HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2020.04.06CITY
v
0
ticow � �
rPORATED
Monday, April 6, 2020
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Council
7:00 PM
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
On March 17, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain
provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct
their meetings telephonically or by other electronic means. Pursuant to the Shelter -in -Place
Order issued by the San Mateo County Health Officer on March 16, 2020, the statewide
Shelter -in -Place Order issued by the Governor in Executive Order N-33-20 on March 19, 2020,
and the CDC's social distancing guidelines which discourage large public gatherings, the
Council chambers will not be open to the public for the April 6, 2020 Burlingame City Council
meeting.
Members of the public may view the meeting by logging onto the Zoom meeting listed below.
Additionally, the meeting will be uploaded to the City's website after the meeting.
Members of the public may provide written comments by email to
publiccomment@burlingame.org.
Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or
note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the consent
agenda. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes
customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure
your comment is received and read to the City Council for the appropriate agenda item, please
submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m.. on April 6, 2020. The City will make every effort to
read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will read into the record.
Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record will be
provided to the City Council after the meeting.
All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Online
Online
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 41212020
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 6, 2020
To Join the Zoom Meeting:
the link below doesn't look like a hyperlink but it is
https://zoom.us/j/650364369
Meeting ID: 650 364 369
One tap mobile
+16699006833„650364369# US (San Jose)
+13462487799„650364369# US (Houston)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 929 436 2866 US (New York)
+1 253 215 8782 US
+1 301 715 8592 US
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
Meeting ID: 650 364 369
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/at02Zps4o
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. COVID-19 Update
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M.
Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter
that is not on the agenda.
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion.
Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker
slip for that item in advance of the Council's consideration of the consent calendar.
City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 41212020
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 6, 2020
a. Approval of CitV Council Meeting Minutes for March 11, 2020
Attachments: Meeting Minutes
b. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for Regular Meeting on March 16, 2020
Attachments: Meeting Minutes
C. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for Special Meeting on March 16, 2020
Attachments: Meeting Minutes
d. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Street Resurfacing Protect to ComplV with Senate
Bill No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Attachments: Staff Report
Resolution
Project Location Map
e. Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Contract to IPS Group, Inc., for the Procurement and
Installation of Smart Parking Meters in the Downtown Area and City Parking Lots in the
Amount of $355,000
Attachments: Staff Report
Resolution
IPS Group, Inc. Contract
Project Location Map
f. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Tentative and Final Parcel Map (PM 18-07), Lot
Merger of Portions of Parcel C (Parcels 2 and 3) as Filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Mateo County in Book 13 of Parcel Maps, Page 18, at 1095 Rollins
Road
Attachments: Staff Report
Resolution
Vesting Tenative Parcel Map
February 2, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes
February 18, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 41212020
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 6, 2020
g. Adoption of a Resolution of Intent to Amend the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule
For the 2020-21 Fiscal Year; Set the Public Hearing for Such Amendment for May 4,
2020; and Approve Revisions to the City's User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
Attachments: Staff Report
Resolution
FY2020-21 Master Fee Schedule
CPI
Cost Recovery Policy
h. Notice of Decision by the Broadwav Avenue Business Improvement District Board of
Directors to Forego Assessments to Businesses within the District for Fiscal Year
2020-21
Attachments: Staff Report
Broadway BID Notice of Decision to Waive Assessments
Broadway BID Annual Report
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
a. Public Hearina and Resolution of the Citv Council of the Citv of Burlinaame Adiustina the
Storm Drainage Fee for Fiscal Year 2020-21 By 2.0% Based on the CPI - San Francisco
Area as Published on March 11, 2020
Attachments: Staff Report
Resolution
Consumer Price Index
b. Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend Title 17 of the Burlinaame Municipal Code and
Adoption by Reference of the 2019 California Fire Code and the 2018 Edition of the
International Fire Code
Attachments: Staff Report
Proposed Ordinance
C. Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the City's Municipal Code Chapter 18.07 — Permit
Expiration and Permit Exempt Structures
Attachments: Staff Report
Ordinance
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
a. Consideration of Appointment to the Plannina Commission
Attachments: Staff Report
City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 41212020
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 6, 2020
b. Discussion and Direction on Potential Business Surmort Proarams in Response to
COVID-19 Public Health Emergency
Attachments: Subcommittee Proposal
Staff Report
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements.
a. Mayor Beach's Committee Report
Attachments: Committee Report
b. Councilmember Colson's Committee Report
Attachments: Committee Re
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: Individuals who require special assistance or a disability -related modification or
accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an
alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be
distributed at the meeting, should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk, by 10:00 a.m. on
Monday, April 6, 2020 at (650) 558-7203 and/or mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. Notification in
advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility
to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting
Monday, April 20, 2020
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 via www.burlingame.org or by emailing the City Clerk at
mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or
through email, contact the City Clerk at (650) 558-7203.
City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 41212020
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
CITY C
BURLINGAME
$AaiEo JLNE � O
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
2019-2020 Mid -Year Budget Study Session on March 11, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council
Chambers at 6:30 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Beach
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
5. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FY 2019-20 OPERATING AND
CAPITAL BUDGETS TO REFLECT THE RECOMMENDED MID -YEAR ADJUSTMENTS
Finance Director Augustine stated that normally the mid -year status report is to:
• inform the Council of the fiscal year to date,
• update the City's budget based on current information, and
• provide a more precise picture of the state of the City's finances going into the next fiscal year.
Finance Director Augustine stated that most of the information included in the staff report is based off of
information from December 31, 2019. She explained that at that time, Coronavirus was not yet considered
an epidemic or a pandemic. She noted that the numbers and trends discussed in the staff report will be
impacted by Coronavirus.
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Finance Director Augustine reviewed a list of caveats as a result of the Coronavirus:
• TOT will most likely decrease by 25% ($2.2 million decrease)
• Sales Tax — less impact short term
• Business Licenses — long term parking may show up to 50% decline through June (approximately a
$300,000 decrease)
• Charges for Services — impact will vary by department
• Interest Income — will decline modestly
Finance Director Augustine reviewed a chart of the projected revenues for all General Fund sources. She
noted that the City under -projected revenues for fiscal year 2018-2019 for sales and use tax. She stated that
the under -projection is the largest adjustment that staff is making to the projected revenues.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if he was correct that the numbers in the staff report do not reflect the
Finance Director's more pessimistic view of TOT. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the big three: TOT, Property Tax, and Sales Tax.
• TOT
Finance Director Augustine explained that as a result of the travel restrictions from China due to
Coronavirus, staff proposes a $500,000 decrease to the projected TOT. She noted that this won't be enough.
• Property Tax
Finance Director Augustine stated that property tax for fiscal year 2019-2020 is expected to be $430,000, or
1.8%, less than the adopted budget. She explained that staff predicted net values correctly, and the ERAF
refund was better than budgeted. She stated that the ERAF refund was $234,200 more than projected in the
adopted budget for the current year.
However, she explained that a significant downward adjustment ($761,000) in total property taxes for the
current fiscal year is recommended for Property Tax in Lieu of VLF. She stated that these funds are
allocated based on growth in the County's secured property tax roll but are funded from the countywide
ERAF, and then from the property tax revenues of non -basic aid school districts. She explained that a large
majority of school districts in the County are classified as basic aid, meaning the property taxes within the
district are sufficient to fund the schools, without funding from the County's ERAF fund. The number of
non -basic aid school districts in the County has fallen, resulting in less available property tax revenues to
fund VLF. She stated that the Countywide shortfall of funding for the VLF is over $42.4 million and that the
County is working with its legislative advocates to request that the fiscal year 2019-20 VLF shortfall amount
be appropriated in the State's fiscal year 2020-21 budget.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if there was a discussion about how to incorporate charter schools into
the calculations. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. She explained that the County
believed there would be additional ERAF refund with the inclusion of charter schools.
2
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
• Sales and Use Tax
Finance Director Augustine explained that the reason sales and use taxes are increasing is because the City
underestimated the one-time events and the duration of those events last year. She noted that many
continued into the current fiscal year.
Finance Director Augustine next reviewed projected General Fund operating expenditures. She stated that
General Fund expenditures increased by $1,475,600, or 2.4%. She noted that this increase was due to:
• Increase in salaries and wages - $540,000
• Increase in benefits - $388,000
• Increase in operating costs - $508,400
She discussed the changes in personnel costs due to AB 5. She also noted that there was a one-time cost for
an HRA catch-up that was approved earlier this year. She explained that the HRA catch-up was a health
reimbursement account that was set up for employees.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the projected fund balance of $50,494,376. She stated that this
contains an unassigned balance of $18.1 million. She explained that the staff report includes a
recommendation to further fund the Section 115 Pension Trust or transfer funds to the Capital Investment
Reserves.
Councilmember Colson stated that the City has three reserve accounts: Economic Stability, Catastrophic, and
Contingency. She asked if the City has to dip into its reserves because of the Coronavirus, would it come out
of the Economic Stability Reserve. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Beach thanked Councilmember Colson for addressing this issue.
City Manager Goldman stated that the Council and staff went through a detailed process, four years ago, to
determine what the appropriate level of funding would be for the different reserves. She stated that GFOA
helped the City out with this process.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked what the process would be if the Council decides to tap into the reserves.
City Manager Goldman replied that it would be by Council action, but a Declaration of Emergency would
not be required. She explained that in the previous cities she worked for, staff first reviewed what items
could be cut from the budget without impacting services to the community prior to tapping into the reserves.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he agreed with City Manager Goldman. He noted that the Economic -
Stability Reserve was intended for events like Coronavirus that have an end point. City Manager Goldman
stated that hopefully the Coronavirus won't create a multi -year recession, and hopefully the City's
underlying economics are strong enough to allow the City to weather the storm.
Finance Director Augustine added that if needed, the City would utilize the unassigned balance first.
Councilmember Colson thanked the Council for establishing the reserves.
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Finance Director Augustine reviewed unfunded needs. She stated that currently, the City has separate
funding for storm drain system repairs and SB 1 funds that assist in repairing streets and sidewalks. She
noted that the City has a number of big -ticket items on the horizon including:
• Broadway Grade Separation
• Sea Level Rise Mitigations
• El Camino Real Undergrounding
She noted that while the City won't bear the total cost of these projects, the City will be asked to put in
substantial funds.
Councilmember Colson asked if the City's Plaza project is included in CIP projects. City Manager Goldman
replied in the affirmative.
Finance Director Augustine asked for Council direction on the unassigned fund balance. She stated that
staff s recommendation is to put $6 million into the Section 115 Trust. However, she noted that as a result of
the Coronavirus, Council may not wish to put additional funds into this trust fund.
Mayor Beach discussed the PG&E emergency shutoffs. She noted that cities had incurred expenses as a
result of the shutoffs and asked what expenses the City may incur from Coronavirus. Finance Director
Augustine stated that the City would incur personnel costs.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if he was correct that staff is proposing that the Council move forward with the
mid -year adjustments as proposed and not take into consideration the impact of Coronavirus. Finance
Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed TOT would continue to decrease as a result of the Coronavirus.
He asked if staff would be making further adjustments to the TOT projection at the May Budget Study
Session. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed the TOT decrease will be dramatically larger than what is in the
staff report. He asked that the TOT decrease be estimated at a larger amount.
Finance Director Augustine stated that a 25% decrease in TOT for this quarter is equal to approximately $2.7
million.
Mayor Beach stated that she appreciated Councilmember Ortiz's perspective. She asked if other colleagues
felt strongly that Council should make the adjustment as discussed by Councilmember Ortiz, or should staff
wait to make the adjustment in May.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he supported adding $2 million to the negative forecast for the mid-
year adjustment. This would make the total adjustment $2.5 million.
Finance Director Augustine noted that this adjustment would eliminate the mid -year surplus.
4
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Finance Director Augustine explained that the hotels give the City information at the end of every
subsequent month. She stated that the City will know the TOT through April by June 1.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she agreed with Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember
Brownrigg about moving the projected decline of TOT from $500,000 to $2.5 million. She noted that she
had discussed the forecast with San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau President
John Hutar and that he had stated that he estimated that the decrease would be in the mid 20%.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked about the violation the City received from County Environmental
Health Services. Finance Director Augustine stated that the work was in progress.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran discussed recent legislation concerning discontinuation of water when the bill
is delinquent. Finance Director Augustine replied that the legislation took effect on February 1, 2020. She
stated that prior to shutting off a property's water, the City must first try to create a payment plan.
Additionally, the City is not permitted to shut off the water in households with a specified medical condition.
Councilmember Colson agreed with her colleagues about adding $2 million to the estimated decline in TOT.
She stated that given the significant decline in the stock market, the City will see a decline in sales revenue
and sales tax.
Councilmember Colson asked if she was correct that the City could utilize the Section 115 Trust for
Ca1PERS contribution payments prior to the fund hitting the recommended funding level. Finance Director
Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Beach stated that at a recent League of Cities Board meeting, the League discussed different measures
that cities were undertaking to pay down their pension liability. She explained that it was made clear that
members felt that the Section 115 Trust was the best solution.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that in previous economic downturns, the City lost 20% to 25% of
expected TOT, equivalent to $20 million. He explained that he was glad the City set up an Economic
Stability Reserve, but he could see it going quickly.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he was in favor of the additional allocation to the Section 115 Trust.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he felt it would be better to wait on the Section 115 Trust allocation until
the end of the fiscal year.
Councilmember Colson stated that she was okay with staff using this as a framework. She noted that if the
numbers come back difficult, the City could decide not to fund the Section 115 Trust at that level.
Mayor Beach stated that she felt comfortable with Councilmember Colson's suggestion.
5
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 027-2020 with the amendment that the
decrease in TOT be increased from $500,000 to $2.5 million; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Councilmember Colson stated that CalPERS had a record year. She noted that CalPERS' returns would be
diminished as a result of recent events. She asked if CalPERS' calculation of the City's pension obligation is
based on the fiscal year or calendar year. Finance Director Augustine replied that it is the fiscal year.
Councilmember Colson asked when CalPERS informs the City of its obligation. Finance Director Augustine
stated that the City's contribution for next fiscal year was already calculated.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the five-year forecast. She discussed the economic indicators from
December 31, 2019. She noted that while the numbers may no longer be relevant, it gives the City a good
picture of where the economy was going prior to the Coronavirus. She stated that the economy was slowing
and was propped up by low unemployment and high consumer spending.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that there are certain similarities between the current economy and 9/11.
He noted that prior to 9/11 the economy was starting to slow, and then there was a shock and disruption of
the supply chain.
Councilmember Colson asked Councilmember Brownrigg what the turn around was for the recession in
2001-2002.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that it was relatively rapid because 9/11 was a singular shock.
Councilmember Colson stated that at the time, there were other economic stimulus tools that could be used
to jumpstart the economy. She noted that currently, the Country is at a zero -interest rate environment.
Councilmember Brownrigg agreed with Councilmember Colson. He noted that what the Federal Reserve
can currently do to stimulate the economy is more limited. He stated that if the City forecasts significant job
loss, the City will need to think about what this looks like.
Councilmember Colson asked if Councilmember Brownrigg was proposing allocating funds to local
agencies.
Councilmember Brownrigg replied in the negative and explained that he thought the City should be aware of
possible outcomes.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the property tax assumptions under the five-year forecast. She
explained that statewide assessed property values grew by 6% for revenues collected in the current fiscal
year. She stated that slightly slower growth is anticipated for the State by the LAO. She explained that last
year, the City saw a 7.8% growth of assessed property value. She stated that the growth rate for FY 2020-21
is 6.5%. She added that staff expects excess ERAF to remain fairly flat.
6
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Finance Director Augustine showed a chart breaking down the property tax assumptions by category of
property such as residential and commercial.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran noted that the list included 63 vacant parcels. She asked where these were
located. Finance Director replied that she would get that information for the Council.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed sales tax assumptions. She stated that the City's sales tax assumptions
are different than statewide. She explained that HdL expected a 2.4% average growth for fiscal year 2019-20
and 1.8% growth in fiscal year 2020-21 for the State. She stated that statewide auto sales are projected to
decrease by 1% to 2% this fiscal year, and the City's are projected to decrease by 13%. She added that next
year, statewide auto sales are predicted to decrease .3%, and the City's are predicted to decrease 1.9%.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the TOT assumptions. She explained that TOT is the City's largest
and most economically sensitive revenue source. She stated that the City has had consistently high
occupancy rates this year (89.4%) until the Coronavirus appeared.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed investment yields. She stated that last week the current yield was .482.
She noted that the City's current portfolio yields 2.1 %. She added that the City has a lot of money in LAIF
and CAMP (statewide pools) that are overnight funds. She noted that the yields on those will drop more
rapidly than in the main pool.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the General Fund expenditure forecast.
• Salaries and Wages — includes effect of current collective bargaining agreements, including recently
approved agreements with labor groups and increased wages for part-time employees effective
January 1. Additionally, it assumes an annual growth in salaries of 3% each year and normal merit
step increases.
• Benefits — includes an annual growth rate of 5% and expected PERS contribution rate increases
coupled with forecast increases in salaries and wages.
• Operating Costs — based upon cost of living adjustments for most non -personnel costs and expected
changes in utility rates. A 3% compounded annual growth rate is assumed for most operating costs.
A 5% escalation factor for services from Central County Fire is also assumed.
• Internal Services — based upon various escalation factors; IT costs to increase 8% in fiscal year 2021,
then 4% thereafter; vehicle and facilities central services to grow 3% and 4%, respectively. General
liability will grow 4% to 5% based on the increased cost of coverage and litigation
• Capital Outlay —includes a base of $250,000 (2021-22) based upon historical use and 3% growth rate.
Councilmember Colson stated that she recently read an article that the highest paid Ca1PERS employee,
earning approximately $480,000 annually, retired. She stated that what was interesting is that the average
Ca1PERS' retiree's pension is $37,000 a year. She explained that it was important for the public to
understand that although the City is putting in large contributions, the average City retiree is being asked to
live on $37,000 a year.
7
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the Ca1PERS assumptions. She explained that the rates are blended to
include both classic and PEPRA employees. She stated that PEPRA employees are those hired after January
1, 2013.
Finance Director Augustine stated that currently the City is paying Ca1PERS its required rate each year, and
to the extent that this rate is under the threshold, the excess is sent to the City's Section 115 Trust. She
explained that for miscellaneous employees the threshold rate is 37.7%, and for safety employees the
threshold rate is 76.9%.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the options that are available to fund pension liabilities:
• Increased contributions to Section 115 Pension Trust
• Budget additional pension funding to Ca1PERS through ad -hoc payments or "Fresh Start" for shorter
amortization of liability
Finance Director Augustine noted that City employees have agreed to cost -sharing agreements with the City
to reduce pension costs.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the five-year forecast built in the assumption for the accelerated
investment in pensions. Finance Director Augustine replied in the negative.
Mayor Beach stated that last year there was a discussion that about the funding goal for the Section 115
Trust. She asked if she was correct that the goal is $50 million, and the City is currently at $10 million.
Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Beach thanked staff their hard work.
b. REVIEW OF DRAFT FY 2020-21 GENERAL FUND, PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND, GAS
TAX, MEASURE A, MEASURE I, MEASURE M, AND SENATE BILL (SB 1) FUNDED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Assistant Public Works Director Art Morimoto stated that staff is proposing a total of $12.02 million in CIP
projects:
• General Fund - $7.61 million
• Parking Enterprise Fund - $850,000
• Measure I - $2 million ($1 million for sidewalks and $1 million for streets)
• Gast Tax, Measure A, Measure M, and SB 1 - $1.56 million
Councilmember Brownrigg asked what Measure I's total revenue is. Mr. Morimoto responded that it was
$2.5 million.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked how the City could do $2 million for street and sidewalk repairs from
Measure I, if the City is also reserving funds for the Community Center. City Manager Goldman stated that
there is some carry over from previous years. She noted that originally the City expected to obtain $2
8
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
million annually, with $1 million going to the debt service on the Community Center, $200,000 for a police
officer and the remaining would go to streets and sidewalks.
Mr. Morimoto reviewed the proposed $3.255 million in CIP projects for Parks and Recreation.
Project Description
FY 2020-21 Requests
Cuernavaca Field Renovations and ADA
Improvements
$1.6 million
Bayside Park Parking Lot/ Pathway ADA and EV
Charging Improvements
$900,000
BSD Synthetic Turf Replacement Fund
$200,000
Murray Field Synthetic Turf Replacement Fund
$150,000
Pathway and Landscape Improvements
$100,000
Athletic Field Renovations Fund
$100,000
Playground Replacement Fund
$100,000
Parks Safety and Maintenance Improvements
$50,000
Playground Resilient Resurfacing/Treatment
$50,000
Annual Tree Replacement
$5,000
Mayor Beach asked about the Parks Corp Yard and when that project would come before the Council. Parks
and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that it would come out of the facilities budget. She noted that it is
on the list of projects that need to get done. She stated that there are no female facilities at the Parks Corp
Yard, and there isn't enough space in the building for all the staff. She stated that staff is trying to do a stop
gap between now and when the building can be redone. She noted that staff is discussing purchasing a
portable to create more space and female facilities.
Councilmember Colson asked about the EV charging improvements at Bayside and if there were any grants
available. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the proposal is to get the infrastructure in
place and then get the actual stations completed.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the City's obligated funding for the Burlingame Aquatic Center.
City Manager Goldman stated that the City wouldn't be paying the rest until after the Community Center is
built.
Councilmember Colson asked if the City should set up a fund for the City's obligation for the Burlingame
Aquatic Center. City Manager Goldman stated that she would talk with the Finance Director about this
suggestion.
9
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Mr. Morimoto next reviewed the proposed $1.225 million in CIP projects for Building Facilities.
Project Description
FY 2020-21 Requests
Main Library, HVAC and EMS Upgrades
$400,000
Public Works Corp Yard HVAC and EMS Upgrades
$350,000
Fire Station 35 Traffic Signal Upgrades
$225,000
Roof Repair and Replacement Plans (Depot, Police
Station, Corp Yard, City Hall, Fire Stations 34 and
36)
$100,000
Facilities ADA Improvements
$100,000
Facilities CIP Program Management
$50,000
Councilmember Colson stated that she went to Station 35 and noted that there were several facility issues
including bathrooms being clogged. She explained that she hoped that the City didn't let City facilities
degrade to that level again.
DPW Murtuza stated that Councilmember Colson had visited Station 35 when construction was occurring
and staff were located in the portables.
Senior Engineer Andy Wong next reviewed the proposed $4.130 million in CIP projects for
Bicycle/Pedestrian and Traffic Improvements.
Project Description
FY 2020-21 Requests
Sidewalk Repair Program and ADA Improvements
(General Fund $400,000 and Measure I $1 million)
$1.4 million
Lyon Hoag Neighborhood Traffic Calming, Phase 1
$950,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Improvements
$500,000
Oak Grove/Carolan Avenue Traffic Signal
Improvements
$500,000
City Hall Traffic Improvements (Roundabout)
$200,000
Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrades
$200,000
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Improvements
$100,000
Pedestrian Improvements (Signage and Striping)
$100,000
El Camino Real Consultant Assistance
$100,000
Traffic and Transportation Studies
$80,000
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked when the Lyon Hoag study and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
would be finished. Mr. Wong stated that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan would be submitted to
Council at the end of summer, and the Lyon Hoag Plan would be submitted to Council in May.
10
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Mayor Beach asked for more information about the El Camino Real Consultant Assistance project. City
Manager Goldman stated that previously, the City contracted with Charlie Knox for technical support on the
El Camino Real project and would continue to do so if needed.
Mayor Beach stated that Caltrans is funding the bulk of the El Camino Real project. City Manager Goldman
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked where the City was in the Oak Grove/Carolan Avenue Traffic Signal
project. DPW Murtuza stated that Council previously approved funding for the design of the project, and the
proposed funding was for the implementation of the design.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the signalization project would also assist the City in making that
intersection a quiet zone. DPW Murtuza replied that the project was unrelated. He noted that staff had
preliminary discussions and analyses with other entities about how to create a quiet zone.
Councilmember Brownrigg noted that he believed the Oak Grove and Carolan Avenue intersection should be
a quiet zone. Additionally, he stated that he believed there was more work that needed to be done on
California and Broadway. He discussed the queueing lanes and that needed to be improved.
Mr. Wong stated that the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission has been discussing the queueing lanes.
Mr. Wong next reviewed the Broadway Grade Separation Project. He noted that the project is currently at
35% design completion. The projected total cost of the project is $327 million. He explained that the City
has procured $26 million, which was used for the design of the project. He added that the remaining $301
million was for construction. He stated that the City submitted an INFRA Grant application for $125
million. He discussed other grant applications that staff has submitted.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if staff knew when the City will hear about the grants. City Manager
Goldman stated that most likely the City will hear about the federal grants in June or July. However, she
noted that this could change as a result of the Coronavirus.
Mr. Wong stated that the local match for the City on the Broadway Grade Separation Project is $15 million.
He explained that these funds would be used for construction, which is slated to begin in 2023, pending
funding availability.
DPW Murtuza stated that when cities apply for these grants, the grantor wants to see that the city has its
matching funds available.
City Manager Goldman stated that the request for $125 million was a large ask and that the City isn't sure
that it will get those funds. She noted that this is 39% of the total cost, but the City still needs 61 % from the
State, County, and other sources. She stated that these big asks will give the City some time to get its share,
$15 million, together. However, she noted that there are several projects where City funds are needed such
as El Camino Real undergrounding.
11
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Mayor Beach stated that there will be a big ask to the Transportation Authority of Measure A funds for this
project, which will require a match.
Mr. Wong next reviewed the proposed $850,000 in Parking Enterprise Fund projects:
Project Description
FY 2020-21 Requests
Parking Structure/Lot N Improvements (pay stations,
$350,000
dynamic signage, EV chargers, security system,
wayfinding)
Downtown Parking Lot Resurfacing
$500,000
Mr. Wong next reviewed the proposed $2.65 million in Street Resurfacing projects:
Street
From
To
Summit Drive
Burlingview Drive
Belevedere Court
Bayview Place
Airport Boulevard
End
Edwards Court
Rollins Road
End
Guittard Road
Rollins Road
End
Ray Drive
Quesada Way
Davis Drive
Ray Court
Ray Drive
End
Cabrillo Avenue
Adeline Drive
End
Cortez Avenue
Adeline Drive
End
Concord Way
Dwight Road
Channing Road
Alpine Avenue
Carolan Avenue
Morrell Avenue
Plymouth Way
Dwight Road
Bloomfield Road
Balboa Avenue
Ray Drive
Adeline Drive
Easton Drive
Vancouver Avenue
Benito Drive
Loyola Drive
Frontera Way
Trousdale Drive
Vancouver Avenue
Adeline Drive
End
Bernal Avenue
Adeline Drive
Devereux Drive
Cananea Avenue
Alturas Drive
Los Montes Drive
Hunt Drive
Trousdale Drive
Rivera Drive
Councilmember Colson asked if the Rollins Road Specific Plan would impact the proposed street resurfacing
list. Mr. Wong replied in the negative.
Councilmember Colson discussed a meeting she had with Police Chief Matteucci, Parks and Recreation
Director Glomstad, and members of the public about incidents at Washington Park. She stated that the
public asked about the possibility of installing cameras in the high crime areas in the park.
12
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Mayor Beach stated that she has been in discussion with the City Attorney and City Manager about cameras
and that it would be brought to Council at a later date.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that when the Council does have this discussion, she would like to see
the crime statistics that are filed with the Police Department.
Councilmember Colson stated that during her meeting with the public, she talked about how important it is
to report crimes to the police.
City Manager Goldman stated that when staff looked at data for incidents in Washington Park, they found
one incident. She noted that members of the community have been reporting incidents on NextDoor, but the
City isn't able to see these incidents. She stated that the City is putting out information via the enewsletter
alerting the community to report issues to the City. She added that SeeClickFix now includes a button for
individuals to report issues directly to the Police Department. She noted that there is also a "For the Record"
page on the City's website to debunk myths in the community.
City Manager Goldman stated that once the City is allowed to have large gatherings, staff will host a meeting
with the Police Department where the public is able to ask questions and hear from the Police Chief.
City Manager Goldman stated that she asked Superintendent Skelly about having the District patrol the park
during the day.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that it would be beneficial to invite Burlingame High School to the
community meeting. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he believed the May Budget Study Session was going to be more
important than usual. He explained that he believed the Council and staff were going to have to make some
hard decisions about what Coronavirus will do to the City's revenue. He noted that after 9/11, the City saw a
25% decrease in overall revenue. He explained that he thinks the City should look at what CIP projects the
City will need over the next four years as there are a lot of large projects looming.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that her main concern is the Broadway Grade Separation. She noted
that she wants to make sure that the City has its local match ready so that the City doesn't lose out on Federal
and State funding.
Councilmember Ortiz agreed with his colleagues. He stated that Council must sit down and look at these
big -ticket items and how the City will be paying for the projects.
Councilmember Colson asked for a five-year forecast of CIP projects at the May Budget Study Session.
Mayor Beach discussed the El Camino Real project. She noted that if the project moves forward on
Caltrans' timeline, construction will start in the next couple years. Therefore, it is essential that the City
13
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
have funds available for undergrounding the power lines on El Camino Real. She noted that this would also
assist the City in maximizing where trees are replanted.
Mayor Beach asked about data security and if the City needed to start investing in this. City Attorney Kane
stated that the City has been reviewing this issue.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed Menlo Park's response to COVID-19. He noted that he believed that
public meetings would need to go virtual and he suggested that the City Manager think about how to brief
the Council on COVID-19 and how meetings will be handled.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Beach adjourned meeting at 8:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
14
Burlingame City Council March 11, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
CITY C
BURLINGAME
$AaiEo JLNE � O
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on March 16, 2020
STUDY SESSION
a. CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY BENEFIT ZONING FOR THE BAYFRONT
COMMERCIAL LAND USE DISTRICT
City Council held a Study Session at 6:15 p.m. considering community benefit zoning for the Bayfront
Commercial Land Use District.
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 7:02 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by former Mayor Joe Galligan.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Beach reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations
1
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
Burlingame resident Madeline Frechette voiced her concern about bicycle safety in the City. (Comment
received via email at publiccomment@burlingame.org).
