions would reduce community-wide
GHG emissions to levels that are below the year 2020 and 2030 targets (see Table 2-4). The
reductions, would not however, reduce emissions below the year 2040 and 2050 targets.
Table 2-3 also lists the proposed 2030 CAP Update measures that would require either an
amendment to an existing General Plan policy or the addition of a new policy entirely to the
General Plan. These four measures are highlighted below. For a full list of GHG reductions
measures, as they are presented in the 2030 CAP, see Appendix A. Proposed amendments
that would add text to a policy are shown in underline, and proposed amendments that would
remove text are shown in strikethrough.
• CAP Measure 9, Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment, would add a new policy
to the General Plan. Proposed General Plan Policy HP-2.16: Electrification of Yard and
Garden Equipment would state, “Support the transition of yard and garden equipment
from gasoline to electric fuel sources.”
• CAP Measure 10, Construction Best Management Practices, would amend existing
General Plan Policy HP-3.12: Construction Best Management Practices to state,
“Require construction projects to implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s Best Practices for Construction to reduce pollution from dust and exhaust as
feasible; require construction projects to transition to electrically-powered construction
equipment as it becomes available; and seek construction contractors who use
alternative fuels in their equipment fleet.” The proposed text amendment clarifies the
City’s intent to incorporate best management practices that reduce exhaust emissions,
as cleaner equipment becomes available.
• CAP Measure 15, Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters, would add a new
policy to the General Plan. Proposed General Plan Policy HP-2.17: Alternatively-
Powered Residential Water Heaters would state, “Support the transition from tank-
based, natural gas water heaters to solar, electrically-powered, or natural gas tankless
water heaters in residential development.”
• CAP Measure 20, Increase the Public Tree Population, would amend existing General
Plan Policy CC-2.2: Increase the Public Street Tree Population to state, “Identify ways to
increase the overall population of street trees in Burlingame to stem the natural decline
of the urban forest and create a more equitable distribution of tree canopy.” The
proposed text amendment broadens the City’s goal of increasing the overall tree
population it the city (e.g., at public parks, government facilities, etc.), in addition to
street trees.
Since all other GHG reduction measures proposed in the 2030 CAP Update are directly tied to
the policies contained in the adopted 2040 General Plan, the potential environmental effects of
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 2. Project Description
June 19, 2019 Page 2-8
these policies are considered to have been evaluated in the 2040 General Plan EIR. This
Addendum, therefore, evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the
adoption and implementation of the four policies listed above.
2.4 Project Objectives
The primary objective of the proposed 2030 CAP Update is to comply with Burlingame 2040
General Plan implementing program IP-52: Climate Action Plan, and Policies CC-1.1: Climate
Action Plan and HP-2.3: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets. As such, the 2030 CAP Update is
considered a subsequent project under the City’s General Plan. Specifically, the proposed 2030
CAP is designed to achieve the following project objectives:
1. Provide a scientific and regulatory framework for addressing climate change and GHGs
at the local level.
2. Identify sources of GHG emissions within the city and estimate how these emissions
may change over time.
3. Forecast emissions to reflect the City’s desired growth projections without regulatory or
technical intervention to reduce GHG emissions.
4. Provide emissions reduction targets consistent with AB 32 and SB 32.
5. Provide energy use, transportation, solid waste, water, and municipal strategies to
reduce community-wide GHG emission and quality potential emissions reduction to be
achieved by implementing these strategies.
6. Provide methods to reduce city GHG emission consistent with the State’s goals and
Public Resources Code Section 21083.3.
7. Present an implementation program to assist with monitoring, tracking, and reporting
GHG emission reductions achieved by the 2030 CAP Update, as well as the periodic
updating of the 2030 CAP Update.
2.5 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS
The 2030 CAP Update is a program-level document that does not authorize or permit any
specific development project. Accordingly, no permits or approvals are required from other
agencies for the proposed 2030 CAP Update. Nonetheless, the success of the 2030 CAP
Update relies on collaborative and dynamic partnerships with the private sector, community
groups, other agencies, and stakeholders. Specifically, the following agencies and organizations
are identified as partners to assist the City in implementing the 2030 CAP Update:
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District
• County of San Mateo, Office of Sustainability
• City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
• Peninsula Joint Powers Board
• SamTrans
• Caltrain
• City of Millbrae
• City of San Mateo
• Peninsula Clean Energy
• Downtown Burlingame Business Association
• Broadway Improvement District
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-1
3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This Chapter provides analysis and substantial evidence that supports the City’s determination
that the adoption of the measures and actions in the proposed 2030 CAP Update do not meet
the criteria for preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR under State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 and are consistent with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section
15183.5.
As shown in the analysis below, the 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan
amendments do not involve substantial changes to the General Plan due to a new significant
impact or a substantial increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact
identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a)(1). As identified in
the analysis below, all impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the 2030
CAP Update would be equivalent to, or less then, the impacts previous analyzed in the 2040
General Plan EIR and, in some cases, the 2030 CAP Update would result in beneficial actions
that promote energy-efficient new development, renewable energy, reduced water and energy
use, and reduced waste generation.
In addition, there have been no changes to the environmental conditions or other circumstances
under which the General Plan or the 2030 CAP Update would be undertaken that would cause a
new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant
impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(2).
Finally, as detailed in this chapter, there is no new information of substantial importance (which
was not known or could not have been known at the time of the 2040 General Plan adoption on
January 7, 2019) that shows any of the following:
• The 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments would result in a
significant effect not discussed in the General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15162(a)(3)(A);
• The 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan amendments would substantially
increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 (a)(3)(B);
• Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible that would now be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects identified in the
General Plan EIR, but the City is declining to adopt such measures or alternatives
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)(C); or
• Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the 2040 General Plan EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
on the environment, but the City is declining to adopt such measures or alternatives
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)(D).
3.2 BURLINGAME 2040 GENERAL PLAN CEQA ANALYSIS
The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR was certified by the Burlingame City Council on the
same date the Burlingame 2040 General Plan was adopted, January 7, 2019. Upon complete
analysis of the 2040 General Plan, the EIR determined that implementation of the 2040 General
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-2
Plan would result in the following significant and unavoidable project impacts, which are also
cumulatively considerable:
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Impacts 10-1 and 10-2)
• Noise (Impact 15-3)
All impacts in the subject areas of aesthetics and visual resources; agricultural and forestry
resources; air quality; biological resources; geology, soils, and minerals; hazards and hazardous
materials; historic and cultural resources; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning;
population and housing; public services; transportation and circulation; tribal cultural resources;
and utilities and service systems resulted in no impacts, less-than-significant impacts, or less-
than-significant impacts with mitigation.
3.3 METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS
The 2030 CAP Update has been developed as a result of General Plan implementation program
IP-52: Climate Action Plan and General Plan Policies CC-1.1: Climate Action Plan and HP-2.3:
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets. The 2030 CAP Update is consistent with the goals of the
2040 General Plan as well as with all city land use designations.
The 2030 CAP Update does not propose any new development or construction of facilities
beyond those considered in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Although implementation of the 2030
CAP would not generate development or construction, existing and future development and
construction subject to the 2030 CAP Update would also be subject to all existing City
development standards, as well as environmental review according to existing City and State
CEQA requirements. As indicated previously, this Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
focuses on the physical changes to the environment that could occur with implementation of the
proposed 2030 CAP Update and the following policies proposed for amendment or addition into
the 2040 General Plan:
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16: Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12: Construction Best Management Practices
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17: Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2: Increase the Public Tree Population
Section 3.4 evaluates the four, proposed policy amendments/additions for each environmental
resource analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. The assessment conducted uses an
environmental checklist that summarizes:
• Where the impact was analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR,
• If proposed changes involve new significant impacts or substantially more severe
impacts,
• If there are any new circumstances that involve new significant impacts or substantially
more severe impacts,
• If there is any new information requiring new analysis or verification, and
• If the previously adopted mitigation measures address/resolve new impacts.
The environmental checklist contained in Section 3.4 uses updated language from the CEQA
Guidelines Appendix G, which was approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on
December 28, 2018 (i.e., after the 2040 General Plan EIR had undergone public review).
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-3
3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL AN ALYSIS
3.4.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
Draft EIR,
pp. 5-5 to
5-8
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
c) In non-urbanized area,
substantially degrade the
existing views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible
vantage point.) If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict would applicable
zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the Planning
area or its surroundings?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.1.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Aesthetics and Visual Resources environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft
EIR pp. 5-1 to 5-4. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City
certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.1.2 Discussion
Responses a) – d). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-
significant impacts on aesthetic and visual resources.
The proposed 2030 CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in
the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General
Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-4
These additional tree plantings may, in general, occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
As described in the Draft EIR (pg. 5-1), Burlingame is a designated “Tree City,” due to its
canopies of diverse, mature, and expansive trees along public streets, private property,
and parks and natural areas. The planting of approximately 33 trees per year in various
locations around the city would not result in new or more severe impacts on aesthetic
and visual resources.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace some aging or failing tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential
development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or
solar) water heaters. Residential water heaters are located within a physical structure
and are not visible to public. This policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to
more efficient water heaters when it comes time for replacement. It would not alter any
land use designations, development intensities, or sources of light or glare.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. It would not alter any land use designations,
development intensities, or sources of light or glare.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. It would not alter any land use designations, development
intensities, or sources of light or glare.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Aesthetics and Visual
Resource impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new
circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new
mitigation measures or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-5
3.4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
Draft EIR
pp. 6-3 to
6-5
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
c) Conflict with existing zoning
for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
d) Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which,
due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.2.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Agricultural and Forestry Resources environmental and regulatory setting is presented in
Draft EIR pp. 6-1 to 6-2. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City
certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-6
3.4.2.2 Discussion
Responses a) – e). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-
significant impacts on agricultural and forestry resources.