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Beach asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent
Calendar. No items were removed.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien
Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 2, 2020
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes for March 2, 2020.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KTGY FOR PREPARATION OF
THE NORTH ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN IN A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF
$292,305
CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 028-2020.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $750,000
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 029-2020.
d. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE LIBRARY BOARD
OF TRUSTEES
City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill the two vacancies on the
Library Board of Trustees.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ALLOWING SARES REGIS GROUP TO SUBMIT A
PLANNING APPLICATION INCLUDING A PORTION OF CITY PARKING LOT E AND
DIRECTING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT CONFERRING ACCESS
RIGHTS TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 220 PARK ROAD
City Attorney Kane requested Council adopt Resolution Number 030-2020.
2
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
10. STAFF REPORTS
a. UPDATE ON COVID-19 AND GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-25-20
WHICH AUTHORIZES LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODIES TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS
VIA TELECONFERENCE
City Manager Goldman stated that on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency in
response to the Novel Coronavirus outbreak. She explained that Coronavirus has been deemed by the World
Health Organization ("WHO") to be a pandemic.
City Manager Goldman discussed Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-25-20. She explained that the
Order did the following:
• Waived the one week waiting period for unemployment applicants and disability insurance applicants
that are unemployed or disabled as a result of COVID-19.
• Delayed the deadline for State tax filing by 60 days
• Directed individuals to follow public health directives and cancel all large non -essential gatherings
(She noted that since the Order was issued, a lot more restrictions have been implemented)
• Readies the State to commandeer hotels and other suitable facilities for temporary residences and
medical facilities for quarantining or isolating individuals
• Allows State and local legislative bodies to hold meetings via teleconference
City Manager Goldman discussed "Flatten the Curve." She explained that the healthcare community expects
a spike in virus outbreak, and there are not enough hospital beds, ventilators, and medical personnel to deal
with the spike in cases. Therefore, the public is being asked to "Flatten the Curve" to ensure that the
healthcare community has what it needs to take care of the public.
City Manager Goldman stated that some of the passengers from the Grand Princess Cruise are in a hotel in
San Carlos. She noted that this was done at the request of the State.
City Manager Goldman stated that she has been on regular conference calls set up by the County Manager
concerning Coronavirus and the County Health Department's guidelines. She noted that the City takes its
marching orders from County Health. She explained that at 1:00 p.m. on March 16, 2020, the County along
with five other counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and Santa Clara) issued a shelter -in
place order. She noted that information about this order and COVID-19 are on the City's website:
www.burlin-a�g. She discussed essential services that would still be open during the shelter -in place.
City Manager Goldman stated that some restaurants in Burlingame would be open for takeout and delivery.
She added that staff would be putting up information on the City's website about which restaurants were
open for takeout.
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
City Manager Goldman stated that during the previous weekend, the State allowed gatherings of 50 or fewer
people, but the County is recommending no gatherings.
City Manager Goldman stated that starting March 17, 2020, City Hall will be closed to the public. She
reviewed measures that staff was putting in place:
• Water bills can be paid online, via mail, or dropped in one of the boxes outside of City Hall
• Have a question— email info(d),burlin ag me.org or call 650-558-7200
• The libraries and Parks and Recreation are closed
• The Police Department will be closed to the public, but if the public needs assistance, call 911 for an
emergency and 650-777-4100 for non -emergencies
• For broken water mains, leaks, sewer, or street and sidewalk issues, the public can call 650-558-7670
• For tree emergencies, the public should call 650-777-4100, and if it isn't an emergency, call 650-668-
7330 and leave a message
• Subpoenas and claims can be emailed to the City Clerk at mhasselshearerkburlin ag me.org.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the City had www.cmo.smc og vor /g eoc on the website. City
Manager Goldman replied that she would put this link on the City's website.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that if people have any questions about Coronavirus they should call
the County's call center at 211.
Councilmember Colson stated that landscapers and construction workers have called her to ask if they are
considered essential workers. City Manager Goldman replied that landscapers are not considered essential.
She explained that there is some discussion at the County level about what is considered essential for
construction. She stated that the County's Order states that government construction and affordable housing
are essential. She noted that there is a discussion among the County Manager, County Counsel, County
Health Officer, and other counties about whether the order applies to non -affordable housing construction.
City Attorney Kane noted that the exception to these rules is if there is a life safety issue where work needs
to be done.
Councilmember Colson stated that she received calls from community members that wanted to volunteer.
City Manager Goldman stated that individuals that want to volunteer should call 211.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that the need for volunteers was discussed at the County level, and that
protocols and guidelines are being drafted.
Mayor Beach stated on the elected officials' conference call it was made clear that the shelter -in -place order
could go longer than April 7.
Mayor Beach asked if there was any updated data on the number of confirmed cases in the County. City
Manager Goldman stated that as of March 16, 2020, there were 41 confirmed cases and one death. She
4
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
added that there is limited COVID-19 testing available in San Mateo County. She explained that individuals
need to first go on www.projectbaseline.com to qualify for testing.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran added that individuals should alert their primary care physicians if they want
to get tested.
Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Sandra Lang voiced concern about senior citizens in the community during the shelter -
in -place. (Comment received via publiccomment@burlingame.org).
Burlingame resident Ms. Lee wrote about the importance of a shelter -in -place during the COVID-19
outbreak. (Comment received via publiccomment@burlingame.org).
Mayor Beach closed public comment.
Councilmember Brownrigg thanked the City Manager for getting the City reoriented in such a short period
of time. He asked if the City would be canceling Planning Commission and other City meetings. City
Manager Goldman stated that the City would be canceling the next Planning Commission meeting. She
noted that all other City commission and board meetings would be canceled during the current shelter -in -
place. She stated that the next Council meeting was April 6, and staff would decide how to handle that
meeting closer to the meeting date.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the City may have to hold meetings online.
Councilmember Brownrigg gave an update from SBWMA explaining that garbage collection would
continue. He noted that a potential constraint on garbage collection is that the Recology drivers are very
skilled and in short supply. Therefore, if an outbreak does hit at Recology, it could cause delays in
collection.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that Council and staff should begin discussing how the City will
economically come out of this situation. He explained that the City's economy would take a big hit, and
therefore the more the City can do to soften the blow the better. He suggested that during the shelter -in -
place:
• City stop issuing parking tickets
• City should provide assistance to commercial businesses such as subsidizing food delivery
• City should consider reaching into its reserves to donate funds to CALL Primrose and Samaritan
House
City Manager Goldman stated that Grubhub and DoorDash are waiving their commissions in order to make
it easier for restaurants to participate.
5
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Councilmember Colson discussed the calls she received from the community about parking enforcement.
She stated that she agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg that the City shouldn't issue parking tickets
during the shelter -in -place.
Councilmember Colson discussed the need to assist local businesses and that she had reached out to property
management companies. She explained that in speaking to investors, she was informed that the margins on
hotels, restaurants, and airlines are so thin that many will be bankrupt. She stated that she spoke with some
of the local restaurant owners that were cleaning out their kitchens, closing their doors, and laying off their
staff so that they could apply for unemployment. She suggested that the Economic Development
Subcommittee reach out to the commercial landlords and explain the situation to see what can be done.
Councilmember Colson stated that she supported Councilmember Brownrigg's suggestion to provide
additional assistance to CALL Primrose and Samaritan House.
Councilmember Colson stated that the City would need to start looking at some stress test scenarios for the
budget. She noted that she believed this situation would be economically more difficult than 9/11. She
stated that while 9/11 was a one -day shock (with extended flight closures), the Coronavirus pandemic was
shutting down all business for weeks. She noted that the stock market was declining, and therefore the City
would have to see how it impacts pension liabilities. She stated that the City might need to lobby the League
of Cities to talk to the Governor about the pension liability impact.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that the County is talking to SAMCEDA President Roseanne Faust
about how best to assist local businesses during the shelter -in -place.
City Manager Goldman stated that SAMCEDA has a robust website with resources for local businesses. She
noted that she sent this out to the business districts and the Chamber of Commerce.
Mayor Beach stated that public transportation will still be running during the shelter -in -place, but it is
important that people only use it for essential services. She asked that the public not hoard supplies in order
to allow for people to purchase what they need. She added that if the City was able to, she would like to see
facilities opened to provide childcare services for first responders.
Mayor Beach stated that she was grateful for BNN and the training they provide to the community. She
stated that on the electeds' conference call, there seemed to be some movement from the Governor to put a
stay on evictions and foreclosures.
City Manager Goldman stated that the Governor just issued a new executive order that staff will review and
then brief Council on.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked what the City Manager's signing authority is. City Manager Goldman
replied that it is $100,000.
6
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
City Attorney Kane added that at the special meeting immediately after this meeting, staff is asking Council
to declare a Local Emergency, which will increase the City Manager's signing authority.
Councilmember Colson asked that the City consider putting a subcommittee together to start reviewing the
impact COVID-19 will have on the budget. City Manager Goldman stated that this should be discussed after
staff gets back into City Hall. She noted that some jurisdictions are rolling over their budgets into the next
fiscal year. She stated that while this isn't what the City is planning to do, it could get to that point. She
added that the City has a large unassigned fund balance that will assist during the shelter -in -place.
Councilmember Colson stated that she was worried about the major CIP projects. City Manager Goldman
stated that even if the Council approves CIP funds, the City doesn't have to spend those funds. She stated
that at any point before the City issues a request for bids and signs a contract, the City can decide the project
isn't timely.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he was concerned about the City being nimble over the next three
weeks. He explained that it might be useful to have a subcommittee that is available to the City Manager to
authorize expenses. He discussed the potential need to assist local organizations that provide assistance to
the community in the immediate future. City Manager Goldman stated that the City has its normal
community funding process, but if the Council wants to accelerate the process, that could be done
City Attorney Kane stated that once the City has more information, staff could schedule a special meeting.
However, she explained that the Council could give direction for immediate aid assistance to local
organizations. She added that if Council declares a Local Emergency, the City Manager is the Director of
Emergency Services for the City, and she will have significant authority to direct aid to agencies.
City Attorney Kane stated that the Council could state that the City Manager is authorized to provide up to
$30,000 in emergency community aid to community nonprofits at her discretion and subject to the
availability of appropriate staff to cut the check.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to authorize the City Manager to provide up to $30,000 in emergency
community aid to community nonprofits at her discretion and subject to the availability of staff; seconded by
Councilmember Colson.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the motion could be expanded to waive parking tickets for the duration
of the shelter -in -place.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if parking enforcement officers are considered essential. Police Chief Matteucci
replied in the affirmative. He explained that parking enforcement officers assist with traffic control at
accidents and monitor traffic in the downtown areas. He requested that if the Council decides to waive
parking tickets, he be given direction on enforcement of handicap spaces, loading zones, red zones, and 24-
minute parking spaces.
7
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Councilmember Ortiz suggested that the Police Department not enforcement parking regulations at all
metered spaces in the business districts during the shelter -in -place.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he would like to amend his motion to include waiving parking enforcement
in the two business districts.
Mayor Beach stated that she didn't think this was an appropriate time for the Council to decide on parking
enforcement. She explained that staff needed time to review the issue and its potential impacts.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he understood the Police Chief s concerns, but if the waiver is made narrow
enough so that it only covers meters and not loading zones or handicap spaces, he would be comfortable
moving forward with a waiver.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she agreed with Councilmember Ortiz. She explained that
ticketing is usually to encourage turnover. However, because the public is only allowed essential services,
there won't be a need to encourage turnover.
Mayor Beach stated that it sounded like the motion on waiving parking enforcement was for the two business
districts at any metered space, but that enforcement would still occur for loading zones, red zones, and
handicap spaces.
Police Chief Matteucci suggested lifting the parking enforcement on 24-minute or 30-minute spaces.
The Council agreed.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOUSEKEYS, INC. FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME BELOW MARKET RATE
HOUSING PROGRAM IN A NOT TO EXECEED AMOUNT OF $150,000 OVER A ONE
YEAR PERIOD
CDD Gardiner stated that staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager
to execute a professional services agreement with HouseKeys, Inc. for administration of the below market
rate housing program in Burlingame.
CDD Gardiner stated that the City has been working with HouseKeys since 2017 on the management of the
existing affordable units in Burlingame. He stated that with new units coming on line this year, the City
needs to expand HouseKeys' scope of work to establish a more comprehensive program.
CDD Gardiner reviewed the workplan for the first year:
• Program update (one-time fee of $30,000)
8
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
• Software update (one-time fee of $6,000)
• Day to day administration ($60,000 for first year)
• Portfolio management (included in first year cost)
• Compliance and loss mitigation (included in first year cost)
CDD Gardiner explained that HouseKeys will create a webpage providing a comprehensive online
application process for interested applicants. He stated that in the first year, HouseKeys will also undertake
marketing, outreach, and 12 educational workshops. He added that HouseKeys will also undertake an annual
compliance review of the below market rate units.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he received complaints about HouseKeys management of a unit at 1321 El
Camino Real. He explained that he heard concerns about the responsiveness of HouseKeys and noted that
the unit had been up for rent for more than a year. CDD Gardiner stated that he wanted to give Julius
Nyanda a chance to speak on this matter.
HouseKeys CEO and Program Manager Julius Nyanda stated that in reference to the 1321 El Camino Real
unit, there is about a $100 to $200 difference between fair market rent and the below market rate rent. He
stated that the challenge is even though that is the maximum amount that the owner can charge, it's not the
minimum amount. He explained that over the past 1.5 years, there have been 95 applicants, and either the
tenant applicant didn't like the owner, or the owner didn't like the tenant applicant. He noted that
HouseKeys has discussed with the owner that if they want to make the property attractive, they can lower the
rent, but they've opted out of this option.
Mayor Beach asked what the AMI is for that unit. Mr. Nyanda stated that it had been set at $3,100.
Councilmember Colson asked if HouseKeys would let the City know if it gets to a point when the AMI is
above the market rate. She gave the example of if the market rate for a two -bedroom is $2,800 a month but
the AMI is $3,100. Mr. Nyanda replied in the affirmative. He stated that it is important to keep in mind that
San Mateo County incomes have gone up significantly in the last two years, almost 18% to 25%, which had
a negative impact on the rental charts. He noted that in these situations, either the property owner has to
lower the rent, or the City has to extend the income limits, so that instead of 120% AMI it could be 150%
AMI.
Councilmember Colson asked what the process is by which HouseKeys lets the City know that there is an
issue. Is it by unit or more in general? Mr. Nyanda stated that it is by unit.
Councilmember Colson asked if Council could give staff the authority to increase the AMI range for units
that have been on the market for more than a set amount of time. Mr. Nyanda replied in the affirmative and
stated that this authority should be outlined in a resolution.
CDD Gardiner stated that moderate income is 120% of AMI. He noted that from previous discussions, staff
has heard that moderate income could go up to 150% of AMI.
9
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Councilmember Colson stated that at a community meeting, State Senator Weiner explained that certain
groups of people were getting disenfranchised from the process because the applications are online. She
stated that she could see seniors having a hard time filling out the applications.
Mr. Nyanda stated that HouseKeys works with community organizations such as churches and nonprofits to
reach as many people as possible.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the unit at 1321 El Camino Real was an exception, or had
HouseKeys had other units sit on the market for a long period of time. Mr. Nyanda stated that 1321 El
Camino Real was the exception. He stated that there are approximately 1100 ownership units under
management and about 500 rental units. He noted that they tend to turn very quickly.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked that the language be corrected to state: "moderate up to 120% AMI"
instead of "moderate 120% AMI." CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ortiz asked what metrics are used to measure the success of the program. CDD Gardiner
stated that staff would be looking at HouseKeys' ability to rent the units, monitoring the qualifications of the
households, and looking at whether individuals stayed in their units. Mr. Nyanda stated that the entire
process will be tracked, and HouseKeys would give the Council updates.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked what the turnover rate is on below market rate units. Mr. Nyanda
stated that turnover is low at 3% to 5%.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if an individual goes over the AMI limit, does HouseKeys help them
find a different unit. Mr. Nyanda replied in the affirmative and added that HouseKeys would need Council
direction to do this.
Mayor Beach reviewed the process of applying for a unit. She explained that the individual first becomes
qualified for the program through an online application, and then the individual would enter the lottery for
the unit they are interested in. She asked if there was an office that an individual could go to for one-on-one
assistance from HouseKeys. Mr. Nyanda replied in the negative.
Mayor Beach asked what the notification requirement is to alert a tenant that the unit's below market rate
status is expiring. Mr. Nyanda stated that it is three months.
Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment.
SummerHill representative Elaine Breeze stated that the Anson development includes below market rate
units. She explained that she wanted to confirm that SummerHill is able to either opt out of HouseKeys'
services or work with HouseKeys to develop a reduced scope and therefore a reduced fee. She explained
that these services are provided by SummerHill's property management company at no additional cost to
SummerHill.
10
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Mr. Nyanda stated if a city wants to allow development companies to opt out of HouseKeys services, the
development company would handle the underwriting and processing on their own. He added that
HouseKeys would continue to handle the marketing and application process.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that it was important to have quality control and uniform reporting on this
process. Therefore, he explained that while h respected the developer's right to have costs in-house, he
wanted to ensure that the datasets were uniform.
Mayor Beach closed public comment.
Councilmember Colson stated that she agreed with her colleagues that there should be one application for all
below market rate units in the City. She explained that as long as that is the case, she is good with
SummerHill running its own program.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 031-2020; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
c. DISCUSSION OF REPRESENTATIVE JACKIE SPEIER'S AVIATION LEGISLATION
AND DETERMINATION OF NEXT STEPS
City Manager Goldman stated that this item came up under future agenda items in February. She noted that
Representative Speier introduced several bills that are all pending before the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee concerning the airport noise issue.
City Manager Goldman stated that if the Council decides to send a letter of support, she suggests either
creating a subcommittee or having her work with Councilmember Ortiz, the City's representative on the
Airport Land Use Committee, on the letter.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he felt strongly about four of the bills introduced by Representative Speier.
• HR 5106 REST Act — He stated that he found out at the Airport Land Use Committee meetings that a
lot of the flight schedules for SFO are established because of the curfews at other airports.
• HR 5107 SNORE Act — He stated that this bill provides funds for insulation programs for homes in
specific areas around the airport.
• HR 5108 SHHH Act — He stated that this bill deals with the flight pattern of airplanes taking off
northbound and making an immediate western turn that has them going over the peninsula cities. He
stated that they have requested that FAA review this procedure and take the planes further north.
• HR 5112 LEAVE Act — He stated that this bill concerns ground -based noise.
Vice Mayor O'Brien stated that the verbiage in the REST Act is not very strong. She explained that the bill
states: "allows airports voluntarily to impose a curfew." She stated that she didn't believe the language was
strong enough to ensure that SFO would impose a curfew.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that it was a matter of making the bill more palatable in order to get it passed.
11
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran suggested strengthening the language or inserting options to create flexibility.
Mayor Beach asked if there was some good faith from SFO that they would be willing to consider a curfew.
Councilmember Ortiz explained that the airport has been very supportive of a lot of the initiatives of the
Airport Land Use Committee.
Councilmember Colson voiced her support for Councilmember Ortiz's suggestion.
Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to authorize Councilmember Ortiz to work with City Manager
Goldman to draft a letter in support of Representative Speier's legislation; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTENT TO
TRANSITION FROM AT -LARGE TO BY -DISTRICT COUNCILMEMBER ELECTIONS
AND AUTHORIZING A SETTLEMENT/TOLLING AGREEMENT WITH POTENTIAL
PLANTIFFS
City Attorney Kane stated that the City Council was briefed on this issue in closed session before their last
Council meeting. She noted that Council's direction is reflected in the proposed resolution.
City Attorney Kane stated that currently councilmembers in Burlingame are elected at -large. This means all
Burlingame voters vote for each councilmember. She explained that traditionally, larger cities have been
split into districts, with a councilmember representing each district.
City Attorney Kane stated that the Federal Voting Rights Act ("FVRA") prohibits racial discrimination in
voting and allows for district elections to be used as a remedy. She explained that under the FVRA, the
plaintiff would have to show that district elections would improve the representation of the affected minority.
City Attorney Kane stated that under the California Voting Rights Act ("CVRA"), the plaintiff has a lower
threshold to succeed. A plaintiff in California only has to show that there is racially polarized voting. She
explained that this is done by reviewing the Census data and the ethnic makeup of a city to see if it is
reflected in the city's elected body.
City Attorney Kane state that according to the 2010 Census data, the City is 20% Asian, and the City has
never had an Asian American councilmember. She explained that statistically, you would expect one of the
councilmembers in the City's history to be Asian American.
City Attorney Kane stated that the City received a letter from Shenkman and Hughes. Shenkman and
Hughes is a law firm that has approached numerous California cities requesting that they move to district
12
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
elections. She stated that Shenkman and Hughes alleges that the City has racially polarized voting and that
the City should either move to district elections or face litigation.
City Attorney Kane stated using the City's facts, litigation is easy for plaintiffs to win. This is because the
CVRA doesn't require that the plaintiff show that the City intended to suppress Asian representation.
City Attorney Kane noted that no city has ever won with similar allegations. She stated that the cost to
defend this lawsuit would be considerable and would include specialized attorneys and demographers. She
noted that under the CVRA, if the City loses, it would be on the hook for the plaintiff's attorney fees. She
explained that costss have ranged from $1 million up to $20 million in Santa Monica.
City Attorney Kane stated that if the City does fight this issue and lose, the City will also lose control over
how the districts are drawn. She explained that it would be better to have a City run process than allow the
courts to draw the district lines.
City Attorney Kane stated that because the Council's next election isn't until 2022, the City has some time to
undertake a meaningful process. She explained that normally, the City would have a total of 90 days in
which to have five public hearings and adopt a map. However, because the City doesn't have an election
until 2022, staff was able to reach an agreement with the plaintiff's attorney to wait for the 2020 Census data.
City Attorney Kane stated that the resolution authorizes and directs the City Attorney to negotiate and
execute a tolling agreement with Shenkman and Hughes to protect the City from CVRA litigation during the
transition. She stated that the plaintiff's attorney will have to provide hourly bills showing what settlement
amount is justified.
City Attorney Kane noted that Shenkman and Hughes's letter identified a council candidate of color that lost
in two different elections. She explained that it was important to note that this individual didn't know that
their name was being used and didn't initiate this process.
Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment.
Former Mayor Joe Galligan stated that he didn't believe the Council should move to district elections and
noted that the City should utilize its reserves to fight this case.
Burlingame resident Kerbey Altmann asked if candidates must live in the district to be elected in the district.
(Comment received via publiccomment(&,,burlin ag me.org) City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that you do have
to live in your district to run in your district.
Mayor Beach closed public comment.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked how many cities had been sued and went to court to fight the transition
to district elections. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that there have been over 80 cities and districts in
13
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
California that have received similar letters. She noted that most of the jurisdictions were located in
Southern California but that more Northern California cities were receiving these letters.
City Attorney Kane noted that virtually all cities have settled before there is a decision to be read. Therefore,
there isn't a lot of decisional law on the topic.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked what the average city spent on defending a CVRA case. City Attorney
Kane stated that the average settlement was in the low seven figures.
Councilmember Colson stated that Woodside routinely has to recruit individuals to run in their district
elections. She explained if Burlingame moved to district elections, each district would have approximately
6,000 voters. She noted that with a 35% voter turnout, a candidate could win a district with fewer than 1,000
votes. She voiced concern about issues become district issues and not City issues. She discussed the big
items that the City had coming up including affordable housing and the Broadway Grade Separation. She
noted that she didn't want to see these become district -focused issues.
Councilmember Colson stated that the City should work with Assemblymen Mullin and State Senator Hill to
amend the CVRA. She discussed the County measure to move to district elections for the Board of
Supervisors. She noted that Representative Speier and Representative Eshoo had cosigned the arguments
against moving to district elections. She stated that the City should reach out to them for their help in
amending the CVRA.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he agreed with Councilmember Colson. He stated that he found the
situation distasteful and that the City was being forced to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she agreed with her colleagues. She explained that Burlingame is
a diverse community and that the residents should vote for all councilmembers. She stated that her main
concern is that district elections force councilmembers to focus solely on their district and not the City
holistically.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he didn't believe that district elections were a good idea for the City.
He noted that the Council received an email from former Supervisor John Ward opposing the move to
district elections. He asked the City Attorney to explain what would happen if the community undertook a
citizen initiative against district elections. City Attorney Kane stated that there is a threshold question about
whether a referendum on this topic would be allowed on the ballot. She noted that if it did get on the ballot,
the City would be in the position of having to defend the lawsuit from Shenkman and Hughes.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if other cities had dealt with referendums on the topic while defending a
CVRA lawsuit. City Attorney Kane stated that she was unsure but believed that cities went to court because
they wanted to oppose the initial move to district elections.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 032-2020; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
14
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
e. HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (APR) ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
CDD Gardiner stated that the City's Housing Element was adopted in 2015 and runs through 2023. He
explained that each year, the City is obligated to provide the State a report that includes:
• Information on the types of housing units that were issued building permits
• Information on the City's progress in meeting its regional housing needs allocation
• Progress report on implementation of Housing Element programs
CDD Gardiner stated that because the State report is just a snapshot in time, the City includes its monthly
report, which is the residential projects overview. HE explained that there are 2,326 units in Burlingame that
have either been proposed, approved, or are in the foreseeable pipeline (projects on the radar). Of the 2,326
units in the pipeline, 492 are affordable to moderate -income, low-income, or very low-income households.
He noted that this represents about 21 % of the total units.
Councilmember Colson asked when the new RHNA assignments would be made. CDD Gardiner replied
that they would be made later this year.
Councilmember Colson asked what the time period for the assignments would be. CDD Gardiner stated that
it would probably be another eight -year cycle (2023-2031).
Councilmember Colson asked how the transition works from the RHNA assignments ending in 2023 to the
next cycle. CDD Gardiner stated that the assignments tend to roll over. He stated that ABAG and MTC are
working on the methodology for the next cycle. He noted that changes to State legislation will constrain the
City from rolling over opportunity sites, and the rules are becoming more stringent.
Councilmember Colson asked if an opportunity site is a site where a regular developer can come in and build
low income housing, or is it a site that the City deems with HUD and a developer that low income housing
could be built. CDD Gardiner stated that it is meant for any housing.
Mayor Beach asked if it would be appropriate at a later point in the year to dig into the City's RHNA
assignment and understand the methodology. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if staff had any idea what the City's RHNA assignment would be for
the next cycle. CDD Gardiner replied that Southern California's RHNA allocations were done first and
cites' allocations were two to three times higher than their previous allocations. Therefore, he stated that
staff is bracing for substantial increases. He noted that the City's updated General Plan will assist with the
new allocation because it creates new neighborhoods and increased the density of other neighborhoods.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if housing through HIP Housing's program would be counted towards
the City's allocation. CDD Gardiner replied that he was unsure and that he would follow up on this.
15
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she noticed that there was a large increase in ADUs in this cycle
and therefore it would be interesting to track those numbers in the future.
Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to accept the 2019 Housing Element Annual Progress Report and
authorize its transmittal to the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research and the California
Department of Housing and Community Development; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. The
motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that in the future when the City talks about housing statistics, he would
like to see the numbers that CDD Gardiner commented on verbally included in the staff report.
L UPDATE AND DIRECTION ON CITY WORK PLAN FOR WIRELESS SMALL -CELL
INFRASTRUCTURE
City Attorney Kane began by discussing the numerous rule -making authorities on wireless small -cell
infrastructure including: Federal regulations, FCC administrative rule procedures, State laws, and State
CPUC rulings. She explained that the City finds itself in a situation where the playing field has changed
significantly for wireless cell installations. She noted that when things started, cities had a lot of local
control over what kind of installation went up, where it was located, what it should look like, and under what
rules. She added that previously the installations were much larger and had a higher radio frequency output.
She stated that since then, a significant portion of the small -cell infrastructure has become smaller and has a
smaller geographic reach.
City Attorney Kane stated that the changes in legislation and small -cell infrastructure have led towards more
small antennas with less local control. She explained that the smaller antennas have less of a visual and
radio frequency impact. She reviewed the impact of the recent legislation stating that:
• The City isn't allowed to consider radio frequency impacts
• The City is not allowed to prohibit the installation of small antennas in the public right of way on
existing poles
• The City can't enact any provision that creates an effective prohibition on a build out of small cell
infrastructure
• The City has shortened time periods to consider applications and less discretion over the applications
• If the City doesn't act on an application within 60 days, some installations will be deemed approved
• The City has little ground to stand on in litigation if it fails to meet deadlines and fails to exercise its
limited discretion in an effective manner
City Attorney Kane stated that previously, the City took a bold stand in favor of local control and took on a
wireless carrier. She noted that the City spent several years in litigation. She explained that the City won on
the important issue of whether the City can have input on the aesthetics of the small cell infrastructure.
16
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
City Attorney Kane stated that after this decision, a group of interested community members, Council, staff,
and wireless companies wrote the City's existing telecommunications ordinance. She noted that since
adoption, a lot of things have changed.
City Attorney Kane stated that the ordinance creates the perception that the City can evaluate things that the
City isn't allowed to evaluate under Federal law. She explained that the ordinance creates a constant tension
where the public expects that the Planning Commission or City Council can do something that can't legally
be done.
City Attorney Kane discussed the City's work plan in addressing multiple parts of this issue:
• Revise the ordinance — to allow installations in the public right of way. She noted that installations in
the public right of way will be handled by staff, and larger installations on private properties would
still have hearings.
• Develop objective aesthetic standards for small cell installations
• Draft and present to Council for consideration a master license agreement for installations on City -
owned light poles
City Attorney Kane suggested that the Council create an ad -hoc committee that includes one or more
Councilmembers, a Planning Commissioner, Beautification Commissioner, and members of the community.
She stated that this committee would hold public meetings to determine what the aesthetic standard should
be for small cell installations.
City Attorney Kane stated that the Council secured several concessions from AT&T during their Council
appeal. She noted that Council asked AT&T to streamline and shrink their installations. She stated that this
generated a Burlingame specific design.
City Attorney Kane stated that pursuant to a recent FCC ruling, the City can only charge $275 a year to
attach to a City pole. She noted that this isn't enough to cover the cost of the staff time to administer this
program.