The proposed 2030 CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in
the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General
Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the 2030 CAP to be 33 trees per
year). These additional tree plantings may, in general, occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
As described in the Draft EIR (pg. 6-3), Burlingame is an almost fully-developed,
urbanized area that does not contain any areas zoned or designated solely for
commercial agriculture or forestry resources. The planting of approximately 33 additional
trees per year would not result in new or more severe impacts on agricultural or forestry
resources.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on agricultural or
forestry resources.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on
agricultural or forestry resources.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on agricultural or
forestry resources.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments
would not result in new or substantially more severe Agricultural and Forestry Resource impacts
than identified in the General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that
require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-7
3.4.3 Air Quality
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Draft EIR
pp. 7-18 to
7-39
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
c) Expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.3.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Air Quality environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 7-1 to 7-16.
There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the General Plan
EIR in January 2019.
3.4.3.2 Discussion
Responses a) – d). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-
significant impacts on air quality.
The proposed 2030 CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in
the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General
Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
The administrative change in the implementation of CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Street
Tree Population) would not change the action undertaken by the City (i.e., planting more
trees) analyzed in the certified EIR. The proposed policy amendment for CC-2.2 would
not result in new or more severe impacts on air quality.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-8
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar), as the
existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located
within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage
homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for
replacement, providing a potential benefit for air quality in the City. Therefore, this policy
would not result in new or more severe impacts on air quality.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. It would provide a potential benefit to air quality
resulting from fewer emissions and, therefore, would not result in new or more severe
impacts on air quality.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. It would provide a potential benefit to air quality resulting from fewer
emissions and, therefore, would not result in new or more severe impacts on air quality.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments
would not result in new or substantially more severe Air Quality impacts than identified in the
2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that require additional
impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-9
3.4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where
Impact was
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Draft EIR
pp. 8-9 to
8-19
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural
community identified in local or
regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
d) Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
f) Conflict with the provisions of
an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-10
3.4.4.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Biological Resources environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 8-1
to 8-8. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040
General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.4.2 Discussion
Responses a) – f). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive
General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-significant impacts on
biological resources.
The proposed 2030 CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in
the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040 General
Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
The administrative change in the implementation of CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Street
Tree Population) would not change the action undertaken by the City (i.e., planting more
trees) analyzed in the certified EIR. The proposed policy amendment for CC-2.2 could
be a potential benefit to biological resources because of the additional habitat generated
from the increase in trees. Therefore, it would not result in new or more severe impacts
on sensitive biological resources.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would encourage the replacement of tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential
development with tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or
solar) water heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water
heaters are typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This
policy would encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it
comes time for replacement. As the policy does not trigger development, it would not
result in new or more severe impacts on biological resources.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on
biological resources.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on biological
resources.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Biological Resource impacts
than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information
that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or
alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-11
3.4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
Draft EIR
pp. 12-5 to
12-11
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside
of dedicated cemeteries?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.5.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Cultural Resources environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 12-1
to 12-4. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040
General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.5.2 Discussion
Responses a) – c). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-
significant impacts on cultural resources.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
As described in the Draft EIR (Table 12-1 on pp. 12-7 through 12-10), impacts on
cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant levels by existing regulations
and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree
Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the
planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, the new tree plantings
would continue to be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 12-1 of the
certified EIR. Furthermore, the additional tree plantings would only occur in developed
areas, which would have a low potential to contain cultural resources. Therefore, the
amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on cultural resources.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar), as the
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-12
existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are typically located
within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would encourage
homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time for
replacement. This new water heating equipment would be subject to the regulations and
policies listed in Table 12-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 12-7 through 12-10), including the State
Historic Building Code. The State Historic Building Code contains standards that
establish specific requirements for protecting historic buildings. Therefore, proposed
Policy HP-2.17 not result in new or more severe impacts on cultural resources.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and
garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the
city in the future. The proposed activity is not a new activity occurring within the city, it
would only change the types of equipment that could be used for the activity. These new
pieces of equipment would continue to be subject to the policies listed in Table 12-1 of
the Draft EIR (pp. pp. 12-7 through 12-10). Proposed Policy HP-2.16 would not result in
new or more severe impacts on cultural resources.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace diesel- and gasoline-equipment that
would be operated in the City in the future; it would not change the activity that was
analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. These new pieces of equipment would continue
to be subject to the policies listed in Table 12-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. pp. 12-7 through
12-10). Proposed Policy HP-3.12 would not result in new or more severe impacts on
cultural resources.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Cultural Resource impacts
than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information
that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or
alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-13
3.4.6 Energy
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
Draft EIR
pp. 10-22
to 10-56
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.6.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Energy environmental and regulatory setting is presented in the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions chapter of the Draft EIR pp. 10-1 to 10-22. There have been no changes to this
setting information since the City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.6.2 Discussion
Responses a) – b). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-
significant impacts on energy.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
As described in the Draft EIR (Table 10-18 on pp. 10-41 through 10-56), impacts to
energy would be reduced to less than significant levels by existing regulations and
general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population)
was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees
would change under the proposed amendment, it would not conflict with plans for energy
efficiency or adversely impact energy resources. Therefore, the amended policy would
not result in new or more severe impacts to energy.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-14
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. This new water heating equipment would be subject to the regulations
and policies listed in the Draft EIR (Table 10-18 on pp. 10-41 through 10-56), including
the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC contains standards that establish specific
requirements for energy efficiency. Proposed Policy HP-2.17 would not result in new or
more severe impacts on energy.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and
garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the
city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and policies
listed in Table 10-18 of the Draft EIR. Proposed Policy HP-2.16 would not result in new
or more severe impacts on energy.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and
policies listed in the Draft EIR (Table 10-18 on pp. 10-41 through 10-56). The proposed
amendment to Policy HP-3.12 would not result in new or more sever impacts on energy.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe energy impacts than
identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that
require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-15
3.4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where
Impact
was
Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
Draft
EIR pp.
9-4 to 9-
9 and
12-5 to
12-11
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known
fault?
Note: Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication
42.
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking? No No No Not
Applicable(A)
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction? No No No Not
Applicable(A)
iv) Landslides? No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil? No No No Not
Applicable(A)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
No No No Yes
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-16
3.4.7.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Geology and Soils environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 9-1 to
9-3. Paleontological resources are discussed separately in the Cultural Resources chapter on
Draft EIR pp. 12-1 to 12-4. There have been no changes to this setting information since the
City certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.7.2 Discussion
Responses a) – f). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive
General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-significant impacts on
geology and soils.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
As described in the Draft EIR (Table 9-1 on pp. 9-6 through 9-8), impacts on geology
and soils would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing regulations and
general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population)
was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees
would change under the proposed amendment, it would not affect the physical
environmental from a geological perspective. Therefore, the amended policy would not
result in any new or more severe impacts on geology and soils.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. This new water heating equipment would be subject to the regulations
and policies listed in Table 9-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 9-6 through 9-8), including the
California Building Code (CBC). The CBC contains standards that establish specific
requirements for seismic safety. Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in any
new or more severe impacts on geology and soils.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the City in the future. It would affect neither geology or soils nor exacerbate
dangers to people as a result of geological occurrences beyond the effects of existing
gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment operation. This new equipment would be
subject to the policies listed in Table 9-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 9-6 through 9-8).
Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in any new or more severe impacts on
geology and soils.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. It would affect neither geology or soils nor exacerbate dangers to
people as a result of geological occurrences beyond the existing effects of gasoline-
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-17
powered construction equipment. This new equipment would be subject to the policies
listed in Table 9-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 9-6 through 9-8). Therefore, the proposed policy
amendment would not result in any new or more severe impacts on geology and soils.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Geology and Soils impacts
than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information
that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or
alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-18
3.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment? Draft EIR
pp. 10-23
to 10-30
No No No Yes
b) Conflict with an applicable,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse
gases?
No No No Yes
3.4.8.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR
pp. 10-1 to 10-22. As described in Section 2.3, the 2030 CAP Update presents updated
information on 2005, 2015, 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 GHG emissions levels in the city. This
update information does not substantially change the overall environmental or regulatory setting
contained in the Draft EIR. There have been no other changes to this setting information since
the City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.8.2 Discussion
Responses a) – b). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in a significant and
unavoidable impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. As shown in
Table 2-4, adoption of the 2030 CAP Update would reduce GHG emissions to levels that are
below the City’s year 2020 and 2030 GHG reduction targets and demonstrate substantial
progress towards 2040 and 2050 GHG reduction targets.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed
in the certified EIR and though the locations of the planted trees would change under the
proposed amendment, it would not generate additional GHG emissions. Rather, this
amended policy would serve to reduce GHG emissions below that considered in the
EIR. Therefore, this amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts
from GHGs.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-19
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement, thereby reducing GHG emissions below that considered in the EIR.
Therefore, this new policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from GHG
emissions.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered lawn and
garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in the
City in the future, thereby reducing GHG emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
Therefore, this new policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from GHG
emissions.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the City in the future, thereby reducing GHG emissions below that considered in the EIR.
Therefore, this amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from
GHGs.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Greenhouse Gas Emissions
impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Although the 2030 CAP Update (and
policies proposed in this EIR Addendum) would substantially reduce the city’s GHG emissions
and achieve the City’s 2020 and 2030 GHG reductions goals, GHG impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable for year 2040 (the General Plan’s buildout year) and 2050, since
emissions would not be below the reduction goals established for that year. There are no new
circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new
mitigation measures or alternatives. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-20
3.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment
through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Draft EIR
pp. 11-7 to
11-15
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
e) For a project located within
an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not
been adopted, within 2 miles of
a public airport or public use
airport, result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the
project area?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
g) Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-21
3.4.9.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Hazards and Hazardous Materials environmental and regulatory setting is presented in
Draft EIR pp. 11-1 to 11-6. There have been no changes to this setting information since the
City certified the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.9.2 Discussion
Responses a) – g). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-
significant impacts on hazards and hazardous materials.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
As described in the Draft EIR (Table 11-1 on pp. 11-9 through 11-14), impacts from
hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by
existing regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the
Public Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the
locations of the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would
not generate additional hazards or hazardous materials. Therefore, the amended policy
would not result in new or more severe impacts from hazards and hazardous materials.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. This new water heating equipment would be subject to the regulations
and policies listed in Table 11-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 11-9 through 11-14), which
establishes specific requirements for hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, the
proposed policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from hazards and
hazardous materials.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations
and policies listed in Table 11-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 11-9 through 11-14). Therefore, the
proposed policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from hazards and
hazardous materials.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and
policies listed in Table 11-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 11-9 through 11-14). Therefore, the
amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from hazards and
hazardous materials.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-22
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Hazards and Hazardous
Materials impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new
circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new
mitigation measures or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-23
3.4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where
Impact was
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
Draft EIR
pp. 13-4
to 13-5
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
i) Result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site; No No No Not
Applicable(A)
ii) Substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-
or off-site;
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
iii) Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
iv) Impede or redirect flood
flows? No No No Not
Applicable(A)
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-24
3.4.10.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Hydrology and Water Quality environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR
pp. 13-1 to 13-4. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified
the 2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.10.2 Discussion
Responses a) – e). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-
significant impacts on hydrology and water quality.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
As described in the Draft EIR (Table 13-1 on pp. 13-7 through 13-14), impacts on
hydrology and water quality would be reduced to less than significant levels by existing
regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public
Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of
the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not pose
additional risk to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, the amended policy would not
result in new or more substantial impacts on hydrology and water quality.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement, resulting in less water use and, therefore, a potential benefit to
hydrology and water quality. The installation of this new water heating equipment would
be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Table 13-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 13-7
through 13-14. The table contains standards that establish specific requirements for
hydrology and water quality. Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in new or
more substantial impacts on hydrology and water quality.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations
and policies listed in Table 13-1 (pp. 13-7 through 13-14). Therefore, the proposed policy
would not result in new or more substantial impacts on hydrology and water quality.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and
policies listed in Table 13-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 13-7 through 13-14). Therefore, the
amended policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts on hydrology and
water quality.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-25
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Hydrology and Water Quality
impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or
information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures
or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-26
3.4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Physically divide an
established community?
Draft EIR
pp. 14-8 to
14-14
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.11.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Land Use and Planning environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp.
14-1 to 14-8. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the
2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.11.2 Discussion
Responses a) – b). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-
significant impacts on land use and planning.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
As described in the Draft EIR (Table 14-3 on pp. 14-11 through 14-13), impacts related
to land use and planning would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing
regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public
Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of
the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not generate
additional impacts related to land use and planning. Therefore, the amended policy
would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to land use and planning.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. It would not alter any land use designations or planning. Therefore, the
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-27
proposed policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to land use
and planning.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the City in the future. It would not alter any land use designations or
planning. Therefore, the proposed policy would not result in new or more substantial
impacts related to land use and planning.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. It would not alter any land use designations or planning. Therefore,
the amended policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to land
use and planning.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Land Use and Planning
impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or
information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures
or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-28
3.4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value
to the region and the residents
of the state? Draft EIR
pp. 9-4 to
9-9
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally-
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a
local -general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.12.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Mineral Resources environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 9-1 to
9-3. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the General
Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.12.2 Discussion
Responses a) – b). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-
significant impacts on mineral resources.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree
Population) would increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33
trees per year). These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on
City-owned property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree
plantings only. It would not affect any mineral resources. Therefore, the amended policy
would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to mineral resources.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. It would not affect any mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed
policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to mineral resources.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-29
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the City in the future. It would not affect any mineral resources. Therefore,
the proposed policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to
mineral resources.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. It would not affect any mineral resources. Therefore, the amended
policy would not result in new or more substantial impacts related to mineral resources.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Mineral Resource impacts
than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information
that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or
alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-30
3.4.13 Noise
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or in
other applicable standards of
other agencies?
Draft EIR
pp. 15-22
to 15-50
No No No Yes
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
c) For a project located within
the vicinity of a private airstrip
or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.13.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Noise environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 15-1 to 15-20.
There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040 General
Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.13.2 Discussion
Responses a) – c). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in a significant and
unavoidable impact on noise associated with increases in vehicle trips on the local roadway
system.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
As described in the Draft EIR (Table 15-11 on pp. 15-24 to 15-25; Table 15-13 on pp.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-31
15-29; Table 15-16 on pp. 15-35 to 15-38; Table 15-19 on pp. 15-46 through 15-48;
Table 15-20 on pp. 15-49 to 15-50), noise impacts from development activities would be
reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing regulations and general plan policies.
General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed
in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would change under
the proposed amendment, it would not generate substantial additional noise impacts.
Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more severe noise impacts.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. The proposed policy would not result in new or more severe noise
impacts.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations
and policies listed in Tables 15-11, 15-13, 15-16, 15-19, and 15-20 of the Draft EIR (pp.
15-24 to 15-25, 15-29, 15-35 to 15-38, 15-46 to 15-48, and 15-49 to 15-50, respectively).
In addition, electric equipment is generally quieter than combustion-based equipment.
The proposed policy would not result in new or more severe noise impacts.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. This new equipment, as well as construction activities in general,
would be subject to the regulations and policies listed in Tables 15-11, 15-13, 15-16, 15-
19, and 15-20 of the Draft EIR (pp. 15-24 to 15-25, 15-29, 15-35 to 15-38, 15-46 to 15-
48, and 15-49 to 15-50, respectively). Therefore, the amended policy would not result in
new or more severe noise impacts.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Noise impacts than identified
in the General Plan EIR. Though the 2040 General Plan EIR found a significant and
unavoidable noise impact with regard to traffic noise. Neither the 2030 CAP Update nor the
General Plan policy amendments propose land use changes that would affect trip generation.
Rather, the adoption of the 2030 CAP Update is anticipated to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle
miles travelled within the City. The implementation of the 2040 General Plan would still result in
a significant and unavoidable noise impact with regard to traffic noise. There are no new
circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new
mitigation measures or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-32
3.4.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Induce a substantial
unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Draft EIR
pp. 16-3 to
16-8
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.14.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Population and Housing environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp.
16-1 to 16-2. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the
2040 General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.14.2 Discussion
Responses a) – b). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-
significant impacts on population and housing.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
The planting of approximately 33 additional trees per year would not result in new or
more severe impacts on population or housing.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on population or
housing.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-33
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on
population or housing.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on population or
housing.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Population and Housing
impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or
information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures
or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-34
3.4.15 Public Services
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Draft EIR
pp. 7-5 to
7-13
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
i) Fire protection? No No No Not
Applicable(A)
ii) Police protection? No No No Not
Applicable(A)
iii) Schools? No No No Not
Applicable(A)
iv) Parks? No No No Not
Applicable(A)
v) Other public facilities? No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.15.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Public Services environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 17-1 to
17-4. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the 2040
General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.15.2 Discussion
Responses ai) – v). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-
significant impacts on public services.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only. It
would not result in new or more severe impacts on public services.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-35
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on public services.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on
public services.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on public
services.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe public services impacts than
identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that
require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-36
3.4.16 Recreation
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Draft EIR
pp. 7-5 to
7-13
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Include recreational facilities
or require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.16.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Recreation environmental and regulatory setting is presented in the Public Services chapter
of the Draft EIR on pp. 17-1 to 17-4. There have been no changes to this setting information
since the City certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.16.2 Discussion
Responses a) – b). The Envision Burlingame General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update would result in less-than-significant impacts on recreation.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
The amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on recreation.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begin to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. The proposed policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on
recreation.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-37
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. The proposed policy would not result in new or more
severe impacts on recreation.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. The amended policy would not result in new or more severe
impacts on recreation.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe recreation impacts than
identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that
require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-38
3.4.17 Transportation
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
Draft EIR
pp. 18-6 to
18-19
No No No Not
Applicable
b) Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3(b), which pertains to
vehicle miles travelled?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.17.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Transportation environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR pp. 18-1 to
18-5. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified the General
Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.17.2 Discussion
Responses a) – d). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-
significant impacts on transportation.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
As described in the Draft EIR (Table 18-6 on pp. 18-16 through 18-19), impacts on
transportation would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing regulations
and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree
Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the
planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not affect
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-39
transportation. The amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on
transportation.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. It would not result in new or more severe impacts on transportation.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations
and policies listed in in Table 18-6 of the Draft EIR (pp. 18-16 through 18-19). Therefore,
the proposed policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on transportation.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the City in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and
policies listed in in Table 18-6 of the Draft EIR (pp. 18-16 through 18-19). Therefore, the
amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on transportation.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Transportation impacts than
identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that
require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-40
3.4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place cultural landscape that is geographica lly
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k)?
Draft EIR
pp. 19-3 to
19-7
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
ii) A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying
the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of
the resource to a California
Native American Tribe.