City Attorney Kane stated that while $275 wouldn't cover the cost of a smart pole, there are benefits to
installing smart poles:
• Don't see the antenna
• Allows for fiber optic communications for the City
• Installation of traffic cameras
• Single integrated profile
Councilmember Ortiz asked if there is anything to stop the carriers from setting up their own poles. City
Attorney Kane stated that this is an actively debated issue.
Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment.
17
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Verizon Wireless representative Maureen Cruzen voiced her company's support for creating a master license
agreement with the City. (Comment received via publiccomment(&burlin ag me.org).
Mayor Beach closed public comment.
Mayor Beach asked her colleagues to discuss the City Attorney's suggestion to create an ad hoc committee
to outline aesthetic requirements.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he would be interested in being on the committee.
City Attorney Kane stated that the aesthetic standards have to be reasonable, objective, and published in
advance; everyone will know what they are.
The Council agreed that a committee should be created.
Mayor Beach asked her colleagues about revising the ordinance pursuant to the City Attorney's suggestions.
City Attorney Kane noted a comment she had received from the public about not wanting the Public Works
Department to administer installations of small cell infrastructure in right of ways. She explained that the
Public Works Department oversees public right of ways.
Mayor Beach asked her colleagues for their opinions about a possible master license agreement and whether
the City should pursue smart poles.
The Council agreed to explore smart poles and a master license agreement.
Councilmember Colson stated that communicating the rules that the City must abide by to the public is going
to be an important issue.
Mayor Beach agreed with Councilmember Colson.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked about Hillsborough's lawsuit. City Attorney Kane stated that she believed
Hillsborough was still in settlement negotiations. She explained that Hillsborough has worked out standards
that are acceptable to the telecommunications industry. She stated that Hillsborough has not created new
ground in terms of the limitations that all other cities are under.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. COUNCILMEMBER COLSON'S COMMITTEE REPORT
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items.
18
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
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.burlin ag me.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Beach adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
19
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
CITY C
BURLINGAME
$AaiEo JLNE � O
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Special Meeting at the end of the Regular Meeting on March 16, 2020
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 10:13 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
4. STAFF REPORTS
a. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF
A LOCAL EMERGENCY CAUSED BY THE THREAT OF THE NOVEL CORONAVIRUS
(COVID-19)
City Attorney Kane stated that the purpose of declaring a local emergency is to so that the City can draw
down funds and to vest in the City Manager, as the Director of Emergency Services, the ability to react to the
ever evolving issues.
City Manager Goldman stated that the City will continue to pay staff, and if there is work for staff to do, the
City is asking them to do that during the shelter -in -place. She stated that for staff that can't work, the City is
providing them paid administrative leave. For staff that can work, the City is giving them an hour of paid
time off for each hour they work.
City Attorney Kane stated that once the local emergency is declared, all City employees become disaster
workers, and therefore their assignments can be changed.
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 04/06/2020
Councilmember Colson asked that the Council be kept informed if any staff members test positive. City
Manager Goldman stated that she wouldn't be able to provide the Council with specifics, but she would keep
them informed.
Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 033-2020; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if other cities in the County were also declaring a local emergency. City
Manager Goldman replied that all other cities in the County had either declared or were preparing to declare
a local emergency.
Mayor Beach thanked staff for their hard work.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Beach adjourned meeting at l 0: 19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
2
Burlingame City Council March 16, 2020
Unapproved Minutes
BiFRLINGAME AGENDA NO: 8d
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 6, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 6, 2020
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Street Resurfacing Project to
Comply with Senate Bill No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2020-2021
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the FY 2020-21
Street Resurfacing Project to comply with Senate Bill No. 1 (SB 1).
BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed SB 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.
The bill was created to address the significant backlog of work for basic road maintenance,
rehabilitation, and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local roads and streets
systems. The State Controller has created the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account
(RMRA), which is funded by per gallon fuel excise taxes, diesel fuel sales taxes, and vehicle
registration fees, and provides for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years. The City of
Burlingame has been allocated $34,083 in Loan Repayment and $558,533 in RMRA, for a total of
$592,616 of additional gas tax funds for FY 2020-21.
DISCUSSION
The reason staff recommends approval of the attached resolution is to satisfy the requirements of
SB 1 relative to holding local governments accountable for the efficient investment of public funds
to maintain public streets and roads, and especially the following addition to the Streets &
Highways Code 2034;
(a) (1) Prior to receiving an apportionment of funds under the program pursuant to
paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 2032 from the Controller in a fiscal year, an
eligible city or county shall submit to the commission a list of projects proposed to be
funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted city or county budget. All projects
proposed to receive funding shall be included in a city or county budget that is adopted by
the applicable city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting. The
list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds shall include a description and the
location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project's completion, and
the estimated useful life of the improvement. The project list shall not limit the flexibility of
1
Adoption of a Resolution Approving FY 2020-21 April 6,
2020
Street Resurfacing Project to Comply with SB 1
an eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities so
long as the projects are consistent with subdivision (b) of Section 2030.
The FY 2020-21 Street Resurfacing Project scope consists of performing asphalt concrete "dig -
out" repairs, surface milling, asphalt concrete overlay, traffic markings, traffic striping, concrete
improvements, micro surfacing, and other related work on the following streets:
• Alpine Avenue;
• Bayview Place;
• 1500 block of Bernal Avenue;
• 1500 block of Cabrillo Avenue;
• Cananea Avenue;
• 400 block of Concord Way;
• 1500 block of Cortez Avenue;
• 2100 to 2700 block of Easton Drive;
• Edwards Court;
• Guittard Road;
• 1600 and 1700 block of Hunt Drive;
• 1800 block of Loyola Drive;
• 600 block of Plymouth Way;
• Ray Court;
• 2300 block of Ray Drive;
2500 and 2600 block of Summit Drive;
• 1500 block of Vancouver Avenue;
• Cloverlly Lane;
• Killarney Lane; and
• Meadow Lane.
The criteria developed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) requires that the list of
streets to be resurfaced using funds from RMRA be submitted no later than May 1, 2020. The
proposed resolution meets the requirements to receive the funds.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost of the FY 2020-21 Street Resurfacing Project is approximately $2,500,000.
The City will receive $592,616 in additional gas tax funds from SB 1, and the remaining
$1,907,384 is funded by a combination of Gas Tax, Measure A, and Measure I funds.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Project Location Map
2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING
THE FY 2020-21 STREET RESURFACING PROJECT TO COMPLY WITH
SENATE BILL 1
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
(Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the
Governor in April 2017 to address significant multi -modal transportation funding shortfalls
statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure
the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and
which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal
year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1,
which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed
schedule for the project's completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City will receive an estimated $558,533 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year
2020-21 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the fourth year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding which will
enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety
improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility
options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and
WHEREAS, the City included public input and publicly reviewed the project list with the
City Council to ensure public input into the project list; and
WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project
list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high -priority and cost-effective projects that
also meet the community's priorities for transportation investment; and
WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate 20 streets
throughout the City this year; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment
found that the City's streets and roads are in "good" condition and this revenue will help us
increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will keep our streets
and roads in "good" condition; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads
infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety will have significant positive
benefits to the residents of Burlingame.
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the
City of Burlingame, State of California, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The 2021 Street Resurfacing Project will be funded in part with the Fiscal Year 2020-
2021 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues.
3. The particulars of the project are as follows:
a. Project Title: 2021 Street Resurfacing Project.
b. Project Description: The work consists of street base failure repair and
resurfacing on various streets within the City limits. Construction activities will
include asphalt concrete "dig -out" repairs, surface milling, asphalt concrete
overlay, traffic markings, traffic striping, concrete improvements, micro surfacing,
and other related work.
c. Project Location: The project streets include Alpine Avenue, Bayview Place,
Bernal Avenue, Cabrillo Avenue, Cananea Avenue, Cloverlly Lane, Concord
Way, Cortez Avenue, Easton Drive, Edwards Court, Guittard Road, Hunt Drive,
Killarney Lane, Loyola Drive, Meadow Lane, Plymouth Way, Ray Court, Ray
Drive, Summit Drive, and Vancouver Avenue.
d. Estimated Project Schedule: Release notice inviting bids to contractors in
spring of 2021 and construction completion by winter of 2021.
e. Estimated Project Useful Life: The City's Pavement Management System
calculates a new useful life of 24 years for these repaired roadways.
Emily Beach, Mayor
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, State of
California this 61" day of April, 2020, 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 6t" day of April,
2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk
BIJRLINGAMC AGENDA NO: 8e
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 6, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 6, 2020
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Contract to IPS Group, Inc., for the
Procurement and Installation of Smart Parking Meters in the Downtown Area
and City Parking Lots in the Amount of $355,000
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a contract to IPS
Group, Inc. (IPS), for the procurement and installation of smart parking meters in the downtown
area and City parking lots, in an amount not to exceed $355,000, and authorize the City Manager
to execute the contract.
BACKGROUND
The City of Burlingame has approximately 2,300 metered parking spaces in the Broadway
commercial area and the downtown Burlingame Avenue area. Approximately 1,500 of those
spaces are single-space parking meters. Over the past several years, the City has replaced
approximately 730 coin operated single-spaced meters with new IPS smart parking meters on
Broadway and in the downtown Burlingame Avenue area. The smart parking meters provide
users with the convenience of coin, credit/debit card, and pay -by -phone payment options. The
City continues to work on improving the parking experience for residents and patrons in the
commercial and downtown areas by replacing coin -only operated meters. As part of the FY 2019-
20 budget, the City Council approved funding to replace the remaining old coin -only parking
meters in City parking lots with smart meters.
DISCUSSION
Public Works and Police staff have been monitoring the utilization and functionality of the installed
IPS smart meters and have observed positive experience regarding the functionality and reliability
of these smart meters. Staff recommends replacing approximately 475 existing coin -only meters
with IPS single-space smart parking meters in 2-hour and 4-hour City parking lots throughout the
city, and also replacing the remaining on -street parking meters in the Broadway commercial area
as listed below.
Downtown Burlingame Avenue City Parking Lots:
Lot A-3;
1
Procurement and Installation of Smart Parking Meters in the
Downtown Area and City Parking Lots, City Project No. 84410
April 6, 2020
• Lot B-1;
• Lot C;
• Lot D;
• Lot J;
• Lot K;
• Lot L;
• Lot M;
• Lot O; and
• Lot V.
Downtown Broadway Area City Parking Lots and On -Street Parking:
• Lot P;
• Lot Q;
• Lot R;
• Lot Y;
• Lot S;
• Capuchino Avenue;
• Paloma Avenue;
• Laguna Avenue; and
• Chula Vista Avenue.
Upgrading from the existing coin -only parking meters to new IPS smart meters is relatively easy
because the existing meter poles and the majority of existing housing can be salvaged and re-
utilized. Only approximately 150 existing housing units will need to be replaced.
City parking lots and on -street parking in the downtown Broadway area, with the exception of
Broadway itself, have the lowest parking rates, at $0.50 per hour. Providing smart meter
capability at this location will result in additional operating costs due to credit card transaction
fees and data charges. Staff will monitor the credit card usage and associated financial impacts,
and will return to the City Council if parking meter rate changes are necessary.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of purchasing approximately 475 IPS smart parking meters is approximately
$355,000, which includes shipping, installation, extended warranty, and applicable taxes. The
following are the estimated project expenditures:
Procurement and Installation of IPS Smart Parking Meters $355,000
Meter Housings and Vaults $80,000
Total $435,000
2
Procurement and Installation of Smart Parking Meters in the April 6, 2020
Downtown Area and City Parking Lots, City Project No. 84410
FUNDING AVAILABILITY
There are adequate funds available in the Capital Improvement Program Budget to undertake the
purchase and installation of the meters. The ongoing data charges and transaction fees will be
funded through Parking Enterprise Funds.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• IPS Group, Inc. Contract
• Project Location Map
3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH IPS GROUP, INC., FOR THE PROCUREMENT
AND INSTALLATION OF SMART PARKING METERS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA
AND CITY PARKING LOTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
CITY PROJECT NO. 84410
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 6tth
day of April, 2020 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE
PURCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION CONTRACT SERVICES
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 IPS GROUP, INC. [hereinafter Contractor], as of the day of
.2020.
RECITALS
(A) City wishes to establish a contractual relationship with Contractor for the purchase of
new, fully tested smart parking meters, related equipment, and services; and
(B) City has determined the nature, scope, or budget for these services and materials as
outlined in the scope of services required for this agreement in Exhibit A; 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. IPS shall provide and complete all services as described in Exhibit A
of this Agreement, which includes but are not limited to the following services:
(A) IPS shall to provide new, fully tested smart parking meters, related equipment,
and services. No used or previously owned parking meter equipment will be
allowed.
(B) IPS shall complete the installation of all parking meter equipment. Coordinated
installation of all parking meter equipment will take place according to a pre-
defined deployment plan created by the City and IPS. City shall have absolute
discretion as to the placement of all parking meters and equipment and
electronic format including rates, time limits, hours, and restrictions for each
meter.
(C) City may, from time to time, wish to implement available upgrades in meter
hardware and software. Additional hardware costs will be paid by the City as
provided for in a quote by IPS separate from or by mutual written amendment to
this Agreement. The City maintains the sole authority to determine when and
where such upgrades will be implemented.
(D) IPS shall provide a full 48-month extended warranty in addition to the full
standard 12-month warranty on all equipment.
Page 1 of 7
2. Time of Performance. The services of the Contractor are to be available upon the
execution of this Agreement until June 30, 2021 with renewal options at the election of
the City.
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.
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 . Total charges under this
Agreement are not to exceed Three Hundred Fifty -Five Thousand Dollars and 00/100
($355,000).
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.
Page 2 of 7
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 Managers. The designated Project Manager for the City is Lisha Mai, Associate
Engineer, 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: Syed Murtuza
Director of Public Works
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
To Contractor: IPS GROUP, INC.
7737 Kenamar Court
San Diego, CA 92121
Attn: Chad Randall, Chief Operating Officer
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 City. 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
Page 3 of 7
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. See Exhibit D.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
i. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO)
Form CG 00 01 12 04 covering CGL on an "occurrence" basis, including
products -completed operations, personal & advertising injury, with limits
no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit
applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be $2,000,000.
ii. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto
(Code 1), or if Contractor has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non -
owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for
bodily injury and property damage.
iii. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California,
with Statutory Limits, and Employer's Liability Insurance with limit of no
less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
iv. If the Contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above,
the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits
maintained by the Contractor.
B. 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.
C. 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,
Page 4 of 7
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.
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.
D. 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.
E. 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
Page 5 of 7
City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
F. 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. 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 that may at any time arise 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 a willful or negligent act or omissions
of the Contractor, or any of the Contractor's officers, employees, or agents or any
subcontractor. This provision shall not apply if the damage or injury is proximately
caused by the gross or active 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 or by writing to the Department of Labor
Relations. 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. The Contractor shall begin work within ten (10) days of the date requested
in writing to begin work.
18. Termination. Upon fifteen (15) calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may,
with or 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.
Page 6 of 7
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.
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. Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding between the
parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Contractor have executed this Agreement on the
date of
CITY OF BURLINGAME
a Municipal Corporation
Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager
Approved as to form:
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk
IPS GROUP, INC.
Signature
Print Name:
Title:
Page 7 of 7
QUOTE
Date: 03/05/20
GROUP Sales Quote
Customer ID::
INS Uroup, Inc. LISha Mal
f f3f Kenamar Gt Uty of burungame
San Ulego GA 92121 1111 I rOUSdale Unve
Insert Sales I -Jerson Name Burlingame, C;A 92U1U
(5U9-513-6383
pairlCK.SMiinLwipSgroupinc.com
METERS
475
232-504
MK5 Model 232 SSPM Meter and Standard 232
$485.00
$
230,375.00
Top Dome
475
4-YR WRTY
4- Year Warranty
$170.00
$
80,750.00
1
Installation
Installation Services (2 Technicians, 2-Days)
$5,700.00
$
5,700.00
N/A
Coin Type: COINS
$0.00
$
-
N/A
Coin Slots: Dollar
$0.00
$
-
N/A
Card Decals: VISA, MASTER
$0.00
475
DEC-121-82OPS
Park Smarter Decal with Pole Serial No
$2.00
$
950.00
FREIGHT AND INSTALLATION
1
Notes -Freight
+ Freight Charges
$4,566.19
$
4,566.19
Subtotal
$
322,341.19
Sales Tax
9.00%
Total
$
350,940.94
To accept this quote please sign:
Purchase Order:
Any additional costs for permitting/tax will be added to the final invoice cost
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!
ADDITIONAL PRICING AND LIMITED WARRANTY INFORMATION
SINGLE-SPACE AND SENSORS
Capital and Ongoing Costs
■ odPrice per
M5"" IPS Credit Card -Enabled Single -Space Meter $495.00
(includes 12-month warranty, RFID tag)
Optional: Add BLE capability
$65.00
Optional: Add NFC contactless payment capability
$65.00
Shipping (Ex Works — to be quoted based on volume and ship to zip code)
TBQ
Installation and Training (to be quoted based on scope)
TBQ
Optional: Extended Warranty (per 12 month period)
$50.00
Optional: Extended Warranty (48 month period)
$170.00
Secure Wireless Gateway/Data Fee and Meter Management
System Software License Fee (per meter per month)
Secure Credit Card Gateway Fee (per transaction)
Optional YO Party Implementations for Data Sharing
Optional: Merchant Processing Fees (per transaction)
Vehicle Detection Sensors Capital and Ongoing Costs
In -Ground Vehicle Detection Sensors (includes 12-month warranty)
Dome Mount Vehicle Detection Sensors (includes 12-month warranty)
Pole Mount Vehicle Detection Sensors (includes 12-month warranty)
Shipping (Ex Works — to be quoted based on ship to zip code)
Installation (to be quoted based on scope)
I Management System/Base Data Fee
Optional: Real Time Reporting Fee
$8.25
$0.06
Upon request
Upon request
$295.00
$295.00
$295.00
TBQ
TBQ
NOTE: Mousing, collection equipment, and poles sold separately. Additional ongoing costs associated with wireless
services, management system access, and credit card fees are ongoing and outlined below. Pricing does not include
any applicable state or local taxes that are required to be paid by the City currently or in the future. IPS shall have
the right to adjust Agreement pricing due to increases in Inflation as published by the US Bureau of tabor Statistics
for All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the U.S. City Average, and will not exceed
3% compounded annually.
Spare Parts
parking meter Spare Part Pricing
Single Space Electronic Meter Mechanism
Card Entry Keypad Assy _
Hybrid Card Reader
Coin Validator
Complete Top Cover (with Lexan insert)
M51"
S495.00
$55.00
$52.00
$75.00
$75.00
Lexan for Top Cover
$25.00
Coin Entry Slot
$2.00
M5 Battery Pack (H3)
$35.00
M5 Battery Pack (H5) (available on the 1471247 models only)
$45.00
Solar Panel 1 Communications Board
$185.00
Main Board
$185.00
Display Board - _
$95.00
Display Board with NFC
$140.00
BLE Beacon Upgrade
$45.00
RFID Tag
$10.00
MK5 Batter Charger (daisy chain charging unit)
$125.00
Card Reader Cleaning Card featuring Waffletechnology® (40) per box
$54.00
Note: This pricing is FOB, 1PS Group, San Diego, CA. Sales taxes and shipping charges will be added to the final
invoice. IPS shall have the right to adjust Agreement pricing due to increases in Inflation as published by the US
Bureau of Labor Statistics for All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the U.S. City
Average, and will not exceed 3% compounded annually.
IPS Limited Warranty
IPS will provide a limited parts warranty for any new meter or sensor product manufactured and supplied by I PS for
12 months under normal use. The warranty protects against defects in materials and workmanship from the point of
installation or 15 months from the date of delivery, whichever is sooner, and 90 days from the date of delivery
received in the case of spare or repaired products. Software Services are provided "as -is" and IPS shall provide bug
fixes at no cost during the contract term.
Additional Warranty Provisions: IPS must have the opportunity to assist in the initial deployment and system
installation. Repair or replacement under warranty of any defective product (including any meter or subcomponent)
does not extend the warranty period for that product or subcomponent. IPS will either repair or replace products or
subcomponents, at our discretion, that are found to be defective within the defined warranty period, with
transportation costs pre -paid by the customer. Returns for credit will only apply once l PS has received defective
product (including any meter or subcomponent) and confirmed that defects were within the warranty period and are
covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty provided. IPS strongly recommends that customers pre-
purchase spare parts inventory for immediate access. Defective parts can be replaced immediately from customer
stock and IPS shall replace such components upon receipt and determination of defect. On -site labor is explicitly not
included in this limited warranty. Customer shall be sufficiently trained to perform all on -site work, including meter
or sub -component removal/replacement IPS can provide additional on -site services under a separate maintenance
agreement or quoted on an as -needed basis. THE WARRANTIES CONTAINED IN THE AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS ARE
1PS'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE WARRANTIES. THE EXTENT OF IPS'S LIABILITY FOR A WARRANTY CLAIM IS LIMITED
TO THE REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF THE DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT OR DEFECTIVE SERVICE OR SOFTWARE AT
THE SOLE OPTION OF ]PS. IPS AFFIRMATIVELY EXCLUDES ANY AND ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, CONDITIONS, OR
REPRESENTATIONS (EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ORAL OR WRITTEN), WITH RESPECT TO THE EQUIPMENT AND/OR
SERVICES OR SOFTWARE PROVIDED INCLUDING ANY AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF TITLE,
MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS OR SUITABILITY FOR ANY PURPOSE (WHETHER OR NOT IPS KNOWS, HAS
REASON TO KNOW, HAS BEEN ADVISED, OR IS OTHERWISE IN FACT AWARE OF ANY SUCH PURPOSE) WHETHER
ARISING BYLAW OR BY REASON OF CUSTOM OF THE TRADE. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN
THIS AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY, IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SPECIAL,
INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OFANY KIND OR NATURE,
INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS, LOST REVENUES OR OTHER MONETARY LOSS, ARISING OUT OF
OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT AND ANY ACTIONS OR OMISSIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO, WHETHER OR
NOT ANY SUCH MATTERS OR CAUSES ARE WITHIN A PARTY'S CONTROL OR DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER
FAULT ON THE PART OF A PARTY, ITS AGENTS, AFFILIATES, EMPLOYEES OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVES, AND
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH LIABILITY ARISES IN TORT, CONTRACT, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR
OTHERWISE. ANY LIABILITY INCURRED BY IPS IN CONNECTION WITH THISAGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO
THE CONTRACT VALUE AS SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT.
Exclusions: Warranty voided with use of imitation or non -genuine IPS replacement parts, un-authorized alterations,
abuse, vandalism, improper installation by customer, handling or general misuse to the equipment (hardware or
software), including attempted repairs that result in damage. Warranty specifically excludes any consummable items
such as paper, batteries, etc. Software warranty is void if usernames and/or passwords are shared with 3rd parties,
or allowance of 3rd party access to IPS software without IPS written consent Force Majeure: IPS shall not be liable
for any warranty provisions where such product failure is as a result of Acts of Nature (including fire, flood,
earthquake, storm, hurricane or other natural disaster), war, invasion, act of foreign enemies, hostilities (whether
war is declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, military or usurped power or confiscation,
terrorist activities, nationalization, government sanction, blockage, embargo, labor dispute, strike, lockout or
interruption or failure of electricity, internet services or cellular telecommunication failures caused by any of the
events or causes described above. IPS provides no warranty with respect to any 3^d parry hardware or software,
whether supplied in connection with this Agreement or otherwise.
Preventative Maintenance: The primary operational elements will be a working battery, card reader, coin
validator and printer (if applicable). All product surfaces should be kept clean with mild soap and water. No harsh
chemicals should be used on any plastic surfaces. The card reader heads should be cleaned with a cleaning card
every 1-2 months to ensure optimum performance. Cleaning cards may be purchased from IPS. Batteries should be
replaced when notified by the IPS Data Management System. At 6 month increments, the coin validator shall be
visually inspected for any damage or debris. Compressed air may be used to keep the card reader, coin acceptor or
printer (if applicable) clear of debris, every 6 months. Additional preventative maintenance shall be administered by
customer staff at such time as it is apparent to be necessary, even if it should occur on a more frequent basis than
described herein.
Procurement and Installation of Smart Parking Meters in
Downtown Areas and City Parking Lots
City Project No. 84410
LOCATION MAP
1164
Broadway On -Street Parking and City Parking Lots
;41 ' 4 <
_V.
9
Downtown Burlingame Ave City Parking Lots
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8f
MEETING DATE: April 6, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 6, 2020
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Tentative and Final Parcel Map
(PM 18-07), Lot Merger of Portions of Parcel C (Parcels 2 and 3) as Filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Mateo County in Book 13 of
Parcel Maps, Page 18 at 1095 Rollins Road
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the tentative and
final parcel map (PM 18-07) for lot merger of portions of Parcel C (Parcels 2 and 3) as filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Mateo County in Book 13 of Parcel Maps, Page 18, subject
to the following conditions:
1. A final parcel map for the lot combination must be filed by the applicant within the two-year
time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
2. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map.
3. The final map shall show the widths of the right-of-way for Rollins Road and Cadillac Way,
including the centerlines of right-of-way, bearings and distances of centerline, and any
existing monuments in the roadway.
4. Project shall dedicate a new public pedestrian access easement and abandon an existing
sanitary sewer easement.
5. All frontage sidewalks, driveways, and curb and gutter within the public right-of-way shall be
replaced with new improvements.
6. City of Burlingame approved streetlight improvements must be installed along the project
frontage.
7. No raised structures shall be constructed in the public right-of-way.
8. Permanent stormwater treatment measures and maintenance agreement are required.
Agreements shall be recorded with the County prior to building permit sign -off.
1
Tentative and Final Parcel Map (PM 18-07) at 1095 Rollins Road April 6, 2020
BACKGROUND
The project consists of construction of a new six -story, 150-unit residential apartments complex
development at 1095 Rollins Road. On February 3, 2020, the City Council held a public hearing
to rezone the property from C-1 to R-4 and consideration to amend the General Plan to designate
the property from shopping and commercial to high density residential. With no changes to the
proposed ordinance, the Council adopted the ordinance on February 18, 2020.
A 30 day waiting period has passed for the rezoning to take effect, and the vesting tentative and
final map can now be considered for approval by the City Council. Staff has reviewed the map
and recommends its approval subject to the above conditions.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
• February 3, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes
• February 18, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes
2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE
TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP (PM 18-07), LOT MERGER OF PORTIONS OF
PARCEL C (PARCELS 2 AND 3) AS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAN MATEO COUNTY IN BOOK 13 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 18 AT
1095 ROLLINS ROAD
The City Council of the City of Burlingame resolves as follows:
WHEREAS, City staff recommends City Council approve the parcel map with the following
conditions:
1. A final parcel map for the lot combination must be filed by the applicant within the two-
year time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision
Ordinance.
2. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map.
3. The final map shall show the widths of the right-of-way for Rollins Road and Cadillac Way,
including the centerlines of right-of-way, bearings and distances of centerline, and any
existing monuments in the roadway.
4. Project shall dedicate a new public pedestrian access easement and abandon an existing
sanitary sewer easement.
5. All frontage sidewalks, driveways, and curb and gutter within in the public right-of-way
shall be replaced with new improvements.
6. All approved streetlight improvements must be installed.
7. No raised structures shall be constructed in the public right-of-way.
8. Permanent stormwater treatment measures and maintenance agreement are required.
Agreements shall be recorded with the County prior to building permit sign -off.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED BY THE
COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS:
The Final Parcel Map (PM 18-07) with the conditions described above is approved.
2. Staff is directed to verify that all conditions of approval are met and arrange for the
recording of the tentative and final parcel map.
Emily Beach, 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 6tth day
of April, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NOES:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk
n�=
30.EVIgTKK13
1095 ROLLINS ROAD VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
ONE LOT SUBDIVISION
BURLINGAME, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
k:?
y ^ I
Y'
77
KEY MAP
BYMBOLB LEGEND
BiH96
�6
e
��nnNy r)iYe fr
XOIFB)
4
L
i
•
y
m
■
O
•
y
�
:low owx uy.. mMl
MPLIGV1f
OOA NiWl6
,p
w.A
MCNITECT
CMLENGINEER
1� tlmbl. Pf
.YmLILiMf. EIC
iP4E¢LO. G Wim
sq[T
Ag
tpxggq u wtt
RPOSE
BASIS OF BEHINDS
oF Wnl XZffiWR¢W d WY q 5nX N gLxE IN OF YVS Ai
PNYY 1 NSAY I �NX1Y.
BENCNM Mx
wr mi dql W. XAyn d BIX xdBl MXduY IX.,xdE oAlw d ,..
.dN°' I�iY ally. Yid a�xY"Mn rpa Is
Im: m v 'd'i and IIY mA�itex OFFYY"yl eA'm��
xdrr.BlEv � d BX d.wr Y,E. B�LYA1�-.d"`LEET.
unux NO*B:
u�nnuLT°'aa m
�_ddWury��IK YIY R 9ANEwE OANIY 6 XY YAl¢1 SA1E d PxiOdA
PaulA4'�`w. °dre°°A ;evnwt°�AAm v.� Y wt of°Iw°xAT o-xl'�...� Y.w wy°1N°w
v.+ wr m�m"IVBOOfr°na Pwr'� u�amP o4sw luim aan'Arz a
errvrA d.uv q nn x eod d d PxrL Y.Px PX� r
u3 uxu� Ld>e drEcmX
OON UCn NHOURS
man rc."r°`r.Awe XOYIWar�d. � I.W.ItY � dT.0
woi semi Iv'�w a�eMm mAUX'1Li.m am.iL u an m..aWan. Urdu.
ENGINEERSSTATEMEM
THE
HANOVER
COMPANY
COMPANY
mwBKF
ioo. --
a
Q
J
pwu
Q U i
p � o
QQz
a�
Z
Nwm
> o
JF$
0
IrZ;
Nw
a
019
x
F
w
w
TITLE SHEET
AS&GMn
.9 umwL. Pc qrz
C1.01
B�=
ss
— W Sp19
YP1 _ v
WI
...� —
mns+xo5 mtxr
r )e
Coe
ss 4 °�' a .^ A x F .R#� - ", _—�4N1 I 4s ! — - I • .�i .w/(__ _ b \p
s W i.u. wm...el L_ jfn Irtx
nu,
� O��-
.s
'A DEBION9IEDNR ^
FA9ENTFOR
�x&e Yu' pK g BEME�URORlEXX18
EKNO.9 (xX 68942 OR) A
EXNO10
mµ0 /
Y 59d5 FG4OFORl a—n �f x.A
YFYxY II11A1i 11)% u8E-,)YM1 Pi�.
xk` sW ... �.� t X a ;�,a .,�,•,s y+RYamxn E
°m umo�m
..Ja
w.W=
e
gor.sumv wrtwl MA/w.. .tII5Z0
�iut NWffM RMn[)�uMn�x�C°M n
u�M 0.xlc Nnm u'° x[[ptµ
A InfIFEo a1(,A 19.) .s
w¢^nFlYlNngltl Y9.eH° M4 4 K0.W,
0.fPEZ4 Y'0'µ4.IFlEP �41Y, .s9xT°' Yx.
`e'wrvc S i" e
Y/ s Y'•
E e i �.✓
vY �.. .Tp Dx,AvevJs �j1I —
E �6'Frxc Eft
:�����..
ryp mn.,no x M
M�,�
a a
Ya mvn nxax
x.e„rx
ERmxs°"s��
rYmxm NYm x,
4�m %eW�e»)...Y m. xsmix�°nW'�"m.r
Ponotx:w.��
, nY na xY ax wwtwm. m,R°.
_anrYYnN��sas/fxxRwrw
W xr.�xxx
wnxxxrs W WRtwt.xr.
, M owrxl
.xmms�rswrs W .w� Nx Ear) M
.:`wM.x.°..mmefwMrxNox,
-
w.
xrwi
wv K Rlx?wEU x�M` P.¢ ].N,t
rtby wvnYNs Nx EA4Ldt(s) swl.em x M
; cmwWW 1.. .".mx
ZRs/exIMMSG)w ]OSM 66rFN RWOi
porrwn[o.maxcxriueaxy
.Y¢xuf rtmRn Nwx)x.
xvinPeA srws/µsm.ptq
rvoi.wam wrrw
_
I�xr°�SUPcwrrc4
� fj [l4n) Y� M P.glts Ny
i
uMN1YA
Yin n zy W uRx
x rxm rt: wn[v n-MgYxC.. mq.MN
pR4®w R)sOuo OW�.eiA ien°� x�T Y,Q
.¢ ,M we[s/.,MxM� N] An)u R 6iON
°or.rumwRryrr.0
NrtGR Pays s)
Nq5) Iq 1911
°`nn�owmi-i-ixix 91uNiV ¢!4 40�Amp�
wmm
• •
Nr.Ms 4M nK sAIK R
4IDEVR WgUXR
.Ywu¢mnNry
Pci.x.vev wnsN
�0Y1rN94u)u44xM
W V0. xC ss wxrtL Oluc. �RWtlt N
Ex^ Rw9xsnT r ¢4MF
Ix Nn r�xlt0.,ls Y ours w.a� wn x
MYa p; P ssaMs o t
fm rw aunoau¢ W
fuRcrs wainn Ymw W� wM Ona wagM
°uf.°.".wrmi
monw
n 160MA M wRun
®IX
M
THE
HANOVER
COMPANY
COMPANY
OBkF
1W'""
,..r. x"Md
C2.01
Az
wv -vaa
i�ft
DE OunONNOTES
D. a
n mm.Niu[4�m m Min PhO IF.
I
I
I
I �
I /
DENWDON LEGEND:
P7,1
® �S �raM:uw's um rnw wnm
I
/
I
/I
T�
GIVE®c Xv' td
la ml
THE
HANOVER
COMPANY
SIBKF
ioo, a�
.N�
EL
Q
F
J
ow.
40 a
o o e
a<z
IL
Z wm
_>o
Jp<
J rc
K Z i
Nw
m
0 E9 .
— Z
F
ul
w
>
DEMOLITION
PLAN
C2.02
xl
. . . . . . . . . . ..
.............
..........
gLa —1 T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....
To w E—D
............................. .................................
............
............................ 4 ......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... : : : : : ...
. . . . . . .... . . . . . .
r
rII 1-5�11
GP zc K�
TilE
I [ANOVER
COMPANY
MRIBU
loo.
PLAN
C2.03
CITY O
BURLINGAME
$AarEo � xE �
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting on February 3, 2020
STUDY SESSION
a. DISCUSSION OF A POSSIBLE LOCAL MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE
Mayor Beach thanked everyone for coming to the study session. She asked the Council if they had any
questions for staff.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked what type of outreach the staff did for the businesses in Burlingame.
City Manager Goldman stated that the Economic Development Specialist sent an email to those on the
Economic Development Subcommittee agenda list and to the individuals that submitted their emails at the
Burlingame Talks Shop event. Additionally, notice was put in the enews and on Nextdoor. She noted that
she believed that Mayor Beach reached out to members of the business community.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that Council received an email from Ken Putnam concerning the
minimum wage discussion and asked if any other businesses had reached out to the City. City Manager
Goldman stated that she wasn't aware of any other emails.
Mayor Beach stated that she had reached out to several businesses in Burlingame and could share the list
with her colleagues.
Councilmember Colson asked if Mayor Beach had collected data from the businesses. Mayor Beach
explained that her outreach included extensive conversations with the businesses and that she invited
everyone to be a part of the study session.
Councilmember Colson asked if the staff surveyed the local businesses. City Manager Goldman replied in
the negative.
Mayor Beach opened the study session up for public comment.
Unite Here 2 representative Cynthia Gomez thanked the Council for having the study session and urged the
Council to raise the minimum wage. She discussed related issues including irregular scheduling,
unmanageable workloads, and limited sick days that Council could regulate.
Jose Esquiuel stated that he had worked at the Marriot for three years and had a second job at the Convention
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
Center in San Francisco. He urged the Council to raise the minimum wage and asked them to look into
regulating irregular work hours.
Manuel Choy stated that he has worked for the Marriot for 22 years. He urged the Council to raise the
minimum wage because the current rate is not enough to live on.
Mike Dunham stated that he learned that a community can support a local minimum wage that is equal to
50% of the local median income. He noted that per his calculations, the City could support a $24 minimum
wage, and therefore $15 was more than doable.
Liz Scully stated that she was a childcare provider and that an increase in the minimum wage would
negatively affect her childcare business.
Elana Lieberman urged the Council to raise the minimum wage and stated that it was necessary to assist
those facing rent increases.
Cynthia Cornell urged the Council to increase the minimum wage. She stated that the increase was needed
as a result of rental increases and the high cost of living.
San Mateo County Central Labor Council representative Erin Chavez urged the Council to raise the
minimum wage to $15 an hour by July 1, 2020, with annual CPI increases beginning in 2021. Additionally,
she asked that the ordinance include strong enforcement and education outreach.
San Mateo County Central Labor Council representative Julie Lims urged the Council to raise the minimum
wage to $15 an hour by July 1, 2020, with annual CPI increases, strong enforcement language, strict
penalties, and a robust public information campaign.
Senior Community Health Planner Belen Seara stated that access to adequate income is one of the most
important predicters of health. Ms. Seara encouraged the Council to increase the minimum wage.
Laura Hinz voiced her surprise that anyone would pay under $15 an hour. She noted that she believed this
was an ethical matter.
Burlingame United Methodist Church Pastor Holly Hillman discussed the people that come to the church to
avail themselves of supplemental food. She urged the Council to increase the minimum wage.
Alice Larios voiced her support for increasing the minimum wage to $15.
Kent Lauder discussed the importance of unions and urged the Council to increase the minimum wage.
Mayor Beach closed public comments.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he understood the hardship on small businesses when the minimum
wage is increased. However, he noted that he couldn't in good conscience leave the minimum wage where it
2
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
is in Burlingame. He stated that the minimum wage is a way of ensuring people have livable wages. He
explained that he believed there should be a transition period, and that the new minimum wage should start
January 2021.
Mayor Beach stated that she scheduled the study session because she thought it was an important
conversation for the City to have. She discussed how the City has been a leader in terms of creating market
rate and affordable housing. She noted that while creating housing is an important piece of the puzzle, there
is also a need to pay individuals livable wages.
Mayor Beach acknowledged that it is hard to run a business in Burlingame, especially restaurants. However,
she noted that it is even harder to be a low wage worker. She stated that this issue came to her attention after
studying the school district demographics. She explained that 12.3% of Burlingame school students are on
free or reduced lunch. To qualify for free lunch, a family of four is earning no more than $33,475 a year; for
a reduced lunch, the family of four is earning no more than $47,638.
Mayor Beach stated that a few years ago, she spoke with an individual in Burlingame that was working for a
major national company and was earning $13 an hour. She stated that the individual told her that he hoped
he could get a transfer to the company's San Francisco Airport location because he would earn $17.66 an
hour there.
Mayor Beach discussed the outreach that she conducted with coffee shops, restaurants, and retailers in
Burlingame. She stated that many of them are already paying $15 an hour. She noted that nearly 60% of the
County is on an accelerated path to $15 an hour. She explained that San Mateo hired an expert from the
Northern California Small Business Development Center to assist restaurants in managing the minimum
wage increase. She stated that she would like Burlingame to do something similar.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was in favor of studying this issue further. He noted that he did believe
that increasing the minimum wage in one fell swoop would be difficult for a lot of businesses. He suggested
phasing in the increase so that businesses could adjust to the new reality. He asked that staff review potential
exclusions for family members and solutions for sales positions that are commission -based.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran discussed an article that she read in the Mercury that stated that when
Oakland raised their minimum wage, the majority of issues were in the childcare industry. She explained the
article stated that low income individuals were unable to afford childcare as a result of the minimum wage
increase. She asked for data on the childcare industry.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she talked with the restaurants in Burlingame and overall they
were okay with the increase but wanted a transition period. She noted that they did say that the increases
would be passed along to the customers. She asked that staff provide information about whether other cities
with $15 an hour have had issues with businesses leaving and whether staff has been made part-time.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that staff would need to conduct extensive public education. She asked
if the City would be implementing a penalty on businesses that don't increase their wages within a specified
time period. City Attorney Kane stated that this is a policy decision for Council.
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
City Manager Goldman noted that Council would need to determine whether enforcement was the
responsibility of staff or whether the City would hire outside management.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the cities that implemented their own minimum wage laws
incorporated any exemptions for small businesses. City Manager Goldman stated that some of the cities had
transition periods that included different acceleration paths to $15 an hour for nonprofit versus for -profit
businesses.
Councilmember Colson stated that if you looked at the Economic Policy Institute's family budget calculator,
to live in San Mateo County requires earning $13,024 a month. She noted that if you put that into an hourly
rate, it's almost $80 an hour. She stated that small businesses would bear the brunt of increasing the
minimum wage.
Councilmember Colson talked about enforcement and the amount of staff time it would take. She asked that
staff review the possibility of aiding childcare facilities. She noted that the staff report discussed how an
increasing minimum wage would increase the costs of the recreation programs. She explained that many
families used the recreation programs for daycare. Therefore, she asked that staff not increase the costs and
instead increase the General Fund support for these programs.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked staff to send Council information about how San Mateo enacted their
minimum wage. He noted that the State would be increasing minimum wage to $15 an hour on January 1,
2022, for large employers. Therefore, he stated that Burlingame should enact their increase prior to the
State's for it to be effective.
Mayor Beach stated that she agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg about staying ahead of the State.
City Manager Goldman stated that Council expressed an interest in following the San Mateo model of
escalating to $15 minimum wage with annual increase of CPI at no limit. She noted that other jurisdictions
have limited the CPI increase to 3% or 3.5%. She stated that Council also expressed an interest in
contracting out enforcement.
Mayor Beach discussed Redwood City's ordinance and asked that staff review it. City Manager Goldman
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson asked that staff review potential exemptions for family members. City Manager
Goldman replied in the affirmative.
4
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
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 7:12 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Sandra Lang.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Beach reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. AYSO TEAMS RECOGNITION
Mayor Beach stated that any child that wants to play soccer between the ages of 3 and 18 can be a part of
AYSO. She noted that in Burlingame, the league is 100% volunteer run.
AYSO Commissioner Jackie Haggerty recognized the U14 girl strikers. She stated that this team won the
Burlingame Cup, and then qualified for the Area Tournament and Section Tournament. She noted that the
Section Tournament included teams from Alaska and Nevada. She thanked the players and their parents for
their hard work this past season.
Next, Ms. Haggerty recognized the U12 "Spicy Blueberries" girls team. She stated that this team won the
Burlingame Cup, Area Tournament, and the Section Tournament. She noted that in March, they will go to
Arizona to continue their tournament play. She thanked the players and their parents for their hard work this
past season.
Ms. Haggerty thanked the City, Parks and Recreation Department, and the AYSO volunteers for their
support this past year.
Councilmember Colson thanked Coach Ardito for volunteering at AYSO and working as a Parks and
Recreation Commissioner.
5
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
Councilmember Ortiz discussed his time coaching at AYSO and congratulated the teams on their wins!
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Beach asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent
Calendar. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran pulled item 8g and Councilmember Brownrigg pulled item 8d.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8e, 8f and 8h; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 21, 2020
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve of the City Council Meeting Minutes for January 21,
2020.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 25, 2020
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve of the City Council Meeting Minutes for January 25,
2020.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING CUP TIMELINES FOR 778 BURLWAY
DURING EVALUATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 008-2020.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ICF IN THE AMOUNT OF
$124,998.60 TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SEVEN -STORY MIXED -USE BUILDING 1766
EL CAMINO REAL
Councilmember Brownrigg stated the project at 1766 El Camino Real would be four stories of office space
and two stories of residential. He explained that he asked the developer about the ratio and was informed
that this ratio was more financially beneficial.
Councilmember Brownrigg explained that the City was currently undertaking a review of its commercial
impact fees with 21 Elements. He voiced his support for this review and stated that he wanted to see the
ratio flip for developers so that it was more attractive to build residential versus commercial.
Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
6
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 009-2020; seconded by
Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH ECS IMAGING, INC. FOR A THREE
YEAR EXTENSION
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 010-2020.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH BAY AREA GEOTECHNICAL GROUP FOR GEOTECHNICAL
AND SPECIAL INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
COMMUNITY CENTER FOR $327,250, CITY PROJECT NUMBER 83240
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 011-2020.
g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF THE FY
2019/20 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE CITY'S FLEET SYSTEM IN THE
AMOUNT OF $163,189
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked what the City's criteria was for determining that a vehicle had reached
the end of its useful life. DPW Murtuza stated that it varies across the different departments. He noted that
for Police it is 80,000 miles, and for Public Works it is about ten years.
Councilmember Colson noted that two of the vehicles being purchased were hybrids. She thanked staff for
considering EV options.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked that staff consider utilizing www.driveevfleets.org in the future when
purchasing electric vehicles. He explained that it was a resource offered by the Climate Mayors' group.
Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 012-2020; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR THE PRELIMINARY
ENGINEERING DESIGN OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY DIGESTER
EQUIPMENT BUILDING AND DIGESTER NUMBER 2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $135,895
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 013-2020.
7
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING
PROPERTY FROM C-1 TO R-4 AND CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATE PROPERTY FROM SHOPPING AND COMMERCIAL TO
HIGH DESNITY RESIDENTIAL; A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA);
DESIGN REVIEW; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND DENSITY BONUS (WITH
REQUEST FOR WAIVER FROM R-4 FRONT/REAR SETBACKS) FOR A NEW SIX -
STORY, 150-UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1095
ROLLINS ROAD (FATTORIA E MARE SITE)
Mayor Beach asked her colleagues about any ex-parte communications they had on the 1095 Rollins Road
project. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran and Mayor Beach stated that they spoke with the developers.
Councilmember Colson noted that she spoke with the development team and some of the neighbors.
CDD Gardiner reviewed the proposed project. He stated that the application was to construct a 150-unit
apartment development at 1095 Rollins Road. Ten percent of the units (15 units) would be offered at below
market rate to moderate income households for 30 years (this number was later corrected to SS years). He
explained that because the project included 10% below market rate units, the development was entitled to a
density bonus. The State's density bonus entitled the project to a reduction in parking requirement, as well
as one concession and a waiver to the development standards. He stated that the project was utilizing the
concession for relief of the parking standards by proposing the use of required parking in the form of
stackers and tandem spaces. Additionally, the project was requesting a waiver to the development standards
for lot coverage.
CDD Gardiner stated that the project proposes merging two parcels. He explained that the two existing
parcels are currently zoned C-1, with a prior General Plan designation of Shopping and Commercial.
Therefore, the application includes a request for a General Plan Amendment and rezoning to change the site
to a high -density residential land use designation with R-4 zoning. He noted that pursuant to R-4 zoning, the
project is requesting variances to the required front and rear setbacks.
CDD Gardiner explained that the application was submitted prior to the City updating the General Plan. He
stated that the application is requesting a designation to the prior high -density land use in the previous
General Plan. He noted that these are the same land use and zoning designations as the North Park
Apartments and Summerhill's Anson project.
CDD Gardiner stated that environmental review was conducted on the project pursuant to CEQA. The
review was an initial study and mitigated negative declaration. He stated that it was determined that any
potential environmental impacts could be mitigated so that they would not be significant.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the below market rate units would be spread across the different sized units.
CDD Gardiner replied that the City has a provision that requires the units need to be representative of the
total mix of the building.
8
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
Councilmember Ortiz asked about visitor parking. CDD Gardiner replied that the applicant has a solution to
this issue and that it was part of their presentation.
Councilmember Colson stated that the below market rate units would be in place for 30 years. CDD
Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson stated that she has heard that there is an indication that ABAG won't be giving cities
RHNA credit for below market rate units that are for less than 55 years. She stated that would like the
applicant to explain their decision to maintain the below market rate units for 30 years and not 55 year.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the Summerhill project was included in the traffic study. CDD
Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brownrigg concurred with Councilmember Colson that the units should be kept affordable
for 55 years, not 30 years.
City Attorney Kane noted that the ordinance as drafted has a non -substantive error that would be corrected
prior to being brought back for adoption. She explained that the proposed ordinance stated that if adopted, it
would be effective 60 days after passage, but it was really 30 days after.
Mayor Beach stated that the below market rate units would be for moderate income. She asked if this was
120% AMI and what the corresponding dollar amount was. CDD Gardiner stated that moderate is 80% to
120% AMI and that he would have to review the numbers.
City Attorney noted that the report does include a condition of 10% affordable units for 55 years. Therefore,
she stated that she believed the 30 years was just an error.
Mayor Beach asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer
read the title.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the proposed
ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Beach opened the public hearing.
Hanover Company representative Scott Youdall stated that it is his understanding that the below market rate
units would be for 55 years.
Mr. Youdall stated that the project consists of 150-residential units with the following breakdown:
• 35 studios
• 74 one bedrooms
• 38 two bedrooms
• 3 three bedrooms
9
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
He noted that there will be 15 below market rate units. He stated that there will be 195 parking spaces; 175
will be in stackers, 14 will be standard, and six will be tandem.
BDE Architecture's Johnathan Ennis displayed a site plan for the project. He stated that in the front of the
building, there are stoop units that activate the ground floor and allow for pedestrians to not be faced with a
parking garage. He showed the different levels of the project.
Mr. Ennis discussed the materials that would be used on the outside of the building including a smooth
cement plaster, panelized fiber cement, wood panels, and stone veneer at the base of the building. He noted
that there are large light -giving vinyl windows and custom railings. He discussed the street trees along the
building.
Mr. Ennis displayed the landscape plan for the project and the fire department pull -in area. He depicted the
various outdoor areas that would be open to the residents of the building including grills, firepits, and tv
seating areas.
Mr. Youdall discussed Council's question about guest parking. He noted that under the City's municipal
code, there is no requirement for guest parking. He stated that the project includes 195 spaces, which is 45
more spaces than units. He stated that they can create guest parking spaces in any of the unassigned spaces
within the building. He explained how this would be utilized with the stackers.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that the project includes a truck/moving van location to the side of the
complex. She asked where UPS, Amazon, and other delivery services would park. Mr. Youdall stated that
they had created a white loading zone for deliveries in the front of the complex by the package room.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if there is a backup generator for the parking garage. Mr. Youdall
replied in the affirmative. He stated that there are several redundancies in CityLift (the company making the
stackers) that will ensure access.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if Mr. Youdall had determined a street tree for the project. Mr. Youdall
stated that he worked with the City Arborist and determined that they would use a Sycamore species that
would mirror the Summerhill project.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if they had brought samples of the materials that would be used on the
building. Mr. Ennis went through the different types of materials that would be used on the outside of the
building. He noted that fiber cement material lasts approximately 30 years and is very durable.
Mr. Youdall showed pictures of the projects that they had completed in Oakland: Hanover Broadway and
Hanover Northgate.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the traffic impact of the project.
CDD Gardiner stated that the traffic study was done by W-Trans, but Andrew Metzger from Circlepoint, the
City's environmental consultant for the project, could address the Council's questions.
10
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
Mr. Metzger stated that when conducting a traffic study, they review the trip generation that the proposed
project would create against the trips generated from the current use. Additionally, they review consistency
with transportation plans and level of service impacts at nearby intersections, provide a vehicle miles
traveled analysis, and review potential traffic hazards as a result of a project's design features.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that a few Planning Commissioners and residents believe that this
neighborhood is already dealing with traffic issues and that this project would only make it worse. Mr.
Metzger stated that they reviewed the estimated number of current trips for the parcel's use (restaurant)
versus the estimated number of trips caused by the project. He explained that they found the numbers
comparable. He stated that in fact the residential use was estimated to create fewer daily trips.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the traffic assumptions were made with the Summerhill project
included. Mr. Metzger replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that restaurant traffic usually occurs within a three-hour period whereas
residential traffic could vary throughout the day. Mr. Metzger replied in the affirmative and noted that they
focused on traffic during peak hours.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if grade separation would alleviate traffic. Mr. Metzger replied in the
affirmative.
Mayor Beach stated that the Council is hopeful that grade separation will improve traffic flow. She asked if
the traffic study took into consideration the re -opening of the Broadway Caltrain station. Mr. Metzger
replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Beach asked about who the development was being geared towards. She asked if the development
was being marketed towards individuals who utilize public transportation versus owning a car. Mr. Youdall
stated that the developers were attracted to the site because of its proximity to the Caltrain station. He noted
that the two projects in Oakland are located a seven to ten-minute walk to the 19th Street BART station. He
added that the residents leasing in Oakland are coming without a car. He stated that he doesn't see multiple
car ownership in this development. He discussed the requirements under the State's density bonus for
parking spaces.
Mr. Youdall stated that the project meets the parking requirement under the State Density Bonus. He
explained that this is one space per studios and two spaces per two bedrooms.
CDD Gardiner stated that the State's density bonus parking ratios are less than the Citywide parking standard
but greater than the City's transit -oriented parking standard, which applies to downtown Burlingame and
North Rollins mixed use.
Councilmember Colson asked if the development would include green infrastructure. Mr. Youdall replied in
the affirmative. He explained that the developers are aiming for a high silver greenpoint certification. He
discussed the appliances, finishes, location, and EV chargers that are helping them reach this goal.
11
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the EV chargers are incorporated into the parking stackers. Mr.
Youdall replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the developer sees an increase in electric vehicles, could they add
chargers. Mr. Youdall stated that they are pre -wiring to allow for future chargers.
Councilmember Colson asked about the history of the original project and where it was scaled down. Mr.
Youdall stated that R-4 zoning allows 35 feet by right and 75 feet with a conditional use permit. He
explained that by the time they went to Planning Commission, it had already been scaled down. He stated
through feedback they ended up with six stories, with five -story elements at the edges to break down the
massing and articulation of the building.
A resident on Toyon Drive discussed the traffic that already existed in this neighborhood and the amount of
street parking. She stated that it would only increase as a result of the Summerhill project and this proposed
project. Additionally, she noted that she had not been noticed about this proposed project.
Mayor Beach discussed the extensive public outreach that was done to update the General Plan. She stated
that the plan accommodated significant housing growth particularly around public transportation. She asked
about the noticing requirement for specific projects. CDD Gardiner stated that for larger projects, the
notification requirement is 500 feet.
A resident from Winchester Drive discussed her discontent with the project and discussed the increase in
traffic the project would cause.
Burlingame resident Andrew Malarky questioned the noticing requirement for projects of this size. He
discussed the traffic issues that already exist in the neighborhood.
Mayor Beach closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the Council has committed to creating housing in Burlingame while also
protecting neighborhoods. He noted that the proposed location is close to the freeway and public
transportation, and there are no single family houses in the area. He stated that anywhere the City adds
housing, there will be an impact. Therefore, while he sees an impact, he believes this is the kind of impact
the City needs to live with in order to add housing.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that over the past three years, the community has discussed
affordability and housing. She noted that the State is pressuring cities to add housing. Therefore, unless the
City proves it is providing housing, it will be hard to make arguments against the State forcing the City's
hand. She stated that she understood the residents' concerns, but it is important that the City maintains
control over how and where housing is added.
Councilmember Brownrigg voiced concern for the residents that didn't feel they knew of the development.
He discussed the Council's sensitivity to maintaining single-family home neighborhoods. He explained that
12
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
the Council worked with Summerhill to phase down the size of the Anson project along the edges of
neighborhoods.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the area of the project is an impacted area for traffic. He explained
that the Council recently reviewed the traffic in Lyon Hoag and suggested that this neighborhood be next.
He added that the neighborhood could get in contact with the City about the parking permit program.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated he liked the 22-foot setback from the street and thought the street trees
would soften the building.
Councilmember Colson stated that this type of housing would allow for the younger generations to move
back to Burlingame. She stated that the younger generations aren't using cars and want to live closer to
where they work.
Councilmember Colson stated that this project is an innovative solution to an odd site. She noted that the
developers had done a great job with the amenities and design.
Councilmember Colson discussed the Governor's initiative to add 3.5 million homes to California, a 20%
increase in housing. She explained that Burlingame has about 12,000 units of housing; a 20% increase
would be 2,500 units. She noted that the development will assist the City in reaching its RHNA number.
Councilmember Colson discussed State legislation to create housing and how local control would be lost.
She noted that the State is considering holding back transit funds from jurisdictions that don't add housing.
Mayor Beach stated that the Council is trying to thoughtfully add housing. She explained that she believed
the project was attractive. She also discussed how people are moving towards a carless life and stated that
the data shows that many people want to live near transit so that they don't have to have a car.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt the CEQA Resolution Number 015-2020; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 014-2020 and Resolution Number 016-
2020; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Beach directed staff to bring back the ordinance for adoption and asked the City Clerk to publish
notice.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that be believed the public noticing requirement for large projects should
be extended to 1000 feet.
Councilmember Colson asked that staff announce major projects in the e-newsletter.
Mayor Beach stated that the City Manager is working on an initiative to provide more information on the
main page of the City's website.
13
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
10. STAFF REPORTS
a. CONSIDERATIONOF A COUNCIL POLICY GOVERNING USE OF ELECTRONIC
DEVICES DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS
City Attorney Kane stated that recently, a Commissioner asked staff if she could access her agenda packet
from her tablet rather than having a printed copy. She explained that the City doesn't currently have a policy
regarding the use of electronic devices by decisionmakers (Council and Commissions) during public
meetings.
City Attorney Kane stated that the key issue is that the public's business needs to happen in the public.
Therefore, the concern is that if during a public meeting a decisionmaker is reviewing something on their
electronic device that influences their decision, the public has a right to know what they were reviewing.
City Attorney Kane stated that the policy states that the use of personal electronic devices is allowed, but if
the decisionmakers receive or review information outside the agenda packet during the meeting, it must be
disclosed and entered into the public record.
City Attorney Kane stated that the Council could consider having the City purchase electronic devices, such
as a tablet, for the Council and Commissioners. She explained that several cities do this and load the agenda
packets onto the devices. She noted that by utilizing a government issued device, the City would be able to
track what was accessed during the meeting. Additionally, she stated that it would avoid the situation where
a decisionmaker has to grant access to their personal device.
Councilmember Colson discussed her usage of electronic devices at various meetings. She noted that for
traveling, she likes to access her agenda packet via her tablet but prefers the hard copy. She added that
during meetings, she uses her device to do some quick calculations.
City Attorney Kane explained that in the situation where the Councilmember is utilizing their phone during a
meeting to do calculations, the Councilmember could state on the record that they are calculating the
number. This would allow the public to know what is being done.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she liked to utilize the hard copy. She noted that this idea was
previously discussed under Mayor Nagel. She stated that she was open to the discussion of government -
issued tablets being given to the Council and Commissions. She noted that she thinks that the usage of a
device on the dais creates a perception that the Council is not paying attention.
Mayor Beach discussed her tablet that she utilizes to write notes. She noted that previously she had used
legal pads. She asked if this would be a concern.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she doesn't have an issue with that as Mayor Beach isn't utilizing
the search engine.
14
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he has used his personal device to do calculations and review maps. He
noted that during the public hearing, he looked up the different AMI levels. He stated that for him it is
valuable to utilize electronic devices. He noted his support for City -issued devices.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he utilizes electronic devices at meetings in the same fashion as his
colleagues for calculations, looking up a website address, and reviewing maps. He noted that for SBWMA,
he accesses his agenda packet via his tablet.
Mayor Beach discussed the perception issue. She noted that the public may think that they are receiving
texts or emails during the meeting that influence their decision.
City Attorney Kane agreed with Mayor Beach. She noted that she drafted the policy to specify that the
decisionmakers need to disclose information that is relevant to the agenda item. Therefore, this wouldn't
include when your child texts you a question during the meeting and other such situations.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the appearance issue would be answered by having a dedicated City -issued
device. City Attorney Kane stated that it would answer the perception issue, and all searches during the
meeting would be logged for public transparency.
Councilmember Colson asked if the Council could get the hard copy and the device. City Attorney Kane
replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 017-2020 and to explore the cost of
obtaining electronic devices for Council and Commissions; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion
passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCMENTS
a. COUNCILMEMBER COLSON'S COMMITTEE REPORT
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Brownrigg asked to agendize a discussion of San Mateo's Peninsula Interchange project.