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.18.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Tribal Cultural Resources environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR
pp. 19-1 to 19-3. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified
the General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.18.2 Discussion
Responses ai) – ii). The Envision Burlingame General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update would result in less-than-significant impacts on tribal
cultural resources.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-41
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
As described in the Draft EIR (Table 19-1 on pp. 19-5 through 19-7), impacts on tribal
cultural resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing
regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public
Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and though the locations of
the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not result in
new or more severe impacts on tribal cultural resources.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. The policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on tribal
cultural resources.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the City in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the
regulations and policies listed in Table 19-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 19-5 through 19-7). The
policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on tribal cultural resources.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and
policies listed in Table 19-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 19-5 through 19-7). The policy would
not result in new or more severe impacts on tribal cultural resources.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Tribal Cultural Resource
impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or
information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures
or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-42
3.4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of
new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
stormwater drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities,
the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Draft EIR
pp. 20-5 to
20-13
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
c) Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
d) Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
e) Comply with federal, state,
and local management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.19.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Utilities and Service Systems environmental and regulatory setting is presented in Draft EIR
pp. 20-1 to 20-5. There have been no changes to this setting information since the City certified
the General Plan EIR in January 2019.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-43
3.4.19.2 Discussion
Responses a) – e). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update would result in less-than-significant impacts on utilities and
service systems.
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
As described in the Draft EIR (Table 20-1 on pp. 20-8 through 20-12), impacts to utilities
and service systems would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing
regulations and general plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public
Tree Population) was already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of
the planted trees would change under the proposed amendment, it would not generate
additional use of utilities and service systems. Therefore, the amended policy would not
result in new or more severe impacts from utilities and service systems.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. This new water heating equipment would be subject to the regulations
and policies listed in Table 20-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 20-8 through 20-12). The policies
and regulations in the table contain standards that establish specific requirements for
impacts to utilities and service systems. Therefore, the proposed policy would not result
in new or more severe impacts from utilities and service systems.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations
and policies listed in Table 20-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 20-8 through 20-12). resulting in
less than significant to utilities and service systems. Therefore, the proposed policy
would not result in new or more severe impacts from utilities and service systems.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the City in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and
policies listed in Table 20-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 20-8 through 20-12). Therefore, the
amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts from utilities and service
systems.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe utilities and service systems
impacts than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or
information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures
or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-44
3.4.20 Wildfire
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Draft EIR
pp. 9-8 and
11-7 to 11-
15
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
c) Require the installation of
associated infrastructure (such
as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the
environment?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
d) Expose people or structures
to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.20.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Wildfire environmental and regulatory setting is presented in the Hazards and Hazardous
Materials chapter of the Draft EIR pp. 11-1 to 11-6. There have been no changes to this setting
information since the City certified the General Plan EIR in January 2019.
3.4.20.2 Discussion
Responses a) – d). The Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR concluded the City’s
comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General Plan) would result in less-than-
significant impacts on wildfire.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-45
The proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy amendments would not
result in the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 2040
General Plan EIR for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
As described in the Draft EIR (Table 11-1 on pp. 11-9 through 11-14), impacts to wildfire
risk would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by existing regulations and general
plan policies. General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was
already analyzed in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would
change under the proposed amendment, it would not generate additional wildfire risk.
Therefore, the amended policy would not result in new or more severe impacts on
wildfire.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. The proposed policy would neither result in new nor more severe
impacts with regard to wildfire.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations
and policies listed in Table 11-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 11-9 through 11-14). The proposed
policy would neither result in new nor more severe impacts with regard to wildfire.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. This new equipment would be subject to the regulations and
policies listed in Table 11-1 of the Draft EIR (pp. 11-9 through 11-14). The proposed
policy would neither result in new nor more severe impacts with regard to wildfire.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe Wildfire impacts than
identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new circumstances or information that
require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new mitigation measures or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-46
3.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the project:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
AREA
Where Impact
was Analyzed
in the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do the
Previously
Adopted
Mitigation
Measures
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
a) Does the project have the
potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community,
substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods
of California history or
prehistory? Draft EIR
pp. 22-1 to
22-25
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
b) Does the project have
impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means the
incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed
in connection with the efforts of
past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the
effects of probable future
projects)?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
No No No Not
Applicable(A)
(A) The certified EIR did not have mitigation identified for this environmental issue.
3.4.21.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
The Mandatory Findings of Significance environmental and regulatory setting is presented in the
CEQA Mandated Components chapter of the Draft EIR pp. 22-1 to 22-25. There have been no
changes to this setting information since the City certified the General Plan EIR in January
2019.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-47
3.4.21.2 Discussion
Responses a) – c). The Mandatory Findings of Significance presented in the Burlingame 2040
General Plan EIR concluded the City’s comprehensive General Plan update (i.e., 2040 General
Plan) would result in cumulatively considerable impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Noise.
The proposed CAP and associated General Plan policy amendments would not result in the
potential for new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR
for the following reasons:
• Amended General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) would
increase tree plantings within the city (estimated in the CAP to be 33 trees per year).
These additional tree plantings may, in general occur in city parks, on City-owned
property, etc., in contrast to the current policy, which calls for street tree plantings only.
General Plan Policy CC-2.2 (Increase the Public Tree Population) was already analyzed
in the certified EIR and, though the locations of the planted trees would change under
the proposed amendment, it would not change the conclusions drawn in the Mandatory
Findings of Significance Chapter of the EIR.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.17 (Alternatively-Powered Residential Water Heaters)
would replace tank-based natural gas water heaters in residential development with
tankless natural gas and/or alternatively-powered (e.g., electricity or solar) water
heaters, as the existing stock ages and begins to fail. Residential water heaters are
typically located within the physical structure it provides hot water to. This policy would
encourage homeowners to upgrade to more efficient water heaters when it comes time
for replacement. This policy would not change the conclusions drawn in the Mandatory
Findings of Significance Chapter of the EIR.
• New General Plan Policy HP-2.16 (Electrification of Yard and Garden Equipment) would
replace gasoline- and diesel-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric-powered
lawn and garden equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be
operated in the city in the future. This policy would not change the conclusions drawn in
the Mandatory Findings of Significance Chapter of the EIR.
• Amended General Plan Policy HP-3.12 (Construction Best Management Practices)
would replace gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment with electric
construction equipment. This policy would replace equipment that would be operated in
the city in the future. This policy would not change the conclusions drawn in the
Mandatory Findings of Significance Chapter of the EIR.
As described above, the proposed 2030 CAP Update and associated General Plan policy
amendments would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to the Mandatory
Findings of Significance than identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. There are no new
circumstances or information that require additional impact analysis or the evaluation of new
mitigation measures or alternatives.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 3. Environmental Checklist and Findings
June 19, 2019 Page 3-48
This page intentionally left blank.
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 4. References and EIR Addendum Preparers
June 19, 2019 Page 4-1
4. REFERENCES AND EIR ADDENDUM PREPARERS
4.1 REFERENCES
The following references were used to prepare this Addendum.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017. California Environmental Quality
Act Air Quality Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017.
Burlingame, City of (Burlingame), 2019a. City of Burlingame 2040 General Plan. State
Clearinghouse Number 2017082018. Certified January 7, 2019.
Burlingame, City of (Burlingame), 2019b. Draft 2030 Climate Action Plan Update.
4.2 EIR ADDENDUM PREPARERS
MIG, Inc.
800 Hearst Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
(510) 845-7549
www.migcom.com
Environmental Analysis and Document Preparation
Chris Dugan – Director of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Services
Phillip Gleason – Senior Analyst I
Shelby Kendrick – Analyst II
Burlingame 2030 CAP Update and 2040 General Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR
City of Burlingame 4. References and EIR Addendum Preparers
June 19, 2019 Page 4-2
This page intentionally left blank.
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 12, 2019
e.Adoption of the Burlingame 2030 Climate Action Plan and Addendum to the General
Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Staff Contacts: Andrea Pappajohn and Kevin
Gardiner
Staff Report
MIG Memorandum - Response to Comments
2030 CAP – Revised Public Review Draft
EIR Addendum
Resolution - EIR Addendum
Resolution - 2030 CAP Update and GP Amendment
Public Notice
Attachments:
Andrea Poppajohn, City of Burlingame Sustainability Fellow, introduced the item.
Chris Dugan, MIG, made a presentation of the Climate Action Plan.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Are reach codes typically associated with incentive measures or programs? Or is it more typical that
there is a code, and a reach code on top of that? (Dugan: More typically it is the code, and the reach code
on top of it.)(Kane: Staff is looking at the matter comprehensively to see if there could be incentives built
in that would function in the same way. The City does not need to adopt a reach code in the same manner
as other municipalities if it wants to create its own structure that reaches the same result but through a
different procedural mechanism.)
Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
Doug Silverstein: Climate Action Plans are important because they directly address harmful greenhouse
gas emissions that cause climate change, and they help the City prioritize effective solutions that cities
can take to reduce emissions. Growing concern in the community for climate change and global warming .
Confident more residents will become engaged with the City to ensure the community has a strong plan
that we can confidently say addresses the true impact of global warming. The CEC advocated for more
aggressive goals, and will continue to stay engaged and want to be involved. This year's update cycle is a
good foundation for building more aggressive plans in the future with larger goals and regular progress
reports, and make deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Looks forward to the updates on the
measures that have been proposed, and adding more measures in the future.
Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2019
August 12, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Gratitude and debt to the CEC.
>This is an important document. Would like to make more of the public aware of it.
>Could look at moving 2050 goals to 2040, rather than 2030. Might be more workable.
>Suggest allowing the use of EV chargers at municipal facilities to be available to employees in a
subsidized manner, similar to the transit pass subsidies.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to recommend
approval of the Climate Action Plan, General Plan Amendment, and EIR Addendum to the City
Council. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Loftis2 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/23/2019
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 10a
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: City Council Direction Regarding a Pilot Project for Dynamic Wayfinding
Signage for Parking Availability
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review the information presented in this report and provide
direction regarding implementing a 12-month pilot project for dynamic wayfinding parking signage
in Parking Lot C in the Burlingame Avenue Downtown District, and Parking Lot Y in the Broadway
Commercial District. Should Council wish to pursue said pilot project, staff recommends that
Council authorize staff to work with Streetline to implement the project, and authorize the
appropriation of necessary funds via adoption of the attached resolution.