City Manager Goldman noted that San Mateo would be coming to Council to present the project in the near
future.
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.burlin-a�g.
15
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Beach adjourned meeting at 9:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
16
Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020
Approved Minutes
CITY O
BURLINGAME
� o mom
4
�°AwrEo �uuc °�
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on February 18, 2020
STUDY SESSION
a. DISCUSSION OF BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE REACH
CODES
Sustainability Coordinator Sigalle Michael began her presentation by highlighting two recent articles in the
New York Times. One discussed a Washington city's decision to ban natural gas in existing homes, and the
other highlighted new all -electric ADOBE building in Silicon Valley.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that in 2010, the City passed a reach code. She noted that this was
prior to the State's adoption of CALGreen. She explained that the City's 2010 reach code went beyond the
State's building code at the time by requiring buildings to be 15% more efficient and implementing a
checklist. She stated that after the passage of the City's reach code, the State adopted CALGreen, which
surpassed the City's requirements. Therefore, she noted that a similar story could now happen with the City
reaching beyond the State's requirements until the State surpasses the City's reach code.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that at the last study session, Council voiced three concerns:
1. Council didn't want to risk losing new housing units as a result of the reach codes.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that staff held two stakeholder meetings with developers.
At the meetings, a developer from each sector attended (single family, multi -family, and
commercial). She reviewed some of the comments that staff heard from developers including:
• all -electric over 25,000 square feet could be challenging
• they are cautious about committing to EV charging technology while the technology is still
evolving
• automated mechanical garages can't install EV chargers
• need to be competitive with development in neighboring cities
• residents want to cook with natural gas
2. Council asked if the electric load can handle the reach codes.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that she learned from Peninsula Clean Energy ("PCE") that
this shouldn't be a problem.
3. Council asked if all -electric is cost effective.
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that to enact a reach code, the City must prove cost-
effectiveness to the California Energy Commission. She stated numerous cities have proved this
already.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael noted that she also presented options to the Citizens Environmental
Council ("CEC") and received a clear message: Do more quicker.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael discussed what other cities have done. She noted that Morgan Hill
enacted a natural gas ban. She stated that Cupertino, Brisbane, Mountain View, Pacifica, Palo Alto, San
Jose, and San Mateo County have all adopted the Menlo Park approach, which is for all -electric with limited
gas use.
Next, Sustainability Coordinator Michael reviewed staff s proposal for single-family homes and townhouses,
multi -family buildings, and commercial buildings. She noted that staff s proposals take into consideration
comments from the Council, developers, environmental advocates, and PCE. Staff s proposals for each
building type included requirements for all -electric, solar, and EV infrastructure.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael reviewed staff s proposal for single-family homes and townhouses. She
stated that staff is proposing requiring new buildings to be all -electric, with a natural gas exception for
cooking with prewiring. She noted that other cities have enacted a natural gas exception for cooking.
However, a lot of the benefit in all -electric is avoiding the natural gas hook up. She stated that State
legislation now requires solar on new single-family homes. She added that for EV infrastructure, staff is
proposing requiring one level 2 and one standard outlet. She noted that these proposals were vetted through
the developers and that the developers felt that the proposal was acceptable.
Next, Sustainability Coordinator Michael reviewed staff s proposal for multi -family buildings. She stated
that staff is proposing all -electric with a natural gas exception for cooking with prewiring. She noted that
Menlo Park as well as other cities don't allow natural gas for cooking in multi -family buildings. However,
the developers made it clear to staff that they want to stay competitive with neighboring cities and therefore
want to keep natural gas for cooking. She stated that staff also heard that it could be difficult to require
electric water heating, and therefore, if the developer can show it is infeasible, the City could provide an
exemption. She noted that staff proposes following the PCE model for solar, which requires a minimum 3kw
system with exemptions for limited solar zones. She explained that for EV infrastructure, staff worked
closely with the developers to ensure that the requirement was obtainable. Therefore, staff is suggesting that
10% of units, not parking spaces, have level 2, and 90% have standard outlets. She noted that for EV
infrastructure on multi -family buildings, staff created an exemption if the developer can show that the
infrastructure would exceed $4,500 a parking space.
Councilmember Colson stated that what she heard was that it wasn't just the cost but also the space
requirement for EV-enabled parking spaces. Sustainability Coordinator Michael noted that this was
discussed in the staff report. She explained that PCE took out any space requirements, and therefore it is
only the regular stall requirements.
2
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
Councilmember Colson stated that what she heard from developers is that the EV infrastructure proposal
could require the need for additional transformers. She explained that a transformer could take up five to six
parking spaces. Therefore, if the developer needed to decrease the number of parking spaces, they could lose
some units, and the project wouldn't pencil out.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if he was correct that because the water table is shallow in parts of Burlingame,
the transformers couldn't be underground, and therefore they would need to be at ground level.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael replied in the affirmative and noted that this was part of the reason for
the exemption. She added that she would have further discussions with developers about transformers and
their concerns. She noted that the developers she spoke with were comfortable with this exemption strategy.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked how staff came to $4500 per parking space for an exemption. PCE
Director of Energy Programs Rafael Reyes stated that the $4500 price tag is an extrapolation from the
CALGreen. He added that PCE vetted the EV infrastructure proposal and $4500 price tag with developers
and that the developers felt comfortable with the number.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if PCE considered if the price tag for the exemption should vary
depending on the size of the project. Mr. Reyes stated that they had not looked at this possibility but had
conducted a thorough cost-effectiveness study and felt comfortable with the number.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that whatever constraints people think currently exist for EV infrastructure
will be moot in five to ten years. He explained that he believed there will be so many electric vehicles that
buildings will have to be retrofitted to accommodate them. Additionally, he stated that buildings would need
more level 2 chargers. He noted that level 1 chargers are not powerful enough to charge a vehicle for a full
day's use. Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that they heard from developers that because
technology is evolving, they shouldn't fully commit to either level. Mr. Reyes added that PCE studied the
commute patterns in the County, and the average commute range is under 30 miles, which could be
accommodated by a level 1 charger. He stated that they estimate that 60% of EV drivers are using level 1 in
their homes.
Next, Sustainability Coordinator Michael reviewed staff s proposal for commercial buildings. She stated
that staff is proposing all -electric, with a natural gas exception for cooking in restaurants with prewiring.
She discussed exempting life sciences buildings and buildings over 100,000 square feet from the all -electric
requirement. She stated that commercial buildings would be required to have a minimum 3kw system for
solar with exemptions for limited solar zones. She explained that for EV infrastructure, staff was proposing
that 10% of parking would have level 2 charging, 10% standard outlet, and one fast charger for buildings
with more than 100 spaces. She noted that staff proposed an exemption for mechanical parking systems and
areas without power supply.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if hospitals would be exempt from the all -electric requirement.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Beach stated that the Council just reviewed the proposed development at 1095 Rollins Road that
included EV infrastructure on stackers. Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that this is new
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
technology. She noted that while she hadn't reviewed the project, from what she heard the project didn't
meet staff s proposed EV infrastructure requirements.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael discussed the reach codes in conjunction with the Climate Action Plan.
She stated that all -electric would almost double the reductions that the City is expecting from their current
CAP measures in their respective categories. She explained that the reason that building electrification takes
it that much further is because the existing electrification measures rely on voluntary compliance.
Mayor Beach asked if the doubling of GHG reductions is with a total ban of natural gas or with the proposed
reach codes. Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that it was reflective of the proposed reach codes.
Mayor Beach asked if the City did ban natural gas, was there a sense of what additional impact the City
would see. Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that while she didn't have the exact numbers, natural
gas for cooking is the smallest part of natural gas usage, so it would be a small impact.
Ms. Michael reviewed the next steps. She stated that based on Council's comments, staff would bring back a
reach code for adoption, which, if adopted, would be reviewed by the California Energy Commission.
Mayor Beach asked SummerHill Vice President of Development Elaine Breeze how all -electric could affect
developments that are in the flood zone. Ms. Breeze stated that the garage is elevated to be out of the flood
zone, and this would be where the transformers are located. She noted that staff and PCE have been
receptive to her concerns but that building all -electric in a flood zone under height restrictions and parking
requirements remains a concern.
Mayor Beach discussed potential tradeoffs to allow for all -electric in the flood zone including allowing the
transformers on the roof or a reduction in the parking requirement. She noted that all -electric isn't
infeasible; it is that the restrictions under the code that might not allow for it. Ms. Breeze replied in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked what the threshold is in asking smaller multi -dwelling projects to do
all -electric versus larger projects. Ms. Breeze discussed alternatives for heating and stated that she didn't
believe that smaller developments would need to get a large transformer.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if electric fireplaces radiate enough heat as compared to gas fireplaces.
Ms. Breeze stated that she didn't know.
Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment.
Mike McCord voiced his support for reach codes and asked Council not to allow for an exception for
cooking.
Christine Yballa voiced support for reach codes as it is an easy way to reduce the City's greenhouse gas
emissions.
4
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
Bruce Nagel voiced support for the reach codes and asked the Council not to allow for any exemptions.
Robert Whitehair voiced concern about exemptions to reach codes. He noted that he believed that
exemptions would become the norm and would limit the benefits of a reach code.
Lisa Happich discussed the climate crisis and stated that this is the most important issue that the City is now
facing.
Terry Nagel stated that 15 cities in Silicon Valley have approved reach codes. She urged the Council to
review Mountain View's reach code and not to adopt exceptions.
James Tuleya, the Chair of Carbonfree Silicon Valley, stated that he has been in the energy efficiency
business for 12 years. He talked about the increased costs that could be associated with creating a cook
exception.
Dashiell Leeds discussed the climate crisis and his concerns about building more gas pipelines.
Sharon Refvem voiced her support for the reach code.
John Andary, a professional mechanical engineer, discussed the possibilities for developers under the reach
codes. He urged the Council to adopt a reach code that didn't include an exception for natural gas cooking.
Carol Vollem stated that the climate crisis is encroaching on the world much more aggressively than
expected and that cities must take action.
Diane Bailey discussed building a city's resiliency by encouraging solar and electric vehicles. She noted that
electric vehicles can be used during a power outage to power critical services in one's home.
Chris Detjen, an architectural designer, stated that the opportunity for the City to take leadership on green
building lies with commercial buildings. He noted that he is opposed to exceptions and that the large
buildings that help shape a community should be all -electric and efficient.
Scott Shell, a principal at an architectural firm, requested that the Council not have an exemption for multi-
family buildings to have gas water heating.
Mayor Beach closed public comment.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked what the necessary power supply would be if the City adopts an
ordinance for all -electric, and would there be enough. Mr. Reyes stated that PCE started estimating the need
in the near -term and found that in 2025, there is more load associated with electric vehicles than there is with
electric buildings. He stated that there is about a 3% increase for electric vehicles in 2025. He discussed that
the cost of solar has declined, and therefore it is likely that it will be extremely cheap to power large amounts
of electric loads in the future.
5
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked PCE for data on the increase in electricity. Mr. Reyes replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he liked staff s proposal for single-family homes, multi -family buildings,
and commercial buildings, but would remove the exception for natural gas cooking. He added that he
supported staff s proposal concerning EV infrastructure. He noted that if the EV proposal was more
stringent, he did have concern that it would be cost prohibitive for developers.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he concurred with Councilmember Ortiz. He noted that he would
remove the exemption for life science buildings because of testimony from some of the professionals that it
was unnecessary. He stated that he thought the Council should consider a conditional use permit for
restaurants to use natural gas.
Councilmember Colson stated that she supported staff s proposal. She noted her concern about gas
fireplaces. She discussed the importance of educational outreach to developers to inform them of the
benefits of all -electric. She added that if the City is going to carve out an exception for natural gas for
cooking, that the City should do the same for gas fireplaces.
Councilmember Colson discussed Brisbane's incentive program to promote all -electric. She asked staff to
provide Council with details on the program.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that overall, she agrees with most of staffs proposals. She asked about
the Restaurant Association's lawsuits against Berkeley and Windsor. City Attorney Kane stated that both
lawsuits are in their early stages and that the Windsor lawsuit was from developers.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked staff to keep the Council apprised of the two lawsuits.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that regarding single-family homes, she is hesitant about banning
natural gas for cooking. She asked that staff look into incentive programs including rebates to encourage the
community to move to all -electric for cooking.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran voiced concern with electric water heating for multi -family buildings. She
explained that she would like to learn more about electric water heating and what is available to developers.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran echoed Councilmember Colson's concerns about electric fireplaces.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked staff to conduct a survey through the e-newsletter to ascertain how the
community feels about all -electric versus natural gas, the variety of options that were presented, and what
exemptions people felt the City should offer.
Mayor Beach asked if the reach codes would only apply to brand new construction. CDD Gardiner replied
in the affirmative. He stated that the staff would want to clarify what is meant by new construction. He
noted that currently in the City's code, new construction is considered 50% or more of the replacement
value. Therefore, new construction might include a second story addition, and he believed that the reach
6
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
code's intent was to focus on ground up construction.
Mayor Beach thanked staff, developers, and the community for engaging in this conversation. She stated it
makes a difference to her that the reach codes being considered apply to new construction, not remodels.
She noted that she leaned into all -electric with no natural gas for cooking in single family homes, multi-
family buildings, and commercial. She explained that she believed big development is hard for the
community, but if the City could tell the community that the new commercial building is 100% green, it
would go a long way. She noted that she could see an exemption for hospitals.
Mayor Beach stated that the North Rollins Road neighborhood could be a shining example of a green
neighborhood.
Councilmember Colson stated that if the City is going in the direction of eliminating natural gas and not
providing exceptions for cooking, then it should be for remodels too. She discussed incentivizing people
through streamlined permitting or through rebates.
Councilmember Brownrigg talked about his own experience with building a house and the amount of time
they lost because of PG&E doing gas deconstruct and reconstruct. He stated that if someone had told him he
could save three to four months in construction by going all -electric, he would have.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he would be willing to reduce residential impact fees to help
compensate developers for taking on new technology.
City Manager Goldman stated that there didn't seem to be a consensus from the Council on direction.
Therefore, she explained that staff would review Council's comments and come back with a staff report.
Mayor Beach stated that she believed she did hear three in favor of all -electric even for cooking on new
construction. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative but noted that Council had asked for
additional information on several issues.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked that developers for single-family homes, multi -family buildings, and
commercial buildings attend the next meeting that this matter is agendized. City Manager Goldman stated
that staff would reach out to developers in the community.
Councilmember Colson asked if she was correct that the two projects in the pipeline on Rollins Road
wouldn't be under the City's reach code if adopted. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative and
explained that plans that have been deemed complete under the existing zoning provision would be going
through the pipeline on the existing code.
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 7:27 p.m.
7
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Beach.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Beach reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Beach asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent
Calendar. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran recused herself from 8b. Councilmember Brownrigg pulled item
8i.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8f, 8g, 8h, and 8j; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0 (with the note that the vote on
item 8b was 4-0-1 as Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran recused herself from this item).
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2020
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve of the City Council Meeting Minutes for February 3,
2020.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 2020
CENSUS AND ENCOURAGING RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO TO
PROMOTE AND COMPLETE THE CENSUS TO ENSURE A FAIR, ACCURATE, AND
COMPLETE COUNT
8
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran recused herself from voting on this item as she drafted the Census resolution
for the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 018-2020.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
RANGER PIPELINES, INC. FOR THE FY 2019-20 CITYWIDE SANITARY SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,086,420, AND APPROVING A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BELLECCI 7 ASSOCIATES FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,121
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 019-2020 and Resolution Number 020-2020.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
VALENTINE CORPORATION FOR THE 1740 ROLLINS ROAD AND 842 COWAN ROAD
PUMP STATIONS FLAP GATES REPLACEMENT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$229,369
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 021-2020.
e. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM C-1 TO R-4 FOR A
NEW SIX -STORY, 150-UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED
AT 1095 ROLLINS ROAD (FATTORIA E MARE SITE)
CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1973.
f. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the Planning
Commission.
g. APPROVAL OF OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, AND
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR RELATED TO FEDERAL ADVOCACY FOR A
BROADWAY GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT GRANT
City Manager Goldman requested Council approve of out-of-state travel for the Mayor, City Manager, and
Public Works Director related to federal advocacy for a Broadway Grade Separation Project Grant.
h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE CITY'S APPLICATION FOR
$125 MILLION FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR REBUILDING AMERICA (INFRA) DISCRETIONARY GRANT
PROGRAM
9
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
City Manager Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 022-2020.
i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH W-TRANS FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE
OAK GROVE AVENUE AND CAROLAN AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND RELATED
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $129,250
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he received input on this item from a member of the public that
believes the City is on the wrong track with regards to the intersection at Oak Grove Avenue and Carolan
Avenue. He asked about next steps for this project. DPW Murtuza stated that staff conducted a preliminary
traffic analysis to review options to address the traffic impact at the intersection. He explained that in order
to improve the flow of traffic across the railroad tracks, it was suggested that traffic signals be installed.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked where the City was in the process of the project. DPW Murtuza stated that
the project was discussed at the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, and the Commission unanimously
supported moving forward with installing traffic signals. He explained that staff would be designing and
implementing the project.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if a hearing on the item was conducted at the Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission and if members of the public were given an opportunity to speak. DPW Murtuza replied in the
affirmative.
Mayor Beach asked if she was correct that the staff report isn't for consulting services but for the final design
of the traffic signals. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Beach asked if westbound on Oak Grove would be addressed in this project. DPW Murtuza replied
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ortiz thanked the City for improving the intersection as he has long complained about it.
Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 023-2020; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH LOS LOZA LANDSCAPING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
THE MURRAY NATURAL PLAYGROUND FOR $228,000, CITY PROJECT NO.85400
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 024-2020.
10
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. REOUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD SALES OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO A MINI -MART AT AN EXISTING GASOLINE SERVICE
STATION AND A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (PCN)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 23958.4 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
CODE, RELATED TO A REOUEST FOR A TYPE 20 (OFF -SALE BEER AND WINE)
ALOCHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES PERMIT ISSUED THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA
ALCHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD (ABC), AT 1147 ROLLINS ROAD
CDD Gardiner stated that Gladys and Gus Greco, owners and operators of Gus 76, submitted an application
for an amendment to the conditional use permit for a mini mart located at 1147 Rollins Road. The
amendment is to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages, beer and wine, for off -site consumption.
CDD Gardiner stated that the application will require the determination of Public Convenience and Necessity
("PCN") to sell beer and wine for off -site consumption. He explained that the PCN must be reviewed and
acted on by the Council. He stated that the Burlingame Police Department reviewed the application for the
license, and the findings are included with the staff report. He explained that the Police Department supports
a finding of "public convenience and necessity" based, in part, upon the following findings:
• A review of the police -related calls for service at Gus 76 showed minimal calls
• Gus 76 provides a variety of other grocery and sundry items to serve residents and visitors
• There are no parks or schools in the area
The Police Department recommended five conditions be forwarded to ABC for its consideration prior to
issuance of the license (while not specifically stated at the meeting, the Council discussed the
recommendations, and therefore they have been included below):
1. The licensee(s) shall be responsible for maintaining, free of litter, the area in front of and adjacent to
the premises over which they have control.
2. Graffiti shall be removed from the premises and all parking lots under the control of the licensee(s)
within seventy-two hours of application
3. The exterior of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and
make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the premises.
Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any
neighboring residences.
4. Electronic video surveillance shall be maintained at the premises, minimally covering entrances and
exits. Footage shall be maintained for at least 30 days.
5. Loitering (loitering is defined as "to stand idly about; linger aimlessly without lawful business") is
prohibited on any sidewalks or property on any sidewalks or property adjacent to the licensed
premises under the control of the licensee(s).
CDD Gardiner stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the application on January 13, 2020, and
recommended approval. He added that the Planning Commission agreed with staff s suggestion to remove
the condition that restricted the sale of hot food to be sold as typical of convenience markets.
11
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
Councilmember Colson asked if there were any other potential merchants in that area that might request a
license to sell alcohol. CDD Gardiner stated that based on what is already in existence and what the zoning
would allow, he would not foresee additional requests.
Councilmember Colson asked if Peninsula High School was considered in the proximity of the mini mart.
CDD Gardiner stated that he didn't know the exact location of the high school but believed it was outside the
range.
Councilmember Colson asked if any of the merchants on Broadway expressed concern over this application.
CDD Gardiner stated that per the code, staff sent notices to properties within 300 feet of the area and
therefore didn't include Broadway. Accordingly, while he hadn't received any comments from Broadway,
he was unsure if they knew of the application.
Mayor Beach discussed the condition that the sale of beer and wine be for off -site consumption. She noted
that this meant that alcohol wouldn't be consumed, legally, on -site. She asked if this was up to the property
owner to enforce. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if there were an increase in complaints, could the City revoke the
license. City Attorney Kane replied that the State regulators are quick to respond to habitual malfeasance,
and it would be the State regulating the license.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran noted that one of the reasons she felt comfortable with approving the
amendment is because the Police Chief has reported that there haven't been many if any issues at the
property. She voiced concern that if there was an uptick in issues that the City wouldn't have any say on
revoking the license. City Attorney Kane replied that the license is issued by the State, and therefore it is not
the City's to revoke.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that this isn't the first time that the City has authorized sale of alcoholic
beverages for off -site consumption. He asked about the requirement for electronic video surveillance and if
it was a common practice of the City. Police Chief Matteucci stated that it is a standard requirement in the
PCNs. He noted that Gus 76 already has video surveillance.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the defining characteristic for why the Police Chief requires electronic
video surveillance is that the store is selling alcohol. Police Chief Matteucci replied in the negative.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that in the future he would like the Council to discuss the City's policy on
video surveillance and facial recognition technology.
City Attorney Kane explained that when the video surveillance is controlled by a private owner, the police
must ask to review the video or obtain a subpoena. Therefore, she noted that there are some protections in
place for direct government access.
Councilmember Colson discussed the importance of the applicant reviewing drivers' licenses prior to sale of
alcohol to ensure that a minor doesn't purchase.
12
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
Mayor Beach opened the public hearing.
John Greco, the owner of Gus 76, stated that they have always worked with the Police Department and given
them access to their cameras. He discussed the practices that his store has in place to prevent sales to minors
and noted that he could lose all three of his licenses if he sold to minors. He thanked the Police, staff, and
the Council for their consideration of his application.
Mayor Beach closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 025-2020; seconded by Vice Mayor
O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
10. STAFF REPORTS
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING PERSONNEL CHANGES, AMENDING
THE PART-TIME EMPLOYEE SALARY & BENEFIT PLAN, AMENDING THE
DEPARTMENT HEAD AND UNREPRESENTED COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT PLAN,
AND APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY
SCHEDULE)
HR Director Morrison stated that before Council was a resolution to approve personnel changes in the
Community Development, Human Resources, Public Works, and City Manager's Office. She noted that the
resolution would also approve amendments to relevant compensation and benefit plans and adopt a salary
schedule.
HR Director Morrison explained that the City has carefully reviewed all increases in staffing levels in
consideration of a financially sustainable level of staffing that is adequate to meet the ever-increasing
demands on City staff time. She noted that the Council has approved conservative increases in headcount
while being mindful of budget impacts, unfunded pension and benefit liabilities, and overall City costs.
HR Director Morrison stated that as a result of regulatory changes and an increase in demand for services in
transportation, building, planning, and housing, current staffing levels are inadequate to deal with the
workload. She added that human resources staffing is inadequate to attract, retain, develop, and support the
workforce.
HR Director Morrison stated that Assembly Bill 5 went into effect on January 1, 2020. The legislation
requires the City to adopt new standards for the use of contract labor. AB 5 assumes an individual is an
employee rather than a contractor unless a strict test is satisfied.
HR Director Morrison explained that City Attorney Kane and she conducted a Citywide analysis of the
current uses of contractor staff and determined many of the contractors the City currently uses, particularly in
Building and Planning, do not meet the new standard. As a result, these contractors will be unable to provide
contract services for the City under the new regulations, and permanent staff will need to be hired. She
explained that the decrease in budget costs will help offset the cost of hiring new staff.
13
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
HR Director Morrison stated that she reviewed long-term casual employees who have been with the City for
many years. She explained that these positions support Council goals and initiatives (for example the
Sustainability Coordinator and the Assistant to the City Manager). Therefore, she identified three casual
positions that are not temporary and should be reclassified to regular part-time positions.
HR Director Morrison stated that the proposed changes will increase the City's workforce by 2.25 FTEs.
The positions are deemed necessary to effectively carryout the City's priorities and meet the City's service
level needs.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked for clarification on how 2.25 FTEs equates to an annual budget impact of
$550,000. HR Director Morrison stated that in reality it's a budget impact of 6.75 FTEs. She explained that
the contractors that currently exist will be replaced with FTEs, and with that there will be pension and benefit
costs. She noted that the City would be adding a Senior Public Works Inspector, Program Manager, and a
Human Resources Analyst.
City Manager Goldman stated that on pages four to five of the staff report there is a summary of all the
changes to positions. She reviewed the different positions that are being affected under the AB 5.
Mayor Beach asked about the process for some of the positions and whether the positions would be
announced or if the contract employees would be slotted into the positions. HR Director Morrison replied
that the City's recruitment process would be followed. City Manager Goldman added that the City conducts
oral boards, written tests (when necessary), and interviews for all positions.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the City was upscaling employees as a result of AB 5. City Manager
Goldman replied in the negative. She explained that a few things were happening to ensure the City's
compliance with the law including:
• taking existing temporary employees and making them permanent part-time employees
• adding 2.25 FTE new employees.
• converting the contract labor positions into permanent full-time positions.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that AB 5 may have forced other cities to hire new people and cost a
lot of money.
Councilmember Colson asked if the net cost is $550,000. HR Director Morrison replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson asked if this was after the reduction in contract costs. HR Director Morrison replied
in the affirmative.
City Manager Goldman stated that she was just at the statewide City Managers' meeting, and AB 5 was a
main topic as a lot of people are trying to figure out how to handle this issue.
Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
14
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 026-2020; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCMENTS
a. MAYOR BEACH'S COMMITTEE REPORT
b. COUNCILMEMBER COLSON'S COMMITTEE REPORT
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Ortiz stated that Congresswoman Speier proposed legislation that would give airports more
control over flight operations. He asked that Council agendize a discussion for a resolution in support of her
legislation. The Council agreed to agendize the matter.
Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked about scheduling the discussion on short-term rentals. Staff advised
Council that they are fitting it into the queue with other items that require urgent attention.
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.burlin ag me.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Beach adjourned meeting at 8:21 p.m. in memory of Sandy Towle.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
15
Burlingame City Council February 18, 2020
Approved Minutes
AGENDA ITEM NO: 8g
9YRLINGAME STAFF REPORT
Kwo
MEETING DATE: April 6, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 6, 2020
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution of Intent to Amend the City of Burlingame Master
Fee Schedule for the 2020-21 Fiscal Year; Set the Public Hearing for Such
Amendment for May 4, 2020; and Approve Revisions to the City's User Fee
Cost Recovery Policv
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review and discuss staff recommendations for changes
to the City's Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2019-20, and establish a Public Hearing for
May 4, 2020 in connection with updates to the document. In addition, staff recommends that
the City Council approve two minor revisions to the City's Use Fee Cost Recovery Policy.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has traditionally approved a Master Fee Schedule as part of the budget
process so as to reflect the annual increase in costs that are anticipated in the upcoming fiscal
year. The fee adjustments are not automatic. They require an annual review and approval by
the City Council. An annual review and update ensure that fees reflect current costs to provide
services, allow the addition of fees when applicable for new City services, and provide for the
elimination of fees for discontinued services.
A comprehensive cost allocation plan (CAP) and user fee study assists the City in determining
the actual cost of providing City services, and helps the departments establish appropriate user
fees. The most recent CAP and updated Cost of Services study assisted departments in
determining the actual cost of providing City services/programs paid for by user fees, based on
the FY 2015-16 operating budget. As is often the case, the Cost of Services study revealed
dramatic differences between actual costs and the fees charged to recover those costs. In
order to allow more gradual increases to the fees charged for City services, and to fully
incorporate Council input and comments on the establishment of user fees, the Master Fee
Schedule has been adjusted in recent years to better align fees with a level of cost recovery
appropriate for the various services being offered. The City Council's direction allowed staff to
develop the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, which provides values -based and data -driven
guidance for setting fees relative to the cost of the various services offered by the City. The City
Council adopted the policy in June 2018.
1
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2020-21 April 6, 2020
As noted in the Cost of Services study, to raise all fees to achieve 100% full cost recovery is not
feasible or desirable. In recognition that City services are funded through a combination of user
fees, taxes, grants and donations, the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy distinguishes between
services that provide a high level of community benefit and those that provide benefit mostly to
the individual receiving the service. Of course, many City services provide a blend of
community and individual benefit, making it difficult to determine how each service should be
funded. In establishing the appropriate level of cost recovery, the formal policy helps guide
departments in establishing fees for all City services.
City fees should therefore reflect varying rates of cost recovery amongst departments, and
amongst programs within each department, due to the wide variety of services provided. For
departments that provide social or public safety services, policy concerns and market factors (as
opposed to actual costs) tend to influence fee levels more than for other types of services.
DISCUSSION
California law gives cities the ability to impose fees for governmental services when an
individual's use of the City service is voluntary, and the fee charged is reasonable to the level of
service and the cost of providing the service.
In general, the City's Master Fee Schedule reflects user fees that are intended to represent
100% cost recovery of fully burdened rates, with the exception of user fees that are highly
sensitive and promote citizen engagement. Fully burdened rates include the cost of direct labor
(direct staff time spent on the service), indirect labor (administrative and supervisory time), and
central services overhead (other budgetary support for the department providing the service).
To reflect general cost increases, some fees were increased last year based on the Bay Area
Consumer Price Index (CPI), which increased 3.5% from February 2018 to February 2019. The
CPI increased 2.9% as of February 29, 2020 as compared to the prior year.
Because the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy documents an appropriate cost recovery level for
all City services, the policy itself does not require an annual review. All fees in the Master Fee
Schedule are reviewed annually to ensure that the cost factors associated with each service
have not deviated significantly from the prior year. If significant changes have occurred, the
departmental staff will reassess the cost factors and propose an adjusted fee in line with the
appropriate cost recovery level. For all other services, an adjustment based on the current CPI
(Consumer Price Index) should suffice to keep fees in line with the cost recovery level indicated
in the policy. For this reason, staff recommends that the policy be revised to specify that the
CPI -San Francisco Area for the month of February be referenced for this purpose. A red -line
copy of the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy is attached to this staff report.