BACKGROUND
There has been ongoing interest from the community for wayfinding signage to improve the overall
parking experience in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial Districts. As a result,
members of the City’s Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) and staff have been working
on strategies to help alleviate parking shortages in downtown Burlingame and in the Broadway
area. The TSPC efforts have included the redistribution of short-term and long-term spaces,
determining peak capacity times, and polling to ascertain the driving habits of users of the public
parking lots. The TSPC and staff believe that an overall strategy to address parking concerns will
need to be multi-faceted, including increasing parking inventory, encouraging transit alternatives,
implementing demand pricing, and increasing parking efficiencies. While separate efforts are
underway to improve the user experience for parking, improving wayfinding to show parking
availability is one of the approaches that has been thoroughly vetted and is ready for Council
consideration.
DISCUSSION
Over the past several months, staff has reviewed multiple proposals from firms that provide
technology and communication systems to enhance the parking experience by delivering real-
time/dynamic information about parking availability to cell phones and visually through signage as
drivers approach a parking area. The information will allow residents and visitors to decide whether
to enter the parking area or drive past and select another location based on the number of available
parking spaces. After interviewing several firms, staff selected Streetline of Foster City for a pilot
project as their technology appears to be well suited to meet Burlingame’s needs. In addition,
City Council Direction Regarding a Pilot Project September 3, 2019
for Dynamic Wayfinding Parking Signage
2
Streetline is offering to provide free services worth approximately $55,900 to implement the pilot
project.
Streetline has over 12 years of experience providing accurate, real-time parking availability with
deployment of their systems across North America and Europe. Deployments include cities and
enterprises such as universities, corporate campuses, and mobility partners. Their equipment
options include in-pavement sensors and video cameras depending on the limitations of a specific
parking area. Other companies that staff interviewed did not have these options.
At the May 9, 2019 TSPC meeting, Streetline presented their firm’s capabilities as well as the
concept of a pilot project to introduce parking availability technology in Parking Lot C (Downtown)
on Donnelly Avenue and Parking Lot Y on Chula Vista Avenue (Broadway). Their presentation also
included an alternative in the Downtown area (Parking Lot A); however, this lot was subsequently
taken out of the pilot project due to it being considered for valet-assist parking as part of the
mitigation measures related to the anticipated construction of the Village at Burlingame. Parking
Lots C and Y were selected for their benefits and ease of implementation, including the proximity
to electrical power, clear lines of sight for cameras, and limited driver visibility into the area.
DISCUSSION
The pilot project as proposed by Streetline would be a cost-sharing program. Under this project,
the City would pay recurring monthly fees and a one-time activation fee, while Streetline would
provide the installation and the use of new equipment during the 12-month duration. Should the
City elect to continue with the program after the pilot period ends, then the City could purchase the
equipment at a discounted rate, or expand the program to other parking facilities.
Two different types of technologies will be deployed during the pilot project—parking sensors in
each of the parking stalls, and a video camera detection system. Piloting these two technologies
will allow the City to determine their effectiveness and deploy the most suitable technology should
the City wish to expand the program in the future. Parking sensors will be utilized in Lot Y, and a
video camera detection system will be utilized in Lot C. Information from these cameras and
sensors will be sent to a data collection gateway located in the lot, and then sent to the cloud via a
cellular network. From there, the information will be sent to dynamic wayfinding signs located at
the lot entrances on street frontages, and on major thoroughfares. These signs will then display
real-time information about parking space availability to residents and visitors. The parking
availability information would also be made available to the public through Streetline’s Parker App.
The dynamic wayfinding signs will be solar-powered and will display the spaces available in a
specific parking lot.
As part of the project, Streetline will install cameras, sensors, communications equipment, and
electronic wayfinding signage in the public right-of-way (sidewalks, planter areas, and parking lots).
Streetline will be responsible for installation, maintenance, and operation of the system during the
12-month pilot project. During this period, residents and visitors will get to experience dynamic
parking wayfinding, while the City will obtain parking demand and utilization data. This data could
be used to analyze parking behavior throughout the day, thereby allowing the City to determine
City Council Direction Regarding a Pilot Project September 3, 2019
for Dynamic Wayfinding Parking Signage
3
other pricing and/or operational options should the Council wish to make the pilot project
permanent.
When presented to the TSPC at their May meeting, the Commissioners expressed support for the
program and commented on the possible expansion of the program to other lots in the Broadway
area. Staff reviewed the feasibility of expanding the pilot project to include other lots; however, it
was determined that such an expansion would significantly alter the scope of the current project
and would be complex and difficult to implement from a logistics perspective. Additionally, it would
be significantly more expensive. Staff believes the pilot effort should be of reasonable size and
scope at this time in order to obtain user feedback to determine its effectiveness. Depending on
the results of the pilot project, the City Council may wish to consider expanding the program to
other lots in the future.
The total estimated cost for the 12-month pilot project is $92,800, with Streetline investing $55,900,
and the City paying the remaining $36,900. The City’s costs include a one-time activation fee and
recurring monthly fees; while Streetline’s costs include equipment, installation, and maintenance
during the pilot period. If the City decides to terminate the project after the 12-month pilot project
period, Streetline will remove all equipment, and the City will cease paying the monthly fees. If the
City decides to continue the project after 12 months, the City will be responsible for the monthly
fees and the discounted purchase of the equipment.
Should the Council wish to implement the pilot project, staff recommends that the Council adopt
the attached resolution authorizing staff to enter into an agreement with Streetline to implement the
program, and approve necessary funds as required.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City’s cost for the 12-month pilot project is $36,900, which includes a one-time activation fee
and monthly fees. Should the City Council wish to implement the pilot project, there are adequate
funds available in the Parking Enterprise Fund to undertake this effort.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Streetline Presentation
RESOLUTION NO._______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING A
12-MONTH PARKING AVAILABILITY PILOT PROGRAM FOR DYNAMIC WAYFINDING
PARKING SIGNAGE
WHEREAS, there has been ongoing interest from the community to implement wayfinding
signage to assist with the overall parking experience in downtown Burlingame and on Broadway;
and
WHEREAS, members of the City’s Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) and
staff have been working on ideas to help alleviate the parking shortage in downtown Burlingame
and on Broadway, including the implementation of dynamic wayfinding parking signage; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed multiple proposals and conducted interviews with firms
who provide technology and communication systems that enhance a user’s parking experience;
and
WHEREAS, Streetline was selected as the top vendor based on their experience,
equipment options, and their willingness to offer free of cost services during the pilot period of 12
months; and
WHEREAS, the 12-month pilot program will consist of the installation of pavement sensors
and/or video sensors in Parking Lot C and Parking Lot Y; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is supportive of the proposed pilot project of dynamic
wayfinding signage for parking availability.
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City
of Burlingame, State of California, as follows:
1. City staff is authorized to enter into an agreement with Streetline in an amount not to
exceed $36,900 for a 12-month parking availability pilot program for dynamic wayfinding
signage in Parking Lots C and Y; and
2. Upon completion of said pilot program, the City Council will determine the next steps for
the City’s wayfinding efforts.
__________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, State of California
this 3rd day of September, 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of
September, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
__________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
City of Burlingame
Dynamic Parking Availability & Wayfinding Signage Pilot Project
September 3, 2019
Taso Zografos; taso@streetline.com; 415-215-6113
City Council Meeting
City of Burlingame
Streetline Intro
2
City of Burlingame
Reinventing the Future of Dynamic Parking
3
Accurate parking policy
and availability solutions
RELIABLE
CONTINUOUS GROWTH
* Spaces under contract
0
10
20
30
40
50
2015 2016 2017 2018ThousandsSEAMLESS
EFFICIENT
40,000+ spaces
50+ cities
Patented technology
95%+ sensor accuracy
97%+ camera accuracy
Infrastructure-less innovation
Flexible –Scalable platform
Continuous machine-learning
City of Burlingame
Proposed Pilot Project
4
City of Burlingame
Summary
5
•Parking Availability Using Camera and/or Sensor Technology
•Several Candidate Off-Street Lots –2 Different Business Areas
•12-Month Pilot Duration
➢1st 3-Months Set-Up, Config., & Calibration
➢9-Months of Data Services and Performance Monitoring-Assessment
•Proposed Cost Share for Pilot
•Option for City to Continue Service and/or Expand to Other
Locations Depending on Results
City of Burlingame
Pilot Project -Parking Availability & Dynamic Signage
6
CLOUDHybrid
Inference
Platform
Cloud
Data
Collection
Gateways
Cameras Sensors
Realtime Parking
Availability
cellular
City of Burlingame
Additional Service Offerings
7
CLOUDHybrid
Inference
Platform
Cloud
Parker
Data
Collection
Gateways
Cameras Sensors
Realtime Parking
Availability
Guided
Enforcement Analyticscellular
City of Burlingame
Flexible Sign Power & Install Options
8
110V Power Solar Power
Pole
Mounted Wall Surface
Mounted
City of Burlingame
Flexible Wayfinding Sign Design Examples
9
3 Display 2 Display 1 Display
Directional Directional
City of Burlingame
2 Candidate Off-Street Lots (2 Business District Areas)
10
Area 1 Broadway Ave
Area 2 Burlingame Ave
LOT Y
1
LOT C
2
Sensors were a more
cost-effective option
for this location
Cameras were a
more cost-effective
option for this
location
City of Burlingame
Area 1 Broadway Commercial District –Lot Y
OUT
OUT
IN
IN
City of Burlingame
Electrical Power
Install Equip. Support
Sign Pole Infrastructure
11
1
City of Burlingame
Area 1 Broadway Commercial District –Lot Y
12
36 Spaces
36 Sensors
(1 per space)
1 Cellular Gateway
6 Repeaters
1
Sensors
PRIVATE SPACES
EV CHARGING SPACES
City of Burlingame
Area 1 Broadway Commercial District –Lot Y
13
1
Signage
PRIVATE SPACES
EV CHARGING SPACES
City of Burlingame
Area 1 Broadway Commercial District –Lot Y
IN
Chula Vista Ave –Entry 1
14
1
Signage
ENTRY 1
City of Burlingame
Area 1 Broadway Commercial District –Lot Y
IN
Chula Vista Ave –Entry 2
15
1
Signage
ENTRY 2
City of Burlingame
Area 1 Broadway Commercial District –Lot Y
16
1
Heading West from
California Ave
Heading East from
El Camino Real
Dynamic Wayfinding
City of Burlingame
Area 1 Broadway Commercial District
17
Future Wayfinding Expansion Option
City of Burlingame
Area 2
Burlingame Ave. –Lot C
18
2
City of Burlingame
Area 2 Burlingame Ave. –Lot C
19
80 Spaces; 6 cameras; 4 Gateways
2 Digital Signs
INOUT
IN
4
2
1
35
6
City of Burlingame
Area 2 Burlingame Ave. –Lot C -Wayfinding
20
Lot C
City of Burlingame
Area 2 Burlingame Ave. –Lot C -Wayfinding
21
Lorton Ave
City of Burlingame
Area 2 Burlingame Ave. –Lot C -Wayfinding
22
Primrose Road
City of Burlingame
Schedule & Cost Share
23
City of Burlingame
Cam Pilot Timeline –Lots Y & C
24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1-Time
Activation
Fee Recurring Monthly Fee
Supply
& Install
Equip.
Testing,
Calibration,
Tuning, &
Commission Go Live
Regroup
on Next
Steps
City Assess Benefits-Value
9 Month Pilot Operation, Monitoring, & Assessment
City of Burlingame
$45,400
$18,000$27,400
Shared Cost –Lot Y (Sensors Only)
25
Equipment & Install Services One-Time Activation Fee
$10,800
Monthly Recurring Fee (9-Months)
@$800 per Mo. x 9 Mos. = $7,200
60%40%
Total Cost
36 Sensors
36 Sensors $6,300
8 Repeaters $2,400
1 Gateways $2,000
2 Signs $6,000
Equipment Installation $2,700
Calibrate & Test $4,000
Maintenance $4,000
City of Burlingame
$47,400
$18,900$28,500
Shared Cost –Lot C (Cams Only)
26
Equipment & Install Services One-Time Activation Fee
$10,800
Monthly Recurring Fee (9-Months)
@$900 per Mo. x 9 Mos. = $8,100
58%42%
Total Cost
6 Cameras $3,000
4 Gateways $6,000
4 Signs $12,000
Installation Services $3,000
Calibration & Testing $2,500
Maintenance $2,000
6 Cams
Lot Level
City of Burlingame
Questions & Feedback?
27
Thank You
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 10b
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Subject: Authorization to the City Manager to Submit a Letter of Interest to Bay Area
Metro to Amend the Designated Priority Development Area (PDA) in the City
of Burlingame
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to submit a Letter of Interest to
Bay Area Metro (the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG)) to amend the boundaries of the Priority Development Area (PDA)
designated within Burlingame to include the North Rollins Mixed Use area.
BACKGROUND
Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are defined as locations within existing Bay Area communities
that present infill development opportunities and are easily accessible to transit, jobs, shopping,
and services. Local jurisdictions voluntarily identify these locations.1
In 2007, the City of Burlingame established its current PDA by City Council resolution in
coordination with the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). At
that time, local governments were encouraged to participate in the process and to collaborate with
other entities on the nomination of areas. C/CAG took the lead to submit an application for all
properties located within one-quarter mile of the El Camino Real Corridor within the County of San
Mateo. The effort was part of an initiative named FOCUS (short for Focusing Our Vision), which
was a predecessor of the Plan Bay Area regional planning initiative.
In 2009, the City of Burlingame amended the boundaries of its designated PDA to correspond to
the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan and to the residential areas within the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan (map attached).
Upon adoption, PDAs have been eligible for incentive funding for either planning or capital projects
located near existing or planned fixed transit (or comparable bus service) that are planning for more
housing. This has included the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program, which has provided funding
for neighborhood active transportation and complete streets projects, climate initiatives, safety
1 Plan Bay Area 2040 - Glossary
PDA Letter of Interest September 3, 2019
2
programs, and transportation infrastructure that support infill development. Such projects include
bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local street repair, and planning activities, while also
providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes to Schools projects.
Bay Area Metro (the entity combining MTC and ABAG) has issued a Call for Letters of Interest for
new and amended Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), and
Priority Production Areas (PPAs). The invitation follows the adoption of an updated Regional
Growth Framework by ABAG and MTC (see attached “Plan Bay Area 2050: Regional Growth
Framework Update – Overview of Existing and Updated Geographies”). The Framework update
revises PDA criteria, establishes a PPA pilot, and opens an application window for PDAs, PPAs,
and PCAs. Together, PDAs, PCAs, and the new PPAs will comprise Plan Bay Area 2050's Regional
Growth Framework, the Bay Area’s strategy for coordinating housing and job growth. This
Framework will shape the investments and growth pattern to be detailed in Plan Bay Area 2050.
Letters of Interest are due September 16, 2019, with formal resolutions required by January 15,
2020.
DISCUSSION
The City of Burlingame adopted an updated General Plan in January 2019. The plan includes the
designation of a new “live/work” land use designation in the northern portion of the Rollins Road
corridor, within proximity to the Millbrae BART/Caltrain Intermodal Station. The adoption of the
General Plan coincided with adoption of interim zoning standards for the district, designated the
North Rollins Road Mixed Use District (see attached diagram). A specific plan for the area is
anticipated to be initiated within the year.
The North Rollins Road Mixed Use District conforms to revised PDA criteria established in the Plan
Bay Area 2050: Regional Growth Framework Update. These criteria include:
Within an urbanized area;
Planned for significant housing growth, including affordable housing; and
Served by an existing or planned rail station, ferry terminal, or bus stop served by a route,
or routes, with peak headways of 20 minutes or less
Bay Area Metro has established an interactive map that indicates existing PDAs as well as areas
eligible to be designated as PDAs under the revised criteria (screencap attached). The map
indicates that the North Rollins Road Mixed Use District is within the designatio n “PDA Eligible –
Transit Rich.”
While the Bay Area Metro interactive map indicates other areas within Burlingame as being eligible
to be designated as Transit Rich PDAs, the only area that corresponds to the land use and policy
direction in the updated General Plan is the North Rollins Road Mixed Use District. Other areas
shown as eligible would not be consistent with the General Plan, so are not recommended to be
included in a Letter of Interest.
Furthermore, while the interactive map indicates areas as “PDA Eligible – Connected Community
(HRA),” staff is not recommending pursuing designation of these areas as PDAs. Such areas would
PDA Letter of Interest September 3, 2019
3
be required to have a specific, precise, or equivalent plan for housing and job growth adopted, or
to be adopted no later than 2025. However, such areas as indicated on the interactive map would
not necessarily be consistent with the adopted General Plan regarding housing and job growth, so
are not recommended to be pursued at this time.
While the call for Letters of Interest also includes Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) and Priority
Production Areas (PPAs), these would not be applicable to Burlingame. PCAs are defined as
providing regionally significant agricultural, natural resource, scenic, recreational, and/or ecological
values and ecosystem functions, demonstrated through adopted plans and recognized data
sources such as the Conservation Lands Network (CLN). They are further defined as requiring
protection due to pressure from urban development or other factors and tend to be large in scale.
Local examples of currently designated PCAs include San Bruno Mountain, the Menlo Park and
East Palo Alto Baylands, and the San Francisco Watershed Lands.
PPAs are defined as areas zoned for industrial use or those having a high concentration of
Production, Distribution and Repair (PDR) activities, and which do not overlap with a Priority
Development Area and do not include land within one-half mile of a regional rail station. While the
General Plan designates areas within the Rollins Road and Inner Bayshore areas as “Innovation
Industrial,” the designation encourages a broader array of uses beyond the more narrow focus on
PDR activities.
Should the City Council authorize the Letter of Interest, the letter will utilize the Letter of Interest
form provided by Bay Area Metro (attached), to be signed by the City Manager. Following review
of this form by MTC/ABAG staff and additional discussion with applicants if needed, a City Council
resolution nominating the new PDA will be required by January 15, 2020.
Additional information on priority areas may be found at www.planbayarea.org/priority.
FISCAL IMPACT
While there is no direct fiscal impact to submittal of the Letter of Interest, an expansion of the PDA
will allow the City to be eligible for future Bay Area Metro transportation and/or planning grants that
support infill development.