Pursuant to State law, certain fees to be charged by the Planning and Building Divisions, the
Fire Department, and the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department cannot become
effective until 60 days after adoption of the adjusted fees as delineated in the attached Master
Fee Schedule. Staff is requesting that a Public Hearing for the update of the City of
Burlingame's Master Fee Schedule be established for May 4, 2020. The intent is for the new
2
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2020-21 April 6, 2020
fees to become effective July 1, 2020, except for these development -related fees. These will be
effective July 3, 2020.
Although this year's update comes at a time when the City is faced with addressing the needs of
constituents during a major public health crisis, staff has proceeded with the normal process of
updating the City's fees for service. Diligence is needed in this area to prevent fees from falling
behind the cost recovery rates deemed appropriate by the Council. As with the City's other
revenues, the revenues from these charges will be impacted by the current crisis, as volumes
for various City services will fluctuate until a new "normal" is reached. More importantly,
updating user fees for the new fiscal year will prevent the inadvertent subsidization of
discretionary services by taxpayers once the emergency has ended. Proposed changes to the
Master Fee Schedule for the upcoming fiscal year are summarized below, by department.
Administration
Administrative Services primarily provides support to other City departments, and therefore the
fees were not reviewed in the 2015 user fee study. Staff recommendations for changes are
based on staff's analysis of the cost of the service or activity.
Although certain city-wide administrative fees and fees charged by Finance and the City Clerk's
Office have been increased from time to time by CPI, certain fees that are established as a fixed
dollar amount (such as Filing of Nomination Papers) cannot be increased. There are no fiscal
year 2020-21 fee changes recommended for the City's administrative departments.
Building
As with many comparably -sized cities, Burlingame's building permit fees are largely based on a
project's valuation, adjusted by criteria that define the scope of work. Specific services that are
required beyond the actual permitting process are funded through "unit fees". For the most part,
the Cost of Services Study in 2015 evaluated only the unit fees for services provided by the
Building Division. Since the time of the study, staff has not proposed changes to those building
permit fees based on total valuation, finding them to be consistent with other jurisdictions that
use total valuation for setting these rates, and adequate in covering City costs. Note that all
activities of the Building Division are accounted for in the City's Building Fund, a separate
enterprise fund.
This year, staff's recommended changes focused largely on fees based on per -hour charges for
inspections and plan checks. These unit fees are proposed to be increased by the 2.9% CPI.
Engineering
The Engineering Division charges fees for development -related services including Improvement
Planning Application Reviews; Encroachment Permits; Construction, Demolition and Grading
Permits; and Subdivision Maps. Many of the fees were increased over the past few years to
3
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2020-21 April 6, 2020
provide greater cost recovery. This year, most of the fees charged for engineering services are
proposed to be increased by a CPI of 2.9%. There are two exceptions to this general increase.
The deposit or bond for encroachments involving openings in the public right-of-way in
sidewalks (not in the street) was increased from $25.00 to $30.00 per square foot in sidewalk
area. Similarly, the deposit or bond for encroachments involving street roadway openings was
increased from $10.00 to $15.00 per square foot in the paved area. These adjustments reflect
the costs of concrete and asphalt, which have continued to increase more than the CPI for the
year. As this is just a deposit amount, the department needs to be diligent in capturing the
current cost of construction. In the event the permittee defaults and the City has to complete the
work, the full cost must be recovered by utilizing the deposit or exercising the bond.
A new fee has been added for development projects that require map changes to cover the cost
of maintaining survey benchmarks throughout the city. The Public Works Department is
responsible to maintain these benchmarks, as private developers (as well as staff) rely on them
to verify/confirm horizontal and vertical positions as it relates to their private property. Parcel
maps and subdivision maps require City benchmarks to complete their surveys. As such,
through the City Benchmark Maintenance fee, developers would contribute to the cost of
ensuring that benchmarks are accurate, present, and replaced when needed.
Library
The City of Burlingame's Library is a member of the Peninsula Library System (PLS). Service
rates and fines are largely coordinated throughout the system by the PLS Administrative
Council. The fees listed as the Overdue Fee for Adult, Maximum Fee, and Lost Book
Replacement Fee should be removed from the schedule, as the PLS no longer imposes these
charges. (However, the cost of replacement for lost items is still assessed to the borrower.)
No changes are proposed to the fees particular to the Burlingame Library, which were also
reviewed for purposes of the annual Master Fee Schedule update.
Parks and Recreation
Most fees related to Parks and Recreation services have adjusted by the CPI, to retain fees at
the level of cost recovery provided in the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy. Fees specifically
related to the Recreation Center have been removed as that facility will be demolished by the
end of the current fiscal year. All references to the Recreation Center will be removed from the
final draft of the 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule. Fees associated with rental of the temporary
buildings procured by the City to at least partially replace locations within the Recreation Center
during the construction of new facilities were left unchanged due to the temporary nature of the
situation, as were fees to be charged in conjunction with these room rentals.
There are several fees that were increased at a rate greater than CPI based on current costs
that are known to be higher than a CPI increase would indicate. Outdoor Equipment Rental
fees were increased to better reflect the cost of providing this equipment. New fees were added
M
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2020-21 April 6, 2020
for the rental of Grandstands, reservations of the Oak Tree Playground Picnic Area and the
Washington Park Sports Court, and use of the Community Garden. Under the heading "Tree
and Parks Fees", the higher cost of new trees is reflected in the proposed fee for Memorial Tree
Plantings. In addition, the Protected Tree Removal Application fee has been increased from
$75 to $100, as this fee has not often been increased, and is still well below the cost to process
the permit. The fee for the City's Arborist Plan Review was inadvertently left unadjusted last
year; the proposed fee is now consistent with the fee as shown in the Planning section of the
Master Fee Schedule. Finally, the Street Banner Hanger fee has been increased from $125, as
the cost to hang these banner is well over the proposed new amount of $200.
Planning
For many of the permits and services provided by the Planning Division, full cost recovery is
justified, as these development activities are driven by an applicant or property owner who will
benefit from the service. Therefore, the fees for most Planning services are recommended to
be increased by the CPI of 2.9% for fiscal year 2020-21.
Fees established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (collected and passed -
through by the Planning Division) for CEQA Environmental Document Filings have been
updated to reflect adjustments by that agency effective January 1, 2020.
Commercial Linkage Fees, adopted in June 2017, and Residential Impact Fees, adopted on
April 1, 2019, were established to address the community's need for workforce housing, and
were first added to the Master Fee Schedule proposed for the current fiscal year (FY 2019-20).
Per the establishing ordinances, the Council may amend these fees through the public hearing
process for the City's Master Fee Schedule. But because these fees were all set through
special nexus studies and then refined by the Council through the lens of project feasibility, staff
proposes that these fees be left unchanged for the 2020-21 fiscal year. Changes to the Bayfront
Development Fee and North Burlingame & Rollins Road Development Fee are both based on
the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July Vt of
each year, and are therefore reviewed/updated on a different schedule than other Planning
Department fees in the Master Fee Schedule. The Public Facilities Impact Fee ordinance
provides for no annual escalator/index. Only the Burlingame Avenue Parking in Lieu Fee (per
parking space) is recommended to be adjusted by CPI as of February 28, 2020.
Police
The Cost of Services Study in 2015 revealed an overall cost -recovery rate of 17% for Police
Department services. None of the fees had been set to recover the full cost of service,
providing a significant subsidy to fee payers. This was a largely anticipated result in that police
services are generally provided out of public funds for the benefit of the public at large.
However, the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy does identify a limited range of activities where it
is appropriate for the department to set charges to fully or partially recover costs. A CPI
increase has been applied to those fees to retain the appropriate cost recovery in the policy.
5
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2020-21
April 6, 2020
Public Works - Sewer and Water Utilities
Water rates were last amended effective January 1, 2019, the last year of three annual rate
increases based on a rate study by Bartle Wells Associates Consultants in 2016. The rate
increases were necessary to cover the wholesale cost of water to the City, as well as capital
improvements to the system. Sewer utility rates were last modified in 2012.
Therefore, in the proposed Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2020-21, no changes were
made for regular water and sewer services. The only sewer utility services where increases are
proposed are in Sewer Connection fees. To keep up with the costs of these connections, the
fees are adjusted to conform to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for San
Francisco each year (5.706% as of January 1, 2020).
Other Fees
Fees for Fire services are established by the Central County Fire Department (CCFD). As a
separate JPA that is funded by the City of Burlingame, the Town of Hillsborough, and the City of
Millbrae, CCFD fees are separately adopted by the CCFD Fire Board with the Department's
operating budget. The City will amend the Master Fee Schedule once any adjustments to the
CCFD fees have been approved by their board, and they will be effective July 1, 2020.
Animal Control fees are set by the County of San Mateo. As the structuring of these fees, as
well as the timing of fee updates, is not under the City's control, these fees were previously
removed from the City's Master Fee Schedule. However, a link to these fees, provided at the
County's Animal Control website, has been included.
Changes to the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
Two small changes have been made to the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, attached. One is to
allow the Library to provide certain supplies to the public at cost. The other is to reflect a higher
cost recovery for Arborist Review services in conjunction with a development plan review (under
Building Fees, page 9) consistent with the higher cost recovery level reflected for Arborist
Review (when required) under Planning Fees, page 8.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The recommendations presented by staff in this report ensure not only that charges keep pace
with the costs of providing certain services, but that they are also competitive with comparable
programs (where applicable) and are responsive to demands for the service within the
community. The changes to the fee schedule should result in some additional revenue in the
new fiscal year. However, the actual amounts are difficult to calculate because the use of some
services is voluntary, and the volume of activity varies.
rol
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2020-21
April 6, 2020
Exhibits:
• A Resolution of Intent of the City Council of the City of Burlingame to Amend the Master
Fee Schedule for City Services
• City of Burlingame Proposed Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2020-21
• DOL Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area — February 2020
• Revised User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
VA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO AMEND THE
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame regularly reviews the fees that the City charges
persons or entities for the use of City facilities, or the provision of City services; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the cost of such services and facilities is borne by the
users of said services and facilities in a fair and equitable manner, the City periodically adjusts the
fees for services and facility use to ensure that the fees charged reflect the actual costs to the City
and the City's taxpayers in providing those services and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the fees reflected in the Master Fee Schedule will be carefully reviewed by
each City department, and specific recommendations to amend fees will be provided to ensure
that charges keep pace with the costs for providing City services, where appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Burlingame City Council intends to amend the Master Fee Schedule.
2. The Master Fee Schedule, with proposed adjustments for fiscal year 2020-21, will
be posted and available on-line at www.Burlingame.org with the staff report
associated with the May 4, 2020 public hearing related to Amendment of the
Master Fee Schedule.
3. The Master Fee Schedule, with proposed adjustments for fiscal year 2020-21, will
also be on file and available at the Office of the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California, and will be available for review during regular business
hours, 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday, at least 10 days prior to the public
hearing.
4. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby schedules a public hearing on
the proposed amendments to the Master Fee Schedule for Monday, May 4, 2020,
at 7:00 pm, in the Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California. If the current existing shelter in place order is continued
beyond that date by the San Mateo County Health Officer, the meeting shall occur
at the same time and date but will be held virtually via the internet and noticed
according to the revised Brown Act procedures contained in the Governor's
applicable executive orders.
5. At the public hearing, the City Council will receive testimony and evidence, and
interested persons may submit written comments before or at the public hearing, or
such comments may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk, Burlingame City
Hall, 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010.
6. At the public hearing, any and all persons may make oral or written comments of
the proposed amendments.
7. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council will deliberate upon the
proposed fees as outlined in the Master Fee Schedule, and will consider further
amendments and adoption of the 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule.
8. All of the facts recited above, in the staff report and supporting documentation are
true and correct and the Council relies upon same.
Emily Beach, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Burlingame City Council held on the 6I" day of April, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk
CITY
tt
BURLINGAME
09
9
$AnTco � Hcd
City of Burlingame
Master Fee Schedule
EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1, 2020�
Updated fees charged in connection with the filing, accepting, reviewing,
approving or issuance of an application, permit or entitlement will be effective on
July 3-5, 20204-9.
�r� cirr nt
B4RLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
CITY-WIDE FEES
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Returned Check
Resolution No. 31-2003
$30.00
Copying of Routine Document
Gov't Code § 6253(b)
$0.25 per page
(Copies of sizes other than 8- %"
by 11" or 8 - %" by 14" or 11" by
17 or color copies will be charged
at cost)
To be paid in advance
Copies of Reports/Statements
Gov't Code § 81008
$0.10 per page
filed pursuant to Political Reform
Act
Audio tape copies (except for
Police)
If blank tape supplied
Resolution No. 32-2009
$18.00 per tape
If no tape supplied
Resolution No. 32-2009
$18.00 per tape plus
purchase costs of tape
Page 1
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
BUILDING PERMIT FEES BASED ON TOTAL VALUATION
$1.00 to $500.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$37.00
$501.00 to $2,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$37.00 for the first $500.00 plus
$5.28 for each additional
$100.00 or fraction thereof up
to and including $2,000.00
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$116.00 for the first $2,000.00
plus $22.15 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof up
to and including $25,000.00
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$625.00 for the first $25,000.00
plus $16.30 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof up
to and including $50,000.00
$50,001.00 to
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,032.00 for the first
$300,000.00
$50,000.00 plus $11.07 for each
additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof up to and including
$100,000.00
$100,001.00 to
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,585.00 for the first
$500,000.00
$100,000.00 plus $9.40 for each
additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof up to and including
$500,000.00
Page 2
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
$500,001.00 to
Resolution No 27-2011
$5,345.00 for the first
$1,000,000.00
$500,000.00 plus $8.57 for each
additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof up to and including
$1,000,000.00
More than $1,000,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$9,630.00 for the first
$1,000,000.00 plus $5.80 for
each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof
OTHER BUILDING PERMIT FEES
Building inspections
Resolution No. 27-2011
$25649.00 per hour (minimum
outside normal business
charge of 2 hours
hours
Re -inspection fees
Resolution No. 27-2011
$25649.00 per hour
(minimum — one hour)
Energy Upgrade California
Resolution No. 27-2011
Basic Package
$238.00
Advanced Package
$476.00
Page 3
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
General fire inspections
Resolution No. 27-2011
Determined by CCFD — pass -
for new building and
through costs
tenant remodels limited
to building permits of
commercial or multi-
family residential
PLAN REVIEW FEES
Basic Fee — Building
Resolution No. 104-2002
65% of Building Permit Fee
Division
Energy Plan Check Fee
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of Building
(where applicable;
Permit Fee
includes review of Green
Points Checklist)
Disabled Access Plan
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 35% of Building
Check Fee (where
Permit Fee
applicable)
Review of Request for
Resolution No. 27-2011
$3012-.00 per hour
Alternate Materials and
Methods
Review of Unreasonable
Resolution No. 27-2011
$31204.00 per hour
Hardship Request
Page 4
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Planning Department Plan
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of Building
Check Fee (where
Permit Fee
applicable)
Minimum fee of $80.00
Plan Revisions for
Resolution No. 27-2011
$31203.00 per hour
Planning Department
Plan Revisions
Resolution No. 27-2011
$31203.00 per hour plus cost of
Subsequent to Permit
any additional review
Issuance
Engineering Division Plan
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of Building
Review (where
Permit Fee
applicable)
Imaging Fee
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 5% of Building Permit
Fee with minimum fee of $5.00
Arborist Review
Resolution No. 33-2008
$25346.00
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
*These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter
fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies.
For issuance of each
Resolution No. 27-2011
$46.00
plumbing permit
Page 5
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
"The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee:
New Residential Building -
Resolution No. 32-2009
$0.13 per square foot of
including all plumbing
habitable area
fixtures, connections and
gas outlets for new single -
and multi -family buildings
Fixtures and vents
Resolution No. 27-2011
$20.00
For each plumbing fixture
or trap (including water
and waste piping and
backflow prevention)
Sewer and interceptors
Resolution No 27-2011
$71.00
For each building sewer
For each industrial waste
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
pretreatment interceptor
(except kitchen -type
grease traps)
Water Piping and Water
Heaters
For installation alteration
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
or repair of water piping
or water -treatment
equipment
For each water heater
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
including vent
Page 6
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Gas Piping Systems
For each gas piping
Resolution No. 27-2011
$39.00
system of one to five
outlets
For each additional outlet
Resolution No. 33-2008
$8.00
over five
Irrigation Systems and
Backflow Prevention
Devices
Irrigation systems
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
including backflow
device(s)
Other backflow
prevention devices:
2 inches (50.8 mm)
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
and smaller
Over 2 inches (50.8
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
mm)
Swimming Pools
For each swimming pool
or spa, all plumbing:
Public pool
Resolution No. 27-2011
$242.00
Public spa
Resolution No. 27-2011
$182.00
Private pool
Resolution No. 27-2011
$242.00
Private spa
Resolution No. 27-2011
$182.00
Page 7
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Miscellaneous
For each appliance or
Resolution No. 27-2011
$39.00
fixture for which no fee is
listed
Inspections outside
Resolution No. 27-2011
$25649.00 per hour (minimum
normal business hours
charge of 2 hours)
Re -inspection fees
Resolution No. 27-2011
$25649.00 per hour
(minimum — one hour)
Inspections for which no
Resolution No. 27-2011
$25649.00 per hour
fee is specifically
indicated
(minimum charge is one-
half hour)
Imaging fee
Resolution No. 32-2009
Additional 5% of plumbing
permit fee with minimum fee of
$5.00
Plan review (where
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of plumbing
applicable)
permit fee
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
*These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter
fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies
Basic Permit Issuance Fee
Resolution No. 27-2011
$46.00
For issuance of each
mechanical permit**
Page 8
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
"The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee:
New Residential Building
Resolution No. 32-2009
$0.11 per square foot of
habitable area
including all mechanical
work including
appliances, exhaust fans,
ducts, and flues
Furnaces
To and including 100
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
M BTU
Over 100 MBTU
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
Boilers, compressors,
absorption systems
To and including 100
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
MBTU or 3HP
Over 100 MBTU or 3 HP
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
Air Conditioners
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
Air Handlers
To 10,000 CFM including
Resolution No. 27-2011
$39.00 each
ducting
Over 10,000 CFM
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00 each
Page 9
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Ventilation and Exhaust
Resolution No. 27-2011
$20.00 each
Each ventilation fan
attached to a single duct
Each hood including ducts
Resolution No. 27-2011
$31.00 each
Miscellaneous
For each appliance or
Resolution No. 27-2011
$31.00 each
piece of equipment not
specifically listed above
Inspections outside
Resolution No. 27-2011
$248.00 per hour (minimum
normal business hours
charge of 2 hours)
Re -inspection fees
Resolution No. 27-2011
$248.00 per hour
(minimum charge is one
hour)
Inspections for which no
Resolution No. 27-2011
$248.00 per hour
fee is specifically
indicated
(minimum charge is one-
half hour)
Imaging fee
Resolution No. 32-2009
Additional 5% of mechanical
permit fee with minimum fee of
$ 5.00
Plan review (where
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of mechanical
applicable)
permit fee
Page 10
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
*These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter
fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies
**The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee:
For issuance of each
Resolution No. 27-2011
$46.00
electrical permit
New Residential Building -
Resolution No. 32-2009
$0.11 per square foot of
including all wiring and
habitable area
electrical devices in or on
each building, including
service
SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE
Swimming Pools
Public swimming pools
Resolution No. 27-2011
$240.00
and spas including all
wiring and electrical
equipment
Private pools for single-
Resolution No. 27-2011
$185.00
family residences
Page 11
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Temporary Power
Temporary service pole
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
including all attached
receptacles
Temporary power pole
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
and wiring for
construction sites,
Christmas tree lots, etc.
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Receptacle, switch and
light outlets
First 20 units
Resolution No. 27-2011
$59.00
Each additional
Resolution No. 32-2009
$4.00
Residential Appliances
Resolution No. 32-2009
$10.00 each
For fixed residential
appliances including cook
tops, ovens, air
conditioning, garbage
disposals, and similar
devices not exceeding 1
HP in rating
(For other types of air
conditioners or other
motor -driven appliances
having larger ratings, see
Power Apparatus below)
Page 12
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Nonresidential Appliances
Resolution No. 32-2009
$10.00 each
Self-contained factory-
wired non-residential
appliances not exceeding
1 HP, KW, or kVA in rating
including medical and
dental devices; food,
beverage and ice cream
cabinets; illuminated
showcases; drinking
fountains; vending
machines; laundry
machines; etc.
(For other types of
devices having larger
electrical ratings,
see Power Apparatus
below)
Page 13
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Power Apparatus
For motors, generators,
air conditioners and heat
pumps and commercial
cooking devices as follows
(ratings in horsepower,
kilowatts, kilovolt -
amperes, or kilovolt -
amperes -reactive):
Up to 10
Resolution No 27-2011
$31.00
Over 30 to and including
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
100
Over 100
Resolution No. 27-2011
$120.00
Notes:
For equipment or
appliances having more
than one motor,
transformer, heater, etc.,
the sum of the combined
ratings may be used.
These fees include all
switches, circuit breakers,
contractors, thermostats,
relays, and other related
control equipment.
Page 14
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Photo voltaic systems
Residential systems
Permit
Resolution No. 32-2009
No Charge
Plan Check
Resolution No. 32-2009
No Charge
Commercial Systems
Permit
Resolution No. 27-2011
$385.00
Plan Check
Resolution No. 27-2011
$31294.00 per hour
Busways
For trolleys and plug-in
Resolution No. 27-2011
$31.00 for each 100 feet
type busways
(30,500 mm) or fraction thereof
Signs, Outline Lighting
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00 each
and Marquees Permits
Signs, outline lighting, or
marquees supplied from
one circuit
For additional branch
Resolution No. 32-2009
$20.00 each
circuits within the same
sign, outline lighting, or
marquee
Page 15
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Services
600 volts or less and not
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00 each
over 200 amperes in
rating
600 volts or less, over 200
Resolution No. 27-2011
$91.00 each
amperes to 1,000
amperes
Over 600 volts or over
Resolution No 27-2011
$121.00 each
1,000 amperes
Miscellaneous
For apparatus, conduits,
Resolution No. 27-2011
$39.00
and conductors for which
a permit is required but
for which no fee is set
forth
Inspections outside
Resolution No. 27-2011
$25649.00 per hour
normal business hours
(minimum charge of 2 hours)
Re -inspection fees
Resolution No. 27-2011
$25649.00 per hour
(minimum charge is one
hour)
Inspections for which no
Resolution No 27-2011
$25649.00 per hour
fee is specifically
indicated
(minimum charge is one-
half hour)
Page 16
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Imaging fee
Resolution No. 32-2009
Additional 5% of electrical
permit fee with minimum fee of
$ 5.00
Plan review (where
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of electrical
applicable)
permit fee
GENERAL FEES
Building Moving
Resolution No. 32-2009
$38474.00
(Section 18.07.030)
Page 17
euxuNcnMe
Fiscal Year 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule
CITY CLERK & ELECTIONS
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Video recording of City
Resolution No. 32-2009
$88.00 per VHS tape plus photo
Council meeting or other
service charge
proceeding that has been
video recorded — to be
Resolution No. 32-2009
$88.00 per DVD plus photo service
paid in advance of
charge
copying recording
Audiotape of City Council
Resolution No. 32-2009
$17.00 per tape if tape is supplied
meeting or other City
by requestor
proceeding that has been
taped — to be paid in
Resolution No. 32-2009
$17.00 per tape if tape is not
advance of copying tape
supplied plus purchase cost of tape
All Certifications
Resolution No. 32-2009
$17.00 each
Filing of Nomination
Burlingame Municipal
$25.00 per candidate
Papers
Code section 2.20.020
(Ordinance No. 1703
(2003)
Page 18
BURIJNGAM_E
Fiscal Year 2019 20 20-21Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
Minor (no excavation involved)
$2-39245.00
Sewer Lateral Test
Resolution No. 32-
$438.00 — If fail, one time free
2009
retest.
Sewer Lateral Replacement
Resolution No. 32-
$438450.00
(with Sidewalk Adel-N"fee)
2009
Storm Service Connection (with
$450.00
sidewalk fees)
Water Service Connection (with
Resolution No. 32-
$-_';,�589.00
Sidewalk.Add No- fee)
2009
Fire System Connection (with
Resolution No. 32-
$3-99589.00
Sidewalk Add No. 5)
2009
Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200
Resolution No. 32-
$41- 24.00 plus $1.00 for each
S.F. (Includes Curb Drain)
2009
square foot over 200
Sections
12.10.030/12.08.020/
*Fee waived for owners who
12.04.030
undertake stand-alone sidewalk
trip hazard repairs (Section
12.12.070)
Sidewalk Closure/Pedestrian
Resolution No. 32-
$411423.00
Protection
2009
Traffic Control
Resolution No. 33-
$35345.00
2008
Page 19
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2019 20 20-21Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Block Party (includes up to 6
Resolution No. 27-
$576.00 plus $5.00 for each
barricades)
2006
add'I barricade over 6
Commercial Areas and
$219-.00 plus $10.00 space per
Construction Purposes (i.e.
day or meter rates
Dumpsters/Containers)
Moving Only Purposes
$354.00 processing fee plus
(Residential Areas)
$10.00 per space per day
Page 20
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2019 20 20-21Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
GENERAL FEES
Demolition Permit (in addition
Resolution No. 32-
$1,617-574.00
to any Building Department-
2009
issued Demolition or
Construction Permit)
Includes sewer, water and
sidewalk replacement
Add fire line
Resolution No. 32-
$864.00
2009
Add curb drain
Resolution No. 32-
$231I5.00
2009
Add sidewalk closure
Resolution No. 32-
$2312-5.00
2009
Add PG&E
Resolution No. 32-
$2312-5.00
2009
Address Change
Resolution No. 32-
$3362-7.00
2009
Single Trip -Transportation Fee
Senate Bill SB 372
$16.00
(Fixed rate set by Caltrans)
Page 21
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2019 20 20-21Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Leaf Blower Testing Certification
Ord. No. 1871 (2012)
$343.00 for up to 5 leaf blowers
Fee
$5.00 for certification decal if
certified by manufacturer
Creek Enclosures
Resolution No. 32-
$3,134946.00
2009
Section 18.24.020
Abandonment of Public Utility
$5, 4404,49-5.00
Easement
Hauling Permit
Section 13.60.080
$25144.00 application fee plus 1
cent per ton per mile
Inspection/Investigation Fee
Section 12.10.070
$245-39.00 per hour
Page 22
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2019 20 20-21Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
Subsurface Shoring Systems that
encroach into the public right-
of-way
• Per 10'-20' deep tieback
$2,000.00 each
• Per >20' deep tieback
$1,000.00 each
• For permanent area used
50% of appraised land value per
(i.e. shoring wall)
square foot (sf) multiplied by
the area (sf) of encroachment
Permanent structures, such as
Resolution No. 32-
$2,727&-54.00
retaining walls, fences
2009
Section 12.10.020
Non -permanent installations,
Resolution No. 32-
$1,600.00
such as tables, chairs, planters
2009
Section 12.10.020
DEPOSITS OR BONDS FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WORK
Openings in Public Right -of -Way
Resolution No. 33-
$1,000.00 Minimum (in
(not in sidewalk or street)
2007
easement area) $10.00/sf for
area excavated
Openings in Public Right -of -Way
Resolution No. 33-
$302-5.00 per square foot in
in sidewalk (not in street)
2007
sidewalk area, $1,000.00
minimum
Page 23
BURIJNGAM_E
Fiscal Year 2019 20 20-21Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Street Roadway Opening (AC
Resolution No. 33-
$150.00 per square foot in
Pavement Restoration)
2007
paved area, $2,500.00 minimum
Section 12.10.025
including curb replacement
Water Main Modification
Resolution No. 33-
$10,000.00 per connection
(refundable bond)
2007
Sewer Main & Storm Drain
Resolution No. 33-
$10,000.00 per connection
Modification (refundable bond)
2007
SUBDIVISION MAPS
Lot Line Adjustment
Resolution No. 32-
$2,752§74.00 (application fee) +
2009 (Section
actual City consultant costs
26.24.090)
Lot Combination
Resolution No. 32-
$2,752674.00 (application fee) +
2009
actual City consultant costs
Section 26.24.090
Subdivision Map
Resolution No. 32-
$4,0853-,97i3.00 plus deposit,
2009 Sections
plus $2492-.00 for each
26.24.090/ 26.16.151
additional lot in excess of 5 lots;
plus actual City consultant costs
City Benchmark Maintenance
Applies to
development projects
$3,000 per map action
(parcel or final map)
that require a map
action by Council
Page 24
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2019 20 20-21Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Condominium Map
Resolution No. 32-
$3,3222-18.00, plus $62509.00
2009 Sections
for each additional unit over 4
26.24.090/ 26.16.151
units, plus actual City consultant
costs
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
** The fees represent the labor cost to inspect and security deposit
Type 1 Project: Single family
$1883.00 plus $1,500.00
dwellings with 15` or 2"d floor
security deposit
additions on a 10,000 sf lot or
smaller
Type 2 Project: Multi -family
$37645.00 plus $3,000.00
dwellings or commercial
security deposit
additions (excluding tenant
improvements) that are on a
10,000 sf lot or smaller
Type 3 Project: Any project
$75352.00 plus $5,000.00
10,000 sf up to an acre lot
security deposit
Type 4 Project: Any project
$1,50646-3.00 plus $10,000
greater than one acre in size
security deposit
Page 25
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2019 20 20-21Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEWS
Single Family Dwelling
(Addition)
$4897-5.00
Single Family Dwelling (New)
$97749.00
Multi -family
$1,953999.00
Commercial/Industrial
$1,953999.00
Environmental Review
$1,5732-9.00
Traffic and Parking Studies
$3,71269-7.00
GRADING PERMIT
1— 100 cubic yards
$1,3182-94.00
101-1,000 cubic yards
$1,99034.00
1,001-10,000 cubic yards
$2,3272-14.00
Over 10,000 cubic yards
$3,166077.00
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Stormwater Inspection for
Industrial/Commercial Facilities
$1440.00 per hour
Page 26
BURLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule
FINANCE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Duplicate business license
Section 6.04.120
$10.00
Application for first business
Section 6.04.170
$35.00
license
Submittal of surety bond for
Resolution No. 27-2006
$150.00 for every 15 days bond
transient occupancy after
is late
expiration of bond
Special business license for
Section 6.08.085
5% of gross receipts
long-term parking
Page 27
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) is governed by the Fire Board, and as such, its fees are
enacted via a process that is separate from that of the City of Burlingame. The following fees 4ave
4&&Rwere approved, to beand effective as of July 1, 2019.