Exhibits:
Existing Priority Development Area (PDA) – City of Burlingame
Plan Bay Area 2050: Regional Growth Framework Update – Overview of Existing and Updated
Geographies
North Rollins Road Mixed Use District Diagram
Bay Area Metro Interactive PDA Map
PDA Letter of Interest Form
Caltrain
Station
Caltrain
Station
Peninsula
Hospital
City of Burlingame
Priority Development Area
(PDA)
PDA
Boundary School
San Francisco B
a
y
Burlingame City Li
mits
Burlingame City Li
mitsBurlingame City Li
mits
El Camino Real
Corridor
ROLLINS
CA
LIFO
RNI
A
EL CAMINO REAL
BA
LB
O
A
AIRPORT
PALO
MAADELINE
D
R
A
KERAYBE
R
N
A
L
HOWA RDCA
RO
LA
N
SUMMIT
C
O
RT
EZ
LA
GU
N
A
A
D
RI
A
N
CA
BR
I
LL
O ANZACANYONCARMELITADAVISHI LL SI DE
VA
N
C
O
UVE
RTROUSDALE OAK GROVEHALECA
PU
CHINO
EASTONP
A
R
K
A
N
I
T
A
PEPPERBA RRO IL HE TPALM L
O
R
T
O
N
DW
I
G
H
T
B
L
O
O
M
F
I
E
L
D
BAYSWA TERGI
L
B
R
E
T
H
FLOR IBUND ABAYSHORE HWY
C
O
L
U
M
B
US
BELLEVUESE
Q
U
OI
A
MI LLBRA EW
A
L
N
U
T
BE
NI
TO
EL
MSHARON
CHAPINPOPPYPENINSULAMURCHISONDE
S
O
TO ED GE HI LLPINONACACIA
A
R
U
N
D
E
L
Q
U
ES
A
D
A
N
E
WH
A
L
L BURLINGAMEF
E
Y MILLSLEXINGTONJACKLING
CA
RL
O
S
M
A
R
I
N
SA NCH EZMARTINEZGROVE C
L
A
R
E
N
D
O
N
BELLA VISTAEA
ST
M
Y
R
T
L
ELINCOLNSTANTON
C
R
E
S
C
E
N
TARMSBYMORRELL
W
ES
T
M
O
O
R MAHLERHINCKLEYCA
ST
ILLO
VALDIVIA
M
O
NT
ER
O
O
G
D
E
N DAVIDLA
SSE
N
CAROLASTERDEVEREAUXTI PT OE
LIND
EN
MA
RS
TE
N
LA
UR
E
L
ARC
NO
RT
H C
A
R
O
L
A
NOXFORD
GERIIRWINHI
LLSBOROUGHGENEVRAC
H
A
T
H
A
MDUFFERIN
DONNELLYEAS
T
M
O
O
R
KENMARDOUGLASINGOLDFARRI
NGDONWARRENVI
S
T
A GUITTARDJUANITATULIPCADILLACCONCORDRHINETTEBROADWAYPARKHIGHWAY 101
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
1
0
1
Millbrae BART/
Caltrain Station
City of
Millbrae
Town of
Hillsborough
City of
San Mateo
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
Plan Bay Area 2050: Regional Growth Framework Update –
Overview of Existing and Updated Geographies
This attachment provides a summary of key changes to the Growth Framework, and an overview
of the Geographies included in the current and updated Framework.
Table A1. Summary of Key Changes to Regional Growth Framework
Designation
Priority Development Areas
Priority
Conservation
Areas
Priority
Production
Areas
Key
Changes
PDA Categories: Establishes Transit-rich and
Connected Community categories (see Table
A2 for detailed criteria), which apply to
existing and new PDAs
Planning: Defines plan requirement and
adoption timeline
Transit: More frequent service required for
Transit-rich PDAs than current PDAs; less
frequent service required for Connected
Community PDAs
Equity: State-designated High Resource Areas
(HRAs) eligible for Connected Community PDA
designation if transit criteria are met
VMT-Reduction: Areas outside HRAs meeting
Connected Community transit criteria required
to implement policy from menu of VMT-
reduction measures
No change (see
Table A2 for
detailed
criteria)
New
designation
(see Table A2
for detailed
criteria)
Table A2. Overview of Current and Updated Regional Growth Framework Designations
Designation Criteria Additional
Information
Current
Designations
(all require
resolutions of
support from
jurisdiction
with land use
authority)
Priority
Development
Area (PDA)
Within urbanized area, and
Planned for significant housing growth,
including affordable housing, and
Served by an existing or planned rail station,
ferry terminal, or bus stop served by a route,
or routes, with peak headways of 20 minutes or
less
Interactive map of
current PDAs is
available here.
Priority
Conservation
Area (PCA)
Provide regionally significant agricultural,
natural resource, scenic, recreational, and/or
ecological values and ecosystem functions,
demonstrated through adopted plans and
recognized data sources such as the
Conservation Lands Network (CLN), and
Require protection due to pressure from urban
development or other factors, and
Fall into one or more PCA designation category:
Natural Landscapes, Agricultural Lands, Urban
Greening, and Regional Recreation
Interactive map of
current PCAs is
available here.
Page 2
i Included in most recently adopted fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
ii Includes existing and planned service; includes BART, Caltrain, ACE, SMART, Amtrak, and any future
heavy/commuter/intercity rail systems.
New
Designations
(all require
resolutions of
support from
jurisdiction
with land use
authority)
Transit-Rich
PDA
Within urbanized area, and
Specific, precise, or equivalent Plan for housing
and job growth adopted, or to be adopted no
later than 2025, and
The majority of land is within one-half mile of
an existing or plannedi rail station, ferry
terminal, or intersection of 2 or more bus
routes with peak headways of 15 minutes or
less. (Meets state definition for Transit
Priority Area)
Transit criteria is
consistent with
the state
definition of a
Transit Priority
Area (TPA); a map
of Bay Area TPAs,
some of which are
PDAs, is available
here.
Connected
Community
PDA
Within urbanized area, and
Specific, precise, or equivalent Plan for housing
and job growth adopted, or to be adopted no
later than 2025, and
The majority of land is within ½ mile of an
existing or planned bus line with headways of
no more than 30 minutes in peak periods, and
One of the following:
o Located in a High Resource Area (HRA) as
defined by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development
(HCD), or
o Adoption, or commitment to adopt, two
or more policies shown to reduce vehicle
miles traveled (VMT)
High Resource
Areas are
identified on HCD-
adopted
Opportunity Maps.
The detailed
methodology used
to determine
these areas, and a
current map, are
available here.
Note that only
HRA that meet
transit criteria are
eligible for
designation as
Connected
Community PDAs.
Priority
Production
Area (PPA)
Zoned for industrial use or has a high
concentration of Production, Distribution and
Repair (PDR) activities, and
Does not overlap with a Priority Development
Area and does not include land within one-half
mile of a regional rail stationii, and
Jurisdiction has a certified Housing Element
More information
PDR, and San
Francisco’s effort
to support PDR
activities, is
available here.
PCA No change
Letter-of-Interest: Priority Development Area
Use this form to express jurisdictional interest in: a) establishing a new PDA;
or b) modifying the boundaries of an existing PDA.
Instructions: Complete this form and send it to pdas@bayareametro.gov along
with a GIS shapefile of the PDA boundaries, and any additional attachments, by
September 16, 2019. Forms may be signed by planning directors or city
managers/administrators. Following review of this form by MTC/ABAG staff and
additional discussion with applicants if needed, City Council or Board of
Supervisors resolutions nominating new PDAs will be required by January 15,
2020. Resolutions are not required to modify an existing PDA.
For other forms, including Priority Conservation Area (PCA) or Priority
Production Area (PPA) Letters of Interest, and for Letters of Confirmation for
PDA Planning or VMT-Reduction Policies, go here:
https://www.planbayarea.org/priority
1: APPLICATION TYPE
I want to: ☐ Propose a new PDA ☐ Modify an existing PDA
2: PDA DESIGNATION
Step One: Determine the designation for your PDA by reviewing this map. If the area
you wish to designate a PDA is not shown as eligible, complete Section 6.
Step Two: Check the appropriate box below:
☐ Transit-Rich ☐ Connected Community/High Resource Area
☐ Connected Community/Outside High Resource Area*
*Also complete VMT-Reduction Letter of Confirmation, available here
3: GENERAL PDA INFORMATION
City or County: Date:
PDA Name: Acres:
Staff Contact/Title:
Email: Phone:
4: PLANNING STATUS
Adopted In Progress None**
Level of
Planning
Completed
for PDA:
Specific Plan ☐ ☐ ☐
Other* Plan ☐ ☐ ☐
EIR ☐ ☐ ☐
Consistent Zoning ☐ ☐ ☐
*If “Other Plan” selected, please describe:
**If “None” selected, indicate expected start and completion year:
5: LAND USE
*All figures can be estimates
**Can be based upon buildout in most recently adopted plan, such as the “Project” analyzed in an
EIR, or a staff estimate
6: IF NEEDED - ADDITIONAL TRANSIT INFORMATION
If the majority of land in the PDA is not shown as eligible on the PDA designation map,
please describe existing or planned transit service in the PDA that meets eligibility
criteria:
Mode Status Agency & Route/Station
☐ Rail ☐ Existing ☐ Planned
☐ Ferry ☐ Existing ☐ Planned
☐ 15 minute bus ☐ Existing ☐ Planned
☐ 30 minute bus ☐ Existing ☐ Planned
Please attach a map, preferably a GIS shapefile, of the stop location(s) when submitting
this form.
7: OPTIONAL - REGIONAL CATALYST SITES
If the PDA includes one or more planned or potential development site with the capacity
to provide at least 1,000 new housing units, please describe the site(s) below:
Name Current Use Potential
Future DU
Potential Future
Commercial SF
Approximate
% Affordable
Phase
Housing &
Jobs
2017 or most
recent
Planned** “Planned” year
Dwelling Units*
Jobs*
Name & Title:
Signature:
Date:
1
Memorandum
To: City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Mayor Donna Colson
Subject: Committee Report
August 16, 2019
San Mateo County Trade Office
1. Focus on Economic Development with Latin America and East Asia to focus on Foreign
Sales for Domestic Firms trade, tourism, goods and services
2. Small businesses with important exports
3. September 25 Speed meeting for businesses with cities that the Chinese Consulate is
hosting and would like city representatives. Should be about 30-40 and maybe up to 50
companies that will be listening
4. Two Road shows in November - CA Pavilion, Global SF/China SF
Global SF - 501(c)3 in 2018 to focus and support international economic development efforts
started by then Mayor Gavin Newsom and the City and County of SF. Had started China SF in
2008.
Part of the Economic Development work for SF City
ID and recruit companies from overseas and added SFAsia and LatinSF and run on behalf
of the city
Created 900 jobs, $5.6 billion of economic development and 100 firms involved.
How does Global SF support business - white glove concierge service, connect business
and entrepreneurs with our global network and partners, public private organizations and
can sign MOUs on behalf of the city, plan and host events, initiated industry and market
intelligence, host international public and private delegations.
Example of Events since July 1st 2018 by Darlene Chiu Bryant
Global SF Reception at Twitter
Global Climate Action Summit Reception at Arup
Balero Investor Day - Incubator Space in Mexico
ChinaSF Tech Roadshow - 13 startups from SF Bay Area - started with real estate and are
getting capital invested in US
GlobalSF Futures: Mexican Fintech Legislation - Invitation only event
FoodTech Funding - very interested in this work
Also works if we want to have companies that want to learn more about working in China.
Invited to the Chinese Consulate if we would like to be a part of it.
Colson Committee Report September 3, 2019
2
Alex Ford - Representative of the State trade office in China. The list of “to do” items is
same - making sure the network is built and in place for when interest begins to expand.
Organizing a SRI investment forum for Chinese companies in SF, open seminar to anyone
and will invite American companies to share the experience and information.
How would this be funded and would have to start with a grant from the cities and the
County - Dave Pine has expressed interest.
August 21, 2019
C/CAG Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee
Energy and Water strategy 2025
o Feedback - Focus on safety, sustainability and resilience with affordability being a
concern as well.
o Refine purpose of document and how it will be used.
o Document needs to reduce actions and jargon - it is too technically
o Now outlined as a playbook, but more explicit how to use
o Collaboration - need to identify implementors and groups that might use the
research
o Track progress and see efficacy of past work
o Sea level rise, fire, high heat and more urgency or priorities
o Criticism - Groundwater recharge and any action with taxes can create equity
issues.
o Next Steps - get feedback, send to elected
o officials for review
HomeIntel residential energy efficiency program - Energy savings program for all PG&E
customers - idea is if you take smart meter data you can help people reduce energy use.
Available to all customers (both PCE and PGE) with 12 months of occupancy - no solar
installed. About 1,100 people engaged.
o Diagnostics and Analysis, Treat and Change, Monitor and Engage,
Adapt/Reinforce and this is continuous improvement.
o Free program, available to owners and renters, the more they help clients, the more
they save and then they are paid on this amount.
o Need more work into other languages - have translated promotional materials into
Spanish and Chinese and as we ramp up coaches, we can help this and will find
coaches that can translate.
o Want to partner with local CCAs or cities to get to outreach. We can have staff
send out in council newsletters.
o Over 80% reduction to things that can go off and easy no-cost things that they can
do to help reduce bills.
o Can send out information in the city email and help get the word out to consumers.
OhmConnect Community Demand Response Program -
o Improving health of planet by reimagine how we use energy. Vision from smart
home to smart grid we do not respond well.
o Any CCA or IOU customer can sign up and when you get an account, they send
you emails/texts to consumer or you can get them to connect and they will reduce.
o Does work for NEM customers.
o Reduce demand during the OHM hour - try to game this and make it fun so people
will use this.
Colson Committee Report September 3, 2019
3
o Also working with disadvantaged communities and going to work toward
increasing engagement in Spanish and other language speaking communities.
Update on Reach Codes -
o Most of the cities are taking a serious look and adopting the Reach Codes. San
Mateo County has had its first reading and other cities are moving forward.
Groundwater Basin SMC - Water Elevation Monitoring: Most of SMC are on Hetch
Hetchy, but Montera is not, HMB to Crystal Springs reservoir with some natural flow.
Ground water assessment completed in July 2018 and moved toward monitoring the basin
and may help if we are working to get grants for this work. Although there is capacity - it
does not mean that the water quality is good enough or the cost/benefit works.
August 22, 2019
Peninsula Clean Energy Meeting
Upcoming Meetings
City of Burlingame August 30, 2019
Board Retreat -
Strategic Planning
PCE Goals - Status Update
Risk Analysis
Marketing Plan
Organization Update
CAC Meeting
Desiree is the new Board Chair
Zero Carbon Toolkit - new idea so municipalities can use for ADU or existing units to
electrify - for the planning department and a recipe how to go all electric
Review and discuss the Board Retreat Agenda - Ideas for them to share at the retreat.
Authorizing Amendment with Landlord to extend Office Space
About 6,000 SF and allows for 27 employees
January 31, 2017 and came here Aug 1
$5.00 PSF an 3% increases
We expect to reach 32-34 employees
Next door about 1,700 and gets us to 35 plus conference room
Extend this lease to 2. years and co-terminus lease
EV Charging Infrastructure Program
We did get California Energy commission funds to SMC
$12 MM for SMC
Available mid-2020
Goal to 3,500 over a four year period
Top Goal to Raise Awareness
Rebates to property owners, put in place internal systems to track customers (Powerpath),
workforce development - people who can install, outreach and technical assistance
Colson Committee Report September 3, 2019
4
Looking to bring on board the technical assistance
Housing Leadership Council
August 27, 2019
East Palo Alto County Civic Center
California Housing Partnership - Focused on renters. Just over 30,000 renters in SMC - looking at
the huge deficit of 22,000 people who pay more than 1/3 of income and that compares to 100,000
total.
Current Risk and potential to convert to market rate - Length of affordability left on a
covenant - Total at risk of homes - 510 total. Need to build and then keep what we have
that is already affordable. Two out of three lower income households (about 20,000) or 2/3
are spending more than 50% on housing.
United Way CA - data - City of SM minimum wage income - $31,200
SMC has had a significant decline in federal and state resources to support affordable
housing.
Eden Housing - Discussion of inclusionary housing fees. Prefer the ordinance has options,
but want the ability to work with market rate developer to provide the inclusionary
housing.
Peninsula Family Services
August 28, 2019
Heather Cleary
Catch up on affordable housing in Burlingame
Discussed day care situation in SMC and Burlingame
1
Memorandum
AGENDA NO: 11b
MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
To: City Council
Date: September 3, 2019
From: Vice Mayor Emily Beach
Subject: Committee Report
Thursday, 8/22/19
Caltrain Local Policy Makers Group: discussion of Calt rain’s "moderate growth" service vision
which Caltrain staff recommended to the JPB Board. Below is a brief summary, and how this
vision would impact Burlingame. If the Board adopts this in October, it's a pretty transformative
vision for the railroad:
o 20 of the 32 stops along the Caltrain corridor between SF and Gilroy will get at least 4
Caltrains per direction every hour (i.e. 15 min headway)
o 9 of those 20 stops will get 8 Caltrains per direction every hour (these are the big hubs like
SF, South SF, Hillsdale, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc.)
o Millbrae gets 6 Caltrains per direction every hour
o Broadway Burlingame restores weekday service with 30 min headways (2 per hour)
o Burlingame Station gets 30 min headways (2 per hour)
o Here is a link to the full August 2019 LPMG slide deck.
Additional notes:
o Overall, Caltrain estimates 40% increase in population along Caltrain corridor during the
next 20 years.
o Moderate growth scenario removes the equivalent of 5.5 new freeway lanes of automobile
traffic off the highway.
o Part of moderate growth vision recommends future grade separation projects should be
designed in a way that does not preclude passing tracks to accommodate future railroad
growth and service needs.
Friday, 8/23/19
Group constituent meeting; robust discussion about local traffic and Broadway Grade Separation
San Mateo County Express Lane JPA Finance Committee Meeting
o Discussed FY20 operating budget and potential loans from SMCTA & C/CAG to the JPA,
and how that will be repaid from the future JPA toll revenues.
Council of Cities Dinner with Congresswoman Jackie Speier
o Inspirational discussion; included federal government update and discussion about how
cities can impact national issues like reducing gun violence, education around the 2020
census, environmental protection, fire protection, and public safety
Saturday, 8/24/19
C/CAG Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee site visit tour of projects submitted for grant
applications that will be scored by our committee in September. Tour included eight scheduled site
visits including projects in Foster City, Burlingame, South San Francisco, and Brisbane among
others.
Beach Committee Report September 3, 2019
2
Monday, 8/26/19
Celebration of Women Leaders event at NASA Ames sponsored by Silicon Valley Leadership
Group. Speakers included business, community, and Congressional leaders.
C/CAG Congestion Management and Environmental Quality Committee
o Discussed and approved draft 2020 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for
San Mateo County
o Received presentation on San Mateo County Energy and Water Strategy 2025
Wednesday, 6/19/19
Constituent meeting regarding affordable housing
Selected meeting highlights from summer 2019 recess:
Thursday, 7/11/19
San Mateo County Transportation Authority Board Meeting: approved $18.3m grant for Broadway
Grade Separation. Thank you Mayor Colson for attending our Board meeting to show City support!
Friday, 7/12/19
San Mateo County Express Lane JPA Meeting – approved California Transportation Commission
application to allow JPA ownership and policy control over US 101 Express Lanes
Thursday, 7/25/19
Caltrain Local Policy Makers Group High Speed Rail presentation and update
o Preferred alternative HSR Authority Board will consider includes maintenance facility in
Brisbane, no passing tracks in Redwood City. HSR will be required to install quad gates at
grade crossings, which is expensive and required infrastructu re to apply for quiet zones.
o HSR project delivery vision: SF to Bakersfield by 2029; SF to LA by 2033.
Tuesday, 7/30/19
Meeting with Housing for All Burlingame advocates
Thursday, 8/1/19
San Mateo County Transportation Authority Board Meeting
Tuesday, 8/6/19
Visited National Night Out neighborhood events throughout town
Friday, 8/9/19
Attended Senator Jerry Hill’s constituent event at Il Piccolo Caffe
Monday, 8/12/19
League of California Cities Peninsula Executive Board Meeting
Wednesday, 8/14/19
Economic Development Subcommittee Meeting with hoteliers
Friday, 8/16/19
Attended Peninsula Temple Sholom rabbinic anniversary celebration
Sunday, 8/18/19
Attended Burlingame on the Avenue Street Festival (thank you Chamber of Commerce!) and
volunteered at Rotary tent