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
CARE FACILITIES INSPECTION
Pre -inspection of licensed
community care facility
Health & Safety Code §
13235
$146.00 per hour
Residential Care Facility for
Elderly serving 6 or fewer
persons —fire inspection
enforcement
Health & Safety Code §
1569.84
No Charge
Residential Care Facilities
Resolution No. 33-2008
$301.00
Large Family Day Care
Resolution No. 33-2008
$163.00
Skilled Nursing Facility
Resolution No. 33-2008
$577.00
Hospital/Institution
Resolution No. 33-2008
$2,230.00
RE -INSPECTIONS
Second re -inspection
Resolution No. 33-2008
$114.00 per inspection
Third and subsequent
re -inspections
Resolution No. 33-2008
$207.00 per inspection
Page 28
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
CONSTRUCTION FEES
General Fire & Life Safety
12% of Building Permit fees for
Services
Commercial and Multi -Family
• Consultation &
Residential
Research
• Pre -application
meetings & Design
Review
• Property Survey
• General Construction
Inspections
• Processing,
Scheduling, and
Record Keeping
Building or Planning Plan
Resolution No. 33-2008
$157.00 per hour
Check
Expedite Building or
Resolution No. 33-2008
$314.00 per hour
Planning Check Fees
(2 hour minimum)
Consultation and Planning
Resolution No. 33-2008
$229.00 per hour
Alternate Means of
Resolution No. 33-2008
$229.00 per hour
Protection Review
Page 29
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Fire Alarm Systems
Permit for Monitoring
Resolution No. 33-2008
$176.00
System
Permit for Manual System
Resolution No. 33-2008
$176.00
Permit for Automatic System
Resolution No. 33-2008
$313.00
Permit for Combination
Resolution No. 33-2008
$452.00
System
Multi -Residential or
$107.00
Commercial Fire Alarm
Remodel or Repair (Device
relocation/adjustment)
Fixed Fire Extinguishing
Resolution No. 33-2008
$245.00
System Permit
Standpipe System Permit
Resolution No. 33-2008
$313.00
Storage Tank (above or
Resolution No. 33-2008
$176.00
below ground) Permit
Page 30
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
One or two Family Dwelling
Resolution No. 33-2008
$452.00 - flat fee including 2
Fire Sprinkler System (NFPA
inspections (additional inspections
13D)
will be charged at the hourly rate
of the staff who actually perform
each inspection)
Fire Pump Permit
Resolution No. 33-2008
$176.00
Multi -Residential or
Resolution No. 33-2008
$727.00 flat fee including 2
Commercial Fire Sprinkler
inspections (additional inspections
System (NFPA 13 or 13R)
will be charged at the hourly rate
of the staff who actually perform
Permit — Single Story (incl.
each inspection)
T.I.)
Permit - Multi -story
Multi -Residential or
Resolution No. 33-2008
$107.00
Commercial Fire sprinkler
Remodel & Repair (Sprinkler
Head relocation/adjustment
only)
Fire Service Line Inspection
Resolution No. 33-2008
$176.00
Emergency Responder Radio
§510, CFC
$335.00
Coverage System Permit
Title 24 Part 9
MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND PERMITS
Labor Rate for Mechanic
$110.00
Services
Page 31
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Vegetation Management
Resolution No. 33-2008
$108.00 plus 50% of contractor's
Inspection
fee
Change of Use Inspection
Resolution No. 33-2008
$108.00
(usually triggered by new
business license)
Accounts referred to
+47% of original invoice
Collection Agencies
Photographs from
Resolution No. 61-2004
Cost of reproduction
investigations
Fire Incident Reports (not
Resolution No. 33-2008
$10.00
including photographs)
Work without a construction
Resolution No. 33-2008
Up to 10 times the permit fees
permit
Emergency Response Costs
Govt. Code §53150-58
Costs according to Personnel
for Driving under the
Schedule below plus apparatus
Influence (Billing upon
cost of $91.00 per hour as set by
conviction)
State
False Alarms
Resolution No. 33-2007
$441.00 for 3 to 5
$630.00 for 6 or more
Page 32
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Hazardous Materials Clean-
Resolution No. 33-2008
Costs according to Personnel
up/Response
Schedule below plus apparatus
costs of $91.00 per hour as set by
State
Page 33
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
STANDBY SERVICE
Firefighter
Resolution No. 33-2008
$88.00 per hour (minimum of 3
hours)
Fire Captain
Resolution No. 33-2008
$103.00 per hour (minimum of 3
hours)
Battalion Chief
Resolution No. 33-2008
$117.00 per hour (minimum of 3
hours)
Engine Company
Resolution No. 33-2008
$315.00 per hour (minimum of 3
hours) plus apparatus costs of
$91.00 per hour as set by State
Page 34
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
PERSONNEL COSTS
Personnel Costs by Job Class
Resolution No. 33-2008
$ 61.00 per hour
Administration
Firefighter
$ 88.00 per hour
Fire Captain
$103.00 per hour
Fire Administrative Captain
$103.00 per hour
Fire Prevention Specialist
$ 82.00 per hour
Fire Inspector
$138.00 per hour
Deputy Fire Marshal
$144.00 per hour
Battalion Chief
$117.00 per hour
Division Chief or Fire
$177.00 per hour
Marshal
Deputy Fire Chief
$188.00 per hour
Fire Chief
$205.00 per hour
GENERAL PERMITS
Aerosol Products
Resolution No. 33-2008
$163.00
Amusement Buildings
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Apartments, Hotels and
Resolution No. 33-2008
$140.00
Motels —10 or less units
Apartments, Hotels and
Resolution No. 33-2008
$166.00
Motels —11 to 25 units
Apartments, Hotels and
Resolution No. 33-2008
$192.00
Motels — 26 or more units
Apartments Assigned to
$219.00
Prevention
Page 35
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Aviation Facilities
Resolution No. 33-2008
$473.00
Battery System
Resolution No. 33-2008
$473.00
Carnivals and Fairs
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Christmas Tree Lot
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Combustible Fiber Storage
Resolution No. 33-2007
$267.00
Combustible Material
Storage
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Commercial Occupancy
Assigned to Prevention
Resolution No. 33-2008
$200.00
Commercial Rubbish-
Handling Operation
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Compressed Gasses
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Cryogens
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Dry Cleaning Plants
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Dust -Producing Operations
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Exhibits & Trade Shows —
Display Booth
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Exhibits & Trade Shows —
With Open Flame
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Exhibits & Trade Shows —
Display Fuel Powered
Equipment
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Page 36
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Explosives or Blasting Agents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$473.00
Fire Hydrants and Water
Control Valves
Resolution No. 33-2008
$265.00
Fireworks
Resolution No. 33-2008
$473.00
Flammable or Combustible
Liquids
Resolution No. 33-2008
$473.00
Hazardous Materials
Resolution No. 33-2008
$473.00
High -Piled Combustible
Storage — 20,000 square feet
or less
Resolution No. 33-2008
$481.00
High -Piled Combustible
Storage — more than 20,000
square feet
Resolution No. 33-2008
$549.00
Highrise
H&S§13214(b)
$316.00
Hot -Work Operations
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Liquefied Petroleum Gasses
Resolution No. 33-2008
$473.00
Liquid- or gas -fueled
Vehicles or Equipment in
Assembly Buildings
Resolution No. 33-2008
$473.00
Live Audiences
Resolution No. 33-2008
$473.00
Lumber Yards storing in
excess of 100,000 board Feet
Resolution No. 33-2008
$370.00
Magnesium Working
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Page 37
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Motor Vehicle Fuel-
Dispensing Stations
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Open Burning
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Organic Coating
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Ovens, Industrial Baking and
Drying
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Parade Floats
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Places of Assembly
Resolution No. 33-2008
$439.00
Production Facilities
Resolution No. 33-2008
$439.00
Pyrotechnical and Special
Effects Material
Resolution No. 33-2008
$473.00
Radioactive Materials
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Refrigeration Equipment
Resolution No. 33-2008
$370.00
Repair Garage
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Spraying and Dipping
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Tents, Canopies, and
Temporary Membrane
Structures
Resolution No. 33-2008
$402.00
Tire Storage
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Wood Products
Resolution No. 33-2008
$267.00
Page 38
may, irr
BURLINGAME
bT
Fiscal Year 2019 20 20-21Master Fee Schedule
LIBRARY
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
CITY OF BURLINGAME FEES
Photocopies — Black and White
$0.15 per page at vending
machine
Photocopies - Color
$0.45 per page at vending
machine
Internet /Database copies or
Resolution No. 27-2011
First 3 pages free
printouts — Black and White
$0.15 per page
Internet /Database copies or
Resolution No. 27-2011
First page free $0.45 per page
printouts — Color
Page 39
may, irr
BURLINGAME
bT
Fiscal Year 2019 20 20-21Master Fee Schedule
LIBRARY
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Facilities Rental
Lane Community Room rental
Resolution No. 32-2009
$130.00
Tech Media Lab rental
$90.00 first 4 hours. $10.00
each additional hour
Laptop set-up/breakdown
$50.00 flat fee
U.L. Meeting Room rental
$70.00 first 4 hours. $10.00
each additional hour
Outside System Book Loan
Resolution No. 27-2011
$5.00 + additional fee from
lending library if applicable
Photo/filming fee (only for
$50.00/hour
shoots requiring staff
oversight during closed hours)
Page 40
Fiscal Year 2019 20 20-21Master Fee Schedule
LIBRARY
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Passport:
Acceptance/US State
Department Fee
Passport Photo Fee
Express Mail Service to
Passport Processing Center
Set by US State
Department
$35.00 (as of April 2, 2018)
$15.00
Current USPS Priority Mail
Express Rate
PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM CONSORTIUM CONTROLLED FEES
Lost Book Replacement Fee
Peninsula Library System
$5.00 peF item pi,,.. Ceosts of
replacement of item
Page 41
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 202019-21A Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
Group Classifications for Purposes of Parks & Recreation Facilities Usage:
Group A: City of Burlingame, Burlingame School District
Group A-1: Recognized Burlingame based non-profit youth sports groups (for field use only)
Group B: Non-profit groups or organizations with IRS Section 501c(3) tax exempt status
Group C: Private parties, commercial, business, and profit -making organizations
School District Fees: Fees shall be applied to the district and affiliated organizations (examples: PTA,
Boosters, Foundations) as follows:
A. San Mateo Union High School District
a. Unless otherwise specified in an adopted facility use agreement, indoor and athletic facility
fees shall be calculated administratively to be comparable to the SMUHSD fee schedule as it
pertains to City use of similar SMUHSD facilities.
b. Picnic and special park facility fees, and staffing fees charged to SMUHSD shall be at the rates
described in other sections of the fee schedule.
B. Burlingame School District
a. Unless otherwise specified in an adopted facility use agreement, indoor and athletic facility
fees shall be calculated administratively to be comparable to the BSD fee schedule as it
pertains to City use of similar BSD facilities.
b. Picnic and special park facility fees, and staffing fees charged to BSD shall be at the rates
described in other sections of the fee schedule. Pool fees for BSD use shall be charged at the
non-profit rate.
Page 42
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
Fiscal Year 20201-9-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
NDOOR FACILITIES
R reation Center
Au itorium
Gro A
Re olution No. 3 -
PI GhaFge
20
Group
Burlinga a Residents
Resol tion No 33-
$157.00 14*rr
2008
Non -Reside is
Resolut n o.33-
c171.0014heur
2008
Burlingame No Profit
$43.061F
Meetings
Non Reside on Profit
$48.00 per hew-F
Meetings
Group C:
Burling a Residents
Res ution No. 3-
$27-1.00 15t h8UF
200
No Residents
R solution No. 33
$314.00 1 st K
08
uditorium Deposit
Page 43
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
Fiscal Year 20201-9-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Other Reqreatjef�.�
ReeffisTemporary Recreation
No Charge
Facilities
Group A
$121.00 15t hour
Group B:
$61.00 /add'I hour
Burlingame Residents
$132.00 15t hour
$65.00/add'I hour
Non -Residents
$24.00 per hour
Burlingame Non -Profit
Meetings
$26.00 per hour
Non Resident Non -Profit
Meetings
$157.00 1st hour
Group C:
$81.00/add'I hour
Burlingame Residents
$171.00 15t hour
$86.00/add'I hour
Non -Residents
Page 44
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
Fiscal Year 20201-9-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Facility Room Deposit
K*tr.hp R
GF$up A!
Rurl:..name D..r:dpntq
ni,, RerideRts
GFOUP Q
Burlingame Reqodpnt--;
nl,. m�
$200.00 Per Room
a
.- d-14155GAGURt on deposit of lounge
2nd launge isrented- at the sarne
t+r�e
snot di';Ct;l d,,. f i„t,.!;L-R oc
Rt E)R esk e
re.nted- ..nth ether reem
Pie Charge
$20 nn p r heuF
$24.00 peF hewF
$36.00 per hour
$42� n peFaT
Page 45
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
Fiscal Year 20201-9-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
In conjunction with Room
Resolution No. 33-
$20.00
Rental Additional Rental
2008
Charges:
Tables/Chairs-up to 50
Resolution No. 33-
$29.00
2008
Tables/Charis-51 to 100
Resolution No. 33-
$45.00
2008
Tables/Chairs-over 100
$15.00 per pot
Coffee Pots
Building Attendant*
Resolution No. 33-
$40.00 per hour
2008
Fool.d Attendant
RP-;PI-,tian Ne 41
Cnn nn n . L..,��.-
$4o�oo-peF hacrr
z2988
Weekend Custodian
Resolution No. 27-
$102.00 per event
2006
Weekday Custodian
Resolution No. 31-
$32.00 per hour
2003
Extra, Non -Scheduled Hours
Resolution No. 27-
$268.00 per hour
2006
Wine/beer to be served
Resolution No. 31-
$33.00 additional
2003
Building Attendant will be on duty 30 minutes prior to and 30 minutes after duration of activities at Recreation Center.
Page 46
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
Fiscal Year 20201-9-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
Field Attendant
Resolution No. 41-
$40.00 per hour
2008
Large Special Event Deposit for
$250.00 per event
Athletic Fields:
Less than 100 in attendance
$500.00 per event
More than 100 in attendance
$16.00 per Resident
Resolution No. 27-
$85.00 per Non -Resident plus $3.00
Group A-1: Field Use per
2011
per hour per field
Season by Burlingame -based
for Resident groups,
non-profit youth sports group.
$9.00 per hour per field for groups
less than 50% Resident
Security Deposit $500.00
Fields used by Accredited
Burlingame -based non-profit
youth sports groups
Page 47
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 202019-21A Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Bayside Ball Fields #1 and #2
Resolution No. 31-
No Charge
Group A
2003
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$23.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$34-.00 per hour
2008
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 31-
$34-.00 per hour
2003
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$554.00 per hour
2008
Bayside Field Lights
Resolution No. 24-
$38-7.00 per hour
2010
Page 48
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 202019-21A Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Bayside Ball Fields #3.#4 or #5
for Softball or Baseball
Group A
Resolution No. 31-
No Charge
2003
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$199.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$299.00 per hour
2008
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$299.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$44-.00 per hour
2008
Bayside Field Lights
Resolution No. 24-
$38-7.00 per hour
2010
Page 49
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 202019-21A Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Bayside Soccer Fields
Group A
Resolution No. 31-
No Charge
2003
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$23.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$34-.00 per hour
2008
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$343.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$554.00 per hour
2008
Bayside Field Lights
Resolution No. 24-
$38-7.00 per hour
2010
Page 50
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 202019-21A Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Cuernavaca Park
Group A
Resolution No. 31-
No Charge
2003
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$23.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$34-.00 per hour
2008
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 31-
$34-.00 per hour
2003
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$554.00 per hour
2008
Murray Field
Group A
Resolution No. 31-
No Charge
2003
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$59-7.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$807-9.00 per hour
2008
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$80-7-9.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$10199.00 per hour
2008
Murray Field Lights
Resolution No. 24-
$38-7.00 per hour
2010
Page 51
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 202019-21A Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Ray Park Ball Fields #1 or #2
Resolution No. 31-
No Charge
Group A
2003
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$23.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$34-.00 per hour
2008
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 31-
$34-.00 per hour
2003
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$554.00 per hour
2008
Page 52
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
Fiscal Year 20201-9-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Washington Park Main Ball
Field for Baseball
Group A
Resolution No. 41-
No Charge
2008
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 41-
$34-.00 per hour +field R#e.RCaRt
2008
Non-residents
Resolution No. 41-
$554.00 per hour +field a++^.., aRt
2008
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 41-
$554.00 per hour +field
2008
Non-residents
Resolution No. 41-
$77-5.00 per hour 4- field' attend-,.,+
2008
Washington Park Lights
Resolution No. 24-
$38-7.00 per hour
2010
Grandstands
$20 per hour + Field attendant
$150 cleaning fee
Page 53
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 202019-21A Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Washington Park Bullpen
Group A
Resolution No. 31-
No Charge
2003
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$18.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 61-
$23.00 per hour
2006
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 33-
$34-.00 per hour
2007
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$443.00 per hour
2008
Washington Park Main Ball
field Outfield for Soccer
Group A
Resolution No. 31-
No Charge
2003
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$34-.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$554.00 per hour
2008
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$554.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$78-.00 per hour
2008
Washington Park Lights
Resolution No. 24-
$38�.00 per hour
2010
Page 54
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 202019-21A Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Washington Park Small Ball
Field
Group A
Resolution No. 31-
No Charge
2003
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$18.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$299.00 per hour
2008
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-
$299.00 per hour
2006
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-
$44-.00 per hour
2008
Washington Small Lights
Resolution No. 24-
$38-7.00 per hour
2010
Page 55
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
Fiscal Year 20201-9-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Tennis Courts
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 31-
$36-5.00 for 4 hours/per court
2003
Non-residents
Resolution No. 61-
$586.00 for 4 hours/per court
2006
For Profit Rental
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 103-
$21.00 per hour/per court
2009
Non-residents
Resolution No. 103-
$25.00 per hour/per court
2009
PICNIC PERMITS
West -end of Washington Park
Resolution No. 27-
$445845.00 Permit Fee Ale Depe5it
(for Burlingame residents and
2011
$500.00 Deposit
non-profit groups only)
Electrical Service Hook-up at
Resolution No. 32-
$817-9.00
West -end of Washington Park
2009
X)OR
XAR
Page 56
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
Fiscal Year 20201-9-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Oak Tree Playground Picnic
Area
Burlingame Residents
$170 Permit Fee No Deposit
Non -Residents
$204 Permit Fee No Deposit
' aFge 0*cniG AFeaRedwood
Resolution No. 24-
$2233-7.00 Permit Fee No Deposit
Grove Picnic Area
Burlingame Residents
2010
Resolution No. 24-
$28074.00 Permit Fee No Deposit
Non -Residents
2010
Non-profit Group Picnic Fees:
Resolution No. 103-
$106-.00 Permit Fee No Deposit
Cuernavaca & Ray Parks
2009
Both Washington Park Picnic
Areas (Redwood Grove +Oak
Tree
Burlingame Residents
$-2 315.00 Permit Fee No Deposit
Non -Residents
$31410.00 Permit Fee No Deposit
pest EPAOlive Tree Picnic Area
Burlingame Residents
$1130.00 Permit Fee No Deposit
Non -Residents
$15147.00 Permit Fee No Deposit
Page 57
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: Widow/Orphan control
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
Fiscal Year 20201-9-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Washington Park Sports Court
$17 per hour
Washington Park
tBasketball Court
$100 fee if returned damaged
Rental of Pickleball Net
$200 fee if returned beyond repair
3 each
Purchase of Outdoor Pickleball
ball
Washington Park Bocce Ball
Courts (reservations).
(F ati s)
�7
Burlingame Residents
Resolution 34-2013
$28-7.00/hour per court
No Deposit
Non -Residents
$33-2.00/hour per court
No Deposit
Rental of Bocce Ball and
Resolution 34-2013
$10.00 Flat Rate + $40.00
Horseshoes
Refundable deposit
Washington Park Horseshoe
Pits
(reservations)
Burlingame Residents
Resolution 34-2013
$28�.00/hour per court
No Deposit
Non -Residents
Resolution 34-2013
$33-2.00/hour per court
No Deposit
Formatted: No underline
........
Formatted: No underline
.........
Formatted: No underline
Page 58
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
Fiscal Year 20201-9-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Rental of Park Space for Private
Classes (Exercise Boot Camps,
Stroller Exercise Classes &
Other Private Uses)
Burlingame residents
Resolution No. 103-
$19.00 per hour
2009
Non-residents
Resolution No. 103-
$23.00 per hour
2009
Village Park Picnic Fee (3
tables
Burlingame residents
Resolution 24-2010
$11209.00 Permit Fee No Deposit
Non-residents
Resolution 24-2010
$15147.00 Permit Fee No Deposit
Off site: Non -Profit Community
Resolution No. 32-
$2036.00 per table/per day
Groups Equipment Rental Fees
Collapsible Picnic Table
2009
Tables
$64.00 per table/per day
Chairs
$32-.00 per chair/per day
Tents
$25-1.00 per tent/per day
Risers —without wheels
$z3 00 peF FiserpeFday
Risers — with wheels
$52.00 . riser/per day
Page 59
�6 clrr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 202019-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Inflatable Jump House
Washington Park
Resolution No. 27-
$1120-9.00 Permit Fee No Deposit
2011
(Must be done in conjunction with a
picnic permit)
Recreation a
Resolution No. 27-
Wedding Ceremony
Washington Park Rose Garden
Resolution No. 27-
$11299.00 residents
2011
$1684.00 non-residents
With
7-
Facilit Ren
$112 no
Page 60
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
Fiscal Year 20201-9-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Photo Shoots in Parks
Application Fee
Resolution No. 27-
$55.00 non-refundable fee
2011
Rental Fee Per Day
Resolution No. 27-
$140-3-7.00 per day
2011
Student Photo Shoot
No CharRge
Film Shoot in Parks
Application Fee
$320.00 non-refundable fee
Commercial or Corporate
$4473-5.00 per day
Feature Film/Documentary
$671-52.00 per day
Community Garden
.Annual
Fee
$85/year per plot
Annual Fee for Non -Residents
$100/year per plot
$100 deposit
Deposit
Page 61
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: Widow/Orphan control
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020353-219 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Brochure Ads
Resolution No. 27-
1 issue/4 issues (1 year - 20%
2011
Discount)
1/8 page
$78g.00/$24942-.00
1/4 page
$1554.00/$49794.00
1/2 page
$31293.00/$99974.00
Full page
$62395.00/$1,99439.00
Full Page Inside Front Cover
$8393-6.00/$2,6859-9.00
Full Page Inside Back Cover
$78364.00/$2,505434.00
Full Page Back Cover
$9339-7.00/$2,985A4.00
Layout
$807-8.00 per hour
Discount for Non -Profits
25% resident groups
0% non-resident groups
CLASSES
Class Fees
Resolution No. 31-
To be set based on class provider
2003
and materials/facilities provided
Registration Fees
Resolution No. 24-
$12.00
2010
Non-resident Fee on Classes
Resolution No. 31-
Add 20% to class fee rounded to
2003
nearest dollar
Page 62
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020353-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Senior discount — Burlingame
Resolution No. 103-
25% off class fee on classes held at
residents age 65 and over
2009
Recreation CenterTemporary
Facilities
Senior discount — non-residents
Resolution No. 31-
Waive non-resident fee
age 65 and over
2003
Registration cancellation
Resolution No. 33-
$8.00 per class or event
charge
2008
TREE AND PARKS FEES
Memorial tree plantings
Resolution No. 33-
$3�00.00/$5400.00
15 gallon/24" box size
2008
Memorial Bench
Resolution No. 27-
$3,000.00
2011
Additional street tree plantings
Resolution No. 32-
$101-99.00/$266§8.00
15 gallon/24" box size
2009
Protected Tree Removal
Application Fee
Resolution No. 33-
$;5 00100.00
2008
Failure to Meet Replanting
$1,200.00
Requirements of Permit
Arborist's plan review for
Resolution No. 33-
$253-39.00
landscaping requirements on
2008
planning applications
(See also planning fee
schedule)
Page 63
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020353-210 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Arborist check of construction
Resolution No. 33-
$25338.00
plans and inspection of
2008
landscape requirements on
building permit submittals
Appeal to City Council from
Resolution No. 33-
$468- 5.00
Beautification Commission
2008
decision (does not include
noticing costs)
Noticing, City Council Appeal
Resolution No. 33-
$10696.00
2008
Street Banner Hanger
Resolution No. 24-
$12 5 00200.00
2010
Private Tree Emergency Work
$807-9.00 per hour
Business Hours (M-F; 7-3:30)
After Hours (Weekends &
$10214.00 per hour
Holidays)
Page 64
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
PRE -APPLICATIONS
Preliminary Plan Check, New
Resolution No. 27-2011
$905999.00
ConstructionM
Preliminary Plan Check, Remodel*
Resolution No. 27-2011
$45340.00
Zoning Verification/Property Profile
$10603.00
Letter
APPLICATIONS
Ambiguity/Determination Hearing
Resolution No. 33-2008
$1,512479.00
before Planning Commission
(applies to Planning, Fire, and
Building requests)
Amendment/Extension of Permits
Resolution No. 27-2011
$8157-W.00
Antenna Exception Fee
Section 18.18.040
$3,1950-5.00
Appeal to Planning Commission of
Resolution No. 33-2008
$96942.00
administratively approved
permits/appeal to City Council of
Planning Commission decisions
Noticing to be charged separately
Fifty percent (50%) of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete
application.
Page 65
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Legal Review -Substantive work by
Resolution No. 48-2015
$19894.00/hour
City Attorney for development
projects requiring discretionary
review before the Planning
Commission under Title 25
Conditional Use Permit
Resolution No. 27-2011
$2,0054;949.00
Condominium Permit, 10 Units or
Resolution No. 33-2008
$3,570469.00
Fewer
Condominium Permit, 11 Units to
Resolution No. 33-2008
$4,193075.00
25 Units
Condominium Permit, 26 Units to
$4,9217-94.00
50 Units
Condominium Permit, 51 Units to
$5,77961-6.00
100 Units
Condominium Permit, 101 Units and
$6,7855-94.00
Greater
Design Review, Addition
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,2854-9.00
Design Review, Amendment
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,110978.00
Design Review Deposit
Resolution No. 27-2006
$1,44899.00
Design Review — Handling Fee
Resolution No. 33-2008
$56349.00
Minimum deposit. Formula for ultimate calculation is design review consultant fee times hours spent. Project not set for hearing
until actual time paid.
Page 66
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Minor "FYI" Amendment to
$42816.00
Approved Project —Applicant
Initiated
As -Built "FYI" Variation from
$1,578-4.00
Approved Project
Design Review, New Construction —
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,28449.00
Single Family Residential
Design Review, New Construction —
$1926-
,974.00
Multifamily Family Residential 25
Units or Fewer
Design Review, New Construction —
$2,568436.00
Multifamily Family Residential 26
Units or Greater
Design Review, New Construction —
$1,28449.00
Commercial, 5,000 Gross Square
Feet or Less
Design Review, New Construction —
$1,92687-2.00
Commercial, 5,001-10,000 Gross
Square Feet
Design Review, New Construction —
$2,568496.00
Commercial, 10,001 Gross Square
Feet or Greater
Fence Exception
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,12909:7.00
Minor Modification
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,43849-7.00
Page 67
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Hillside Area Construction Permit
Resolution No. 27-2011
$2,3642-99.00
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Resolution No. 27-2011
$7-1310-00
Reasonable Accommodation
Resolution No. 27-2011
$46149.00
General Plan Amendment/Re-
zoning
Resolution No. 27-2011
$7,689473.00
Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty
Permit,
Building Official Inspection Deposit
Resolution No. 27-2011
$53247.00
Special Use Permit
Resolution No. 27-2011
$4,3882-64.00
Variance
Resolution No 27-2011
$4,587458.00
Wireless Communications
Administrative Use Permit
Municipal Code Chapter
25.77
$2,0383;984.00
Plan Recheck Fee
More than two revisions to plans
Major redesign of project plans
Resolution No. 32- 2009
Resolution No. 32- 2009
$7442-3.00
$89670.00
ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental, Categorical
Exemption
Resolution No. 27-2011
$125-1.00
Environmental, Negative
Declaration (R-1 and R-2)
Resolution No. 27-2011
$6,464291.00
Page 68
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Environmental, Initial
Resolution No. 27-2011
Pass -through of actual
Study/Mitigated Negative
contractor cost, plus 10% of
Declaration and/or with a
contract handling fee,
Responsible Agency
deposit to be determined by
Director of Community
Development
Environmental Impact Report
Resolution No. 31-2003
Pass -through of actual
contractor cost, plus 20% of
contract handling fee,
deposit to be determined by
Director of Community
Development
Environmental Posting Fee,
Resolution No. 27-2011
$884-59.00
Mitigated Negative Declaration and
EIR
Fish & Game Fee for Negative
Fish & Game Code §
$2,406.75364-.99
Declaration, whether mitigated or
711.4
not (pass -through fee)
Fish & Game Fee for Environmental
Fish & Game Code §
$3,343.252q-9-.W
Impact Report (pass -through fee)
711.4
County Clerk Processing Fee for Fish
Fish & Game Code §
$50-2.00
& Game (pass -through fee)
711.4
PARKS
Arborist Review (when required)
Resolution No. 33-2008
$25346.00
Page 69
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
NOTICING
Noticing, R-1 and R-2
Resolution No. 27-2011
$682&2.00
Noticing, All Other Districts
Resolution No. 27-2011
$6826-2.00
Noticing, R-1 Design Review,
Residential
Resolution No. 27-2011
$94824.00
Noticing, R-1 Design Study,
Residential
Resolution No. 27-2011
$94824.00
Noticing, Design Review, all other
districts
Resolution No. 27-2011
$94824.00
Noticing, Minor Modifications,
Hillside Area Construction Permits
Resolution No. 27-2011
$79279.00
Noticing, General Plan Amendment
— Re -zoning
Resolution No. 33-2008
$1,4184:�9.00
Noticing, Environmental Impact
Report
Resolution No. 33-2008
$1,4184:�9.00
Noticing, City Council Appeal
Resolution No. 33-2008
$106-.00
Noticing, Accessory Dwelling Unit
Amnesty Permit
Resolution No. 61-2004
$686.00
Noticing— Wireless
Communications
Municipal Code Chapter
25.77.120
$624W.00
Noticing — Replacement of Posted
Sign
$35545.00
Page 70
�6 cirr n
BURIJNGAME
4�T ye
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Noticing —Design Review Yard Sign
$5816-5.00
SIGNS
50 square feet or less
Resolution No 27-2011
$266§9.00
Over 50 SF and less than 200 square
feet
Resolution No. 27-2011
$37969.00
Over 200 square feet
Resolution No. 27-2011
$4362-4.00
Sign Variance
Resolution No. 27-2011
$3,2261�5.00
Removal of Illegal Sign
Resolution No. 33-2008
$129-5.00
PUBLICATIONS
Zoning Map
Resolution No. 32-2009
$5.00
Page 71
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
The Bayfront Development Fee is charged to all new construction/development within the Bayfront Specific
Plan Area on the east side of US 101. One-half of the fee is payable before issuance of a building permit and
the balance is payable when certificate of occupancy is requested. Ordinance No. 1739 (2004), as amended,
provides for annual adjustment based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News
Record (ENR) as of July 1 of each year. Adjustments to these fees will be included in the City of Burlingame
Master Fee Schedule based on any change in the construction cost index as of July 1, 202019.
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Bayfront Development Fee
Office
Ord. No. 1739 (2004)
$2,781.00/TSF
Restaurant
$11,197.00/TSF
Hotel
$991.00/room
Hotel, Extended Stay
$886.00/room
Office, Warehouse,
$4,216.00/TSF
Manufacturing
Retail — Commercial
$10,236.00/TSF
Car Rental
$64,962.00/acre
Commercial Recreation
$20,161.00/acre
All Other
$2,240.00 per p.m. peak hour
trip as detailed by traffic study
Page 72
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
North Burlingame & Rollins Road Development Fees are charged to all new construction and development
within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area. One-half of the fee is payable before issuance of
a building permit and the balance is payable when certificate of occupancy is requested. Ordinance No. 1751
(2005) provides for annual adjustment beginning in 2006, based on the construction cost index published in
the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1 of each year. Adjustments to these fees will be included in the
City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule based on any change in the construction cost index as of July 1,
20203-9.
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
North Burlingame & Rollins Road
Development Fee
Rollins Road Area of Benefit
Ord. No. 1751 (2005)
$0.63 per square foot of
building
El Camino North Area of Benefit
Ord. No. 1751 (2005)
$0.63 per square foot of
Multiple family dwelling or duplex
building
Any use other than multiple family
Ord. No. 1751 (2005)
$0.80 per square foot of
dwelling or duplex
building
Page 73
Formatted Table
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
The Public Facilities Impact Fee is a general category of fees based on the uses, number of dwelling units
and/or amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of a development
project. The fees are committed to public improvement, public services, and community amenities
affected by new development (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.80).
The purpose of the fee is established upon approval of a permit for construction or reconstruction, and is
intended for improvements in one or more of the following categories:
• General Facilities & Equipment • Streets & Traffic
• Libraries • Fire
• Police • Storm Drainage
• Parks & Recreation
Single Family
Multifamily
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Fee per Dwelling
Unit
Fee per Dwelling
Unit
Fee per 1,000 sq.ft.
of Building
Fee per 1,000 sq.ft.
of Building
Fee per 1,000 sq.ft.
of Building
General
$ 2,756
$ 1,636
$ 640
$ 930
$ 305
Library
$ 2,383
$ 1,415
$ 478
$ 695
$ 228
Police
$ 437
$ 259
$ 102
$ 147
$ 48
Parks
$ 590
$ 350
$ 118
$ 172
$ 56
Traffic/Streets
$ 1,573
$ 1,105
$ 1,810
$ 7,285
$ 1,146
Fire
$ 642
$ 381
$ 248
$ 360
$ 118
Storm Drainage
$ 781
$ 391
$ 442
$ 717
$ 628
Total Impact Fee:
$ 9,162
$ 5,537
$3,838
$10,306
$2,529
The establishing ordinance provides no annual escalator for the Public Facilities Impact Fee.
Page 74
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
Burlingame Avenue Parking In Lieu Fees are applicable only to commercial properties within
Downtown Burlingame and are collected in those instances where a land -use requires additional
parking, but the site cannot physically accommodate additional spaces. The fee is based upon a per -
space, or portion thereof that is not being provided on the property. The funds are to remain in the
City's Parking fund to help defray the cost of building a City -owned and operated parking structure.
The fees are updated annually based on the February Consumer Price Index— Urban Wage Earners
and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the San Francisco Area.
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Burlingame Avenue Parking in Lieu
Resolution 48-2000
$56,258.6957, 991.43
Fees
Page 75
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
Commercial Affordable Housing Linkage Fees were adopted by the City Council in 2017-2018 to
provide a dedicated source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame.
• Retail - $7.00 per square foot ($5.00 w/ prevailing wages)
• Hotel - $12.00 per square foot ($10.00 w/ prevailing wages)
• Office projects of 50,000 square feet or less - $18.00 per square foot ($15.00 w/
prevailing wages)
• Office projects greater than 50,000 square feet - $25.00 per square foot ($20.00 w/
prevailing wages)
Residential Impact Fees are scheduled to be adopted by the City Council on April 1, to be effective June 1,
2019. The fees are to be used to increase, improve, and/or protect the supply of housing affordable to
moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households. An "in -lieu" option is available where
the developer chooses to provide an affordable unit or units on site.
Impact Fee — Per Square Foot
Base F With Prevailing / Area Wage
Rental Multifamily — 11 units and above
Up to 50 du/ac
$17.00 / sq ft
$14.00 / sq ft
51-70 du/ac
$20.00 / sq ft
$17.00 / sq ft
71 du/ac and above
$30.00 / sq ft
$25.00 / sq ft
For Sale Multifamily Condominiums — 7 units and above
$35.00 / sq ft $30.00 / sq ft
Notes:
1. Rental Multifamily with total of 10 units or fewer are exempt.
2. For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) with total of 6 units or fewer are exempt.
3. Rental projects that convert to condominiums within 10 years of completion of construction would be subject
to the fee differential as a condition of conversion. The fee differential shall be based on the fee structure in
place at the time of conversion to condominiums, minus the fees originally submitted at the time of
construction.
Page 76
may, irr
BURLINGAME
`k
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Vehicle Release
Resolution No.32-2009
$16065.00
Police Reports
Resolution No.32-2009
$0.25 per page
Report Copies
Gov't Code § 6253(b)
Fingerprint Rolling Fee
Live scan Fee Set by
$35.00 plus appropriate State
State of California
Dept. of Justice and/or Federal
Department of Justice
processing fee
CD's/DVD's Containing Digital
Resolution No.32-2009
$99.306-59 per CD/DVD
Files
Clearance Letter
Resolution No. 32-2009
$299.00
Repossessed Vehicle
Gov't Code § 41612
$15.00
Preferential Parking Permits
(Residential Permit Parking
Program)
Issuance (up to 2 permits for
Resolution No. 22-2008
$59-.00
same address)
(Section 13.36.070)
Annual renewal (up to 2
Resolution No. 22-2008
$59-.00
permits for same address)
(Section 13.36.070)
Charge for replacement of lost
Resolution No. 22-2008
$59-.00
permit
(Section 13.36.070)
Page 77
may, irr
BURLINGAME
`k
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Burlingame Avenue
Section 13.32.020
$60.00/month
Downtown Area Parking
Permits
Driving Under Influence (DUI)
Resolution No. 32-2009
$237-3-1-.00 per hour
Fees
Resolution No. 33-2007
$138-6.00 per blood test
Resolution No. 33-2007
$510.00 per breath or urine test
Resolution No. 33-2007
$13845.00 per refused blood test
Security Service (Outside
Resolution No. 33-2008
$149-5.00 per hour
Detail) (minimum charge of
four hours)
Alarm Permit Application Fee
Resolution No. 116-2003
$18.00
(Section 10.10.110)
Alarm Permits (Annual
Resolution No. 116-2003
$32.00 per year
Renewal)
(Section 10.10.110)
False Alarm Charge
1 to 2 false alarms
No Charge
3 to 5 false alarms
Resolution No. 116-2003
$50.00 each
(Section 10.10.090)
6 or more false alarms
Resolution No. 116-2003
$100.00 each
Any false alarm for which no
(Section 10.10.090)
$50.00 (includes cost of alarm
alarm permit has been
Resolution No. 28-2006
permit plus $18.00 initial
issued
application fee)
Page 78
may, irr
BURLINGAME
`k
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Live Entertainment Permit
Resolution No. 32-2009
$61708.00
(Sections 6.16.030)
Single Event Entertainment
(Section 6.16.090)
$106-.00
Permit
Peddlers and Solicitors
Resolution No. 41-2008
$657-39.00 for investigation plus
(Section 6.24.030)
fingerprinting fees
Curb Painting
Resolution No. 33-2007
$6059.00 for investigation
Tannin; Salon
Application
Resolution No. 41-2008
$1, 0059-7-7.00 plus fingerprinting
(Section 6.42.060)
fees
Sale or Transfer
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.42.120)
$920894.00 plus fingerprinting
fees
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.42.160)
$690-74.00 plus fingerprinting fees
Page 79
may, irr
BURLINGAME
`k
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Massage Operator
Application
Resolution No. 32-2009
$1,3002-64.00 plus fingerprinting
(Section 6.40.060)
fees
Sale or Transfer
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 6.40.120)
$1,3002-64.00 plus fingerprinting
fees
Renewal
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 6.40.160)
$8157-W.00 plus fingerprinting
fees
Model/Escort Service
Application
Resolution No. 41-2008
$1,103074.00 plus fingerprinting
(Section 6.41.040)
fees
Sale or Transfer
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.41.100)
$1,0069-7&00 plus fingerprinting
fees
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.41.130)
$690-74.00 plus fingerprinting fees
Private Patrol Company
Application
Resolution No. 41-2008
$370--Iig.00 plus fingerprinting fees
(Section 6.44.050)
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
$1850.00 plus fingerprinting fees
(Section 6.44.080)
Page 80
may, irr
BURLINGAME
`k
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Taxi Operator
Application
Section 6.36.050
Business license fee plus
fingerprinting fees
Renewal
Section 6.36.190
Business license fee plus
fingerprinting fees
Taxi Driver
Application
Section 6.36.050
$74.502-.99 plus fingerprinting
fees
Renewal
Section 6.36.190
$66.00 plus fingerprinting fees
Taxicab Annual Inspection
Section 6.36.120
$853.00 per vehicle
Valet Parking
Resolution No. 41-2008
$713§93.00 plus fingerprinting
(Section 6.30.040)
fees
Concealed Weapon
Resolution No. 32-2009
$1,2031�0.00 for investigation
Fortune Teller
Resolution No. 41-2008
$713693.00 plus fingerprinting
(Set by Section 6.38.060)
fees
Unruly Gathering
Section 10.70.070
Cost of Hours of Officer Response
Page 81
may, irr
BURLINGAME
`k
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Special Events & Street
Resolution No. 32-2009
Closing:
Application and Permit
$106-.00
Sidewalk Closure
$1063.00 per parcel/per day
Road Closure
$2129-7.00 per parcel/per day
Verification of non-resident
Resolution No. 90-2009
No Charge
"proof -of -correction" citations
Page 82
may, irr
BURLINGAME
bT
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
SEWER CONNECTION FEES
Single-family and Duplex
Section 15.08.020
$2826 .00/unit
Fee updated based on Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index as of
1/1/204-9
Multi -family
Section 15.08.020
$21584.00/unit
Fee updated based on Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index as of
1/1/20479
Commercial/Retail
Section 15.08.020
$449-5.00/thousand square feet (TSF)
Fee updated based on Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index as of
1/1/2019
Office
Section 15.08.020
$9892.00/TSF
Fee updated based on Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index as of
1/1/204-9
Warehouse
Section 15.08.020
$12644.00/TSF
Fee updated based on Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index as of
1/1/2049
Restaurant
Section 15.08.020
$1,1109S0.00/TSF
Fee updated based on Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index as of
1/1/204-9
Page 83
may, irr
BURLINGAME
bT
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Hotel with Restaurant
Section 15.08.020
$708670.00/room
Fee updated based on Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index as of
1/1/20479
Hotel without Restaurant
Section 15.08.020
$43844.00/room
Fee updated based on Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index as of
1/1/20�9
INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE FEES
The fee covers two (2) samples; additional samples charged according to the Analytical
Processing Fee Schedule below.
Light Discharger, Annual
Ord. No. 1786
$606.00
(2006)
Moderate Discharger,
Ord. No. 1786
$1,660.00
Annual
(2006)
Heavy Discharger,
Ord. No. 1786
$2,318.00
Annual
(2006)
Non -Conventional
Ord. No. 1786
$1,239.00
Discharger, Annual
(2006)
Groundwater Discharger
Ord. No. 1786
Non -conventional Fee plus $6.98 per 1000
(2006)
gallons discharged
Application Processing
Ord. No. 1786
$160.00
Fee
(2006)
Page 84
may, irr
BURLINGAME
bT
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
ANALYTICAL FEES
In-house Testing
Ord. No. 1786
Cost
(2006)
Contract Lab Testing
Ord. No. 1786
Cost plus 15%
(2006)
BIMONTHLY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
Single-family or duplex
Ord. No. 1844-2010
$12.25 per thousand gallons. Minimum
Section 15.08.070
charge $24.50
(Effective 1/1/2012)
Multi -family residential
Ord. No. 1844-2010
$11.45 per thousand gallons
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 1/1/2012)
Restaurant, other
Ord. No. 1844-2010
$32.59 per thousand gallons
commercial food -related
Section 15.08.070
uses
(Effective 1/1/2012)
Heavy strength
Ord. No. 1844-2010
$21.97 per thousand gallons
commercial
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 1/1/2012)
Page 85
may, irr
BURLINGAME
bT
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Light strength
Ord. No. 1844-2010
$13.53 per thousand gallons
commercial
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 1/1/2012)
Institutional
Ord. No. 1844-2010
$4.80 per thousand gallons
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 1/1/2012)
NEW CUSTOMERS IN SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEX CLASSIFICATION
Number of Residents
1
Section 15.08.072
$47.63
2
(Effective 1/1/2012)
$59.26
3
$72.52
4
$85.78
5
$97.94
6
$101.44
7
$110.30
8
$128.46
9 or more
$150.60
Page 86
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
WATER
Water fees are set via a three year rate -setting cycle with an effective date of January 1. The following rates
are effective January 1, 2019.
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
BI-MONTHLY CHARGE FOR METERS
5/8" and 3/4" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (2017)
$84.03
1" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (2017)
$140.05
1- %" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (2017)
$280.10
2" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (2017)
$448.16
3" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (2017)
$840.30
4" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (2017)
$1,400.50
6" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (2017)
$2,801.00
8" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (2017)
$4,481.60
Page 87
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
WATER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
WATER CONSUMPTION
Single Family Residential Tiers
Ord. No. 1880 (2017)
Rates per thousand gallons
Tier 1 (0-4,000 gal): $9.79
Tier 2 (4,001-8,000 gal): $10.98
Tier 3 (8,001-16,000 gal): $12.18
Tier 4 (16,001-24,000 gal): $13.38
Tier 5 (24,001 gal & above): $14.58
Commercial/Multi-
Ord. No. 1880 (2017)
Effective Jan 1, 2019: $11.46 per
Family/Duplex/Other
thousand gallons
Water Service Turn -On
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday
No Charge
thru Friday
3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.,
$20.00
Monday thru Friday
3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.,
$60.00
Monday thru Friday
Saturday/Sunday/Holiday
$60.00
Page 88
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
WATER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Penalty Fee (Past Due)
Not paid within 30 days of
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
1.5% penalty
billing
Service Renewal
8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
$35.00
thru Friday
3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.,
$45.00
Monday thru Friday
3:31 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.,
$60.00
Monday thru Friday
Maintenance of Water in Fire
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
$1.00 per month per inch of pipe
Protection System
diameter, with $2.00 minimum
charge
Flow Test
5/8" through 1"
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
$50.00
1- %" and 2"
$80.00
Over 2"
$100.00 minimum (if over $100.00,
cost of testing plus 15%)
Page 89
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
WATER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Temporary Water Service
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
$750.00 deposit
Meter charges (does not
$43.00 per month for 1-inch meter
include water consumption)
$85.00 per month for three-inch
meters
Water Service Turn -on Deposit
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
$50.00 or 2 months estimated
if Delinquent on City Water
consumption, whichever is greater
Account in Previous 12 months
Work on City Water System
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
$60.00 permit
$1,500.00 bond or deposit
Fire Flow Test
Section 15.04.030
$242.00 per hydrant
Page 90
BURIJNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
WATER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Water Line Installation
5/8" bypass meter
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
$350.00
3/4" service with meter
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
$4,100.00
1" service with meter
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
$4,135.00
1- Y. " service with meter
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
$5,280.00
2" service with meter
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
$5,420.00
If larger than 2" or a length of
Ord. No. 1805 (2006)
Cost plus 15%
more than 60 feet
Meter Upgrade
To 3/4" meter or 1" meter
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
$254.00
(meter only)
Page 91
�6 cirr n
BURWNGAM_E
m
Fiscal Year 2020-2119 20 Master Fee Schedule
COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL
The City's agreement with San Mateo County requires that animal control fees reflect the fees adopted by the
County Board of Supervisors (S.M.0 Ordinance No. 04628, approved July 24, 2012). These fees are subject to
changes based on any future action by the County of San Mateo, and are available on-line at
https://Iibrary.municode.com/ca/san mateo county/codes/code of ordinances?node1d=TIT6AN#!
Page 92
N EWS RELEASE
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
U. S. D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R :
r
—_1=1BL.P ATES o P�
For Release: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 20-426-SAN
WESTERN INFORMATION OFFICE: San Francisco, Calif.
Technical information: (415) 625-2270 BLSinfoSF@bls.gov www.bls.gov/regions/west
Media contact: (415) 625-2270
Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area — February 2020
Area prices were up 0.9 percent over the past two months, up 2.9 percent from a year ago
Prices in the San Francisco area, as measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U),
advanced 0.9 percent for the two months ending in February 2020, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. (See table A.) Assistant Commissioner for Regional Operations Richard Holden noted that the
February increase was influenced by higher prices for shelter and apparel. (Data in this report are not
seasonally adjusted. Accordingly, month -to -month changes may reflect seasonal influences.)
Over the last 12 months, the CPI-U increased 2.9 percent. (See chart 1 and table A.) The index for all items
less food and energy advanced 2.8 percent over the year. Food prices rose 3.5 percent. Energy prices increased
4.0 percent, largely the result of an increase in the price of electricity. (See table 1.)
Chart 1.Over-the-year percent change in CPI-U, San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward,
CA, Febrtiary 2017—Felmiary 2020
Percent change -f;ll items
F.0
All items less tod and enen
�.0
'.0
2.0
1.0
C.0 �
F et
1.
Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb
'is '19 '20
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Food
Food prices increased 1.4 percent for the two months ending in February. (See table 1.) Prices for food away
from home increased 2.7 percent, but prices for food at home edged up 0.1 percent for the same period.
Over the year, food prices rose 3.5 percent. Prices for food way from home moved up 6.3 percent since a year
ago, and prices for food at home increased 0.5 percent.
Energy
The energy index decreased 0.8 percent for the two months ending in February. The decrease was mainly due
to lower prices for gasoline (41 percent). Prices for natural gas service advanced 3.1 percent, and prices for
electricity rose 2.7 percent for the same period.
Energy prices increased 4.0 percent over the year, largely due to higher prices for electricity (11.2 percent).
Prices paid for natural gas service increased 3.3 percent, but prices for gasoline edged down 0.1 percent during
the past year.
All items less food and energy
The index for all items less food and energy increased 0.9 percent in the latest two -month period. Higher
prices for apparel (12.0 percent), household furnishings and operations (2.3 percent) and shelter (0.7 percent)
were partially offset by lower prices for medical care (-1.6 percent) and recreation (-0.7 percent).
Over the year, the index for all items less food and energy advanced 2.8 percent. Components contributing to
the increase included medical care (5.1 percent), household furnishings and operations (3.7 percent) and
shelter (3.5 percent). Partly offsetting the increases were price decreases in education and communication and
new and used motor vehicles, both down 0.8 percent).
Table A. San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA, CPI-U 2-month and 12-month percent changes, all items index,
not seasonally adjusted
Month
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
2-month
month
2-month
month
2-month
month
2-month
month
2-month
month
February ..................................................
0.9
3.0
0.8
3.4
1.4
3.6
0.5
3.5
0.9
2.9
April.........................................................
0.7
2.7
1.1
3.8
0.8
3.2
1.2
4.0
June .........................................................
0.6
2.7
0.3
3.5
0.9
3.9
0.2
3.2
August .....................................................
0.7
3.1
0.2
3.0
0.6
4.3
0.1
2.7
October ....................................................
0.9
3.6
0.6
2.7
0.7
4.4
1.0
3.0
December ................................................
-0.31
3.5
-0.11
2.9
0.1
4.5
-0.51
2.5
The April 2020 Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco area is scheduled to be released on May 12,
2020.
Consumer Price Index Geographic Revision for 2018
In January 2018, BLS introduced a new geographic area sample for the Consumer Price Index (CPI). As
part of the new sample, the index for this area was renamed. Additional information on the geographic
revision is available at: www.bls.gov/cpi/additional-resources/geographic-revision-2018.htm.
Technical Note
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change in prices over time in a fixed market
basket of goods and services. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes CPIs for two population groups: (1) a
CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) which covers approximately 94 percent of the total population and (2) a
CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) which covers 28 percent of the total population.
The CPI-U includes, in addition to wage earners and clerical workers, groups such as professional, managerial,
and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, and retirees and others not in
the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors' and
dentists' services, drugs, and the other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. Each month,
prices are collected in 75 urban areas across the country from about 5,000 housing units and approximately
22,000 retail establishments --department stores, supermarkets, hospitals, filling stations, and other types of
stores and service establishments. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are included
in the index.
The index measures price changes from a designated reference date (1982-84) that equals 100.0. An increase
of 16.5 percent, for example, is shown as 116.5. This change can also be expressed in dollars as follows: the
price of a base period "market basket" of goods and services in the CPI has risen from $10 in 1982-84 to
$11.65. For further details see the CPI home page on the Internet at www.bls.gov/cpi and the BLS Handbook
of Methods, Chapter 17, The Consumer Price Index, available on the Internet at www.bls.gov/opub/hom/
homchl7_a.htm.
In calculating the index, price changes for the various items in each location are averaged together with
weights that represent their importance in the spending of the appropriate population group. Local data are
then combined to obtain a U.S. city average. Because the sample size of a local area is smaller, the local area
index is subject to substantially more sampling and other measurement error than the national index. In
addition, local indexes are not adjusted for seasonal influences. As a result, local area indexes show greater
volatility than the national index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. NOTE: Area indexes do
not measure differences in the level of prices between cities; they only measure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.
The San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA. metropolitan area covered in this release is comprised of Alameda,
Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo Counties in the State of California.
Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone:
(202) 691-5200; Federal Relay Service: (800) 877-8339.
Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Indexes and percent changes for selected
periods San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA (1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted)
Item and Group
Indexes
Percent change from -
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Dec.
Jan.
2019
2020
2020
2019
2019
2020
Expenditure category
All items..................................................................
297.007
299.690
2.9
0.9
Al items (1967=100)..............................................
913.082
921.330
-
-
Food and beverages ..........................................
291.161
294.897
2.7
1.3
Food...............................................................
289.795
-
293.860
3.5
1.4
Food at home ..............................................
255.160
252.943
255.459
0.5
0.1
1.0
Cereals and bakery products ......................
261.685
-
260.713
3.4
-0.4
-
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ......................
257.727
259.584
5.2
0.7
Dairy and related products ..........................
272.909
276.983
2.7
1.5
Fruits and vegetables ..................................
339.390
337.537
-2.3
-0.5
Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage
208.244
205.500
-1.8
-1.3
materials(1).................................................
Other food at home .....................................
215.083
215.951
-2.8
0.4
Food away from home ....................................
329.746
338.700
6.3
2.7
Food away from home .................................
329.746
338.700
6.3
2.7
Alcoholic beverages .......................................
311.197
310.927
-3.6
-0.1
Housing..............................................................
352.601
-
355.875
3.8
0.9
-
Shelter............................................................
403.366
404.651
406.369
3.5
0.7
0.4
Rent of primary residence(2).......................
465.399
467.145
469.062
4.1
0.8
0.4
Owners' equiv. rent of residences(2)(3).......
431.525
432.813
435.428
3.4
0.9
0.6
Owners' equiv. rent of primary
431.525
432.813
435.428
3.4
0.9
0.6
residence(1)(2)........................................
Fuels and utilities ............................................
421.094
-
428.216
7.6
1.7
-
Household energy .......................................
361.199
370.673
371.120
9.1
2.7
0.1
Energy services(2)..................................
362.411
371.961
372.547
9.2
2.8
0.2
Electricity(2)..........................................
394.942
405.709
405.709
11.2
2.7
0.0
Utility (piped) gas service(2).................
278.293
284.492
286.953
3.3
3.1
0.9
Household furnishings and operations...........
140.571
-
143.846
3.7
2.3
-
Apparel...............................................................
105.638
118.319
1.1
12.0
Transportation....................................................
205.815
207.576
2.4
0.9
Private transportation .....................................
200.558
199.614
1.5
-0.5
New and used motor vehicles(4)....................
94.248
94.584
-0.8
0.4
New vehicles(1)...........................................
157.614
158.826
-3.3
0.8
Used cars and trucks(1) ..............................
247.540
-
247.896
-1.7
0.1
-
Motor fuel ....................................................
261.728
254.945
251.171
-0.1
-4.0
-1.5
Gasoline (all types) ..................................
260.603
253.829
250.046
-0.1
-4.1
-1.5
Gasoline, unleaded regular(4)..............
260.154
253.300
249.274
-0.5
-4.2
-1.6
Gasoline, unleaded midgrade(4)(5)......
246.885
240.385
236.047
1.4
-4.4
-1.8
Gasoline, unleaded premium(4)...........
248.322
242.254
239.787
1.3
-3.4
-1.0
Motor vehicle insurance(1).............................
534.852
-
543.610
5.3
1.6
-
Medical care .......................................................
554.645
545.970
5.1
-1.6
Recreation(6)......................................................
120.285
119.462
1.3
-0.7
Education and communication(6).......................
150.738
150.916
-0.8
0.1
Tuition, other school fees, and child care(1) ..
1,832.700
1,832.748
0.0
0.0
Other goods and services ..................................
502.634
506.920
1.4
0.9
Commodity and service group
All items..................................................................
297.007
299.690
2.9
0.9
Commodities......................................................
191.711
194.559
0.7
1.5
Commodities less food & beverages ..............
138.789
141.125
-1.2
1.7
Nondurables less food & beverages ...........
183.571
186.302
-1.0
1.5
Durables......................................................
95.685
97.551
-1.7
2.0
Services..............................................................
1 384.5541
387.1821
3.81
0.7
Note: See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Indexes and percent changes for selected
periods San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA (1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted) - Continued
Item and Group
Indexes
Percent change from -
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Dec.
Jan.
2019
2020
2020
2019
2019
2020
Special aggregate indexes
All items less medical care .....................................
286.521
289.597
2.7
1.1
All items less shelter ...............................................
252.809
255.428
2.5
1.0
Commodities less food ...........................................
146.124
148.395
-1.4
1.6
Nondurables...........................................................
238.667
241.910
1.2
1.4
Nondurables less food ............................................
193.523
196.037
-1.3
1.3
Services less rent of shelter(3) ...............................
377.741
379.913
4.4
0.6
Services less medical care services .......................
373.552
-
376.538
3.6
0.8
Energy....................................................................
302.900
302.554
300.439
4.0
-0.8
-0.7
All items less energy ..............................................
300.324
-
303.282
2.9
1.0
-
AII items less food and energy ...........................
302.804
305.596
2.8
0.9
Footnotes
(1) Indexes on a December 1977=100 base.
(2) This index series was calculated using a Laspeyres estimator. All other item stratum index series were calculated using a geometric means
estimator.
(3) Indexes on a December 1982=100 base.
(4) Special index based on a substantially smaller sample.
(5) Indexes on a December 1993=100 base.
(6) Indexes on a December 1997=100 base.
- Data not available
NOTE: Index applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date.
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
Purpose:
A clear User Fee Cost Recovery Policy will allow the City of Burlingame to provide an ongoing, sound basis
for setting fees that allows charges and fees to be periodically reviewed and updated based on
predetermined, researched and supportable criteria that can be made available to the public.
Background•
The City Council has traditionally approved a Master Fee Schedule as part of the budget process. City
user fees are adjusted to reflect the annual increase in costs that are adopted for the ensuing budget
year. The fee adjustments are not automatic. They require an annual review and approval by the City
Council. An annual review and update ensures that fees reflect current costs to provide services, allows
the addition of fees when applicable for new City services, and provides for the elimination of fees for
discontinued services.
A City-wide Cost Allocation Plan provides a methodology for data -based distribution of administrative and
other overhead charges to programs and services. A Cost of Services Study allows the determination of
the full cost of providing each service for which a fee is charged, and lays the final groundwork needed for
development of a values -based and data -driven User Fee Cost Recovery Policy. The most recent Cost
Allocation Plan and Cost of Services Study was completed in March, 2016. Comments and direction from
the Master Fee Schedule Updates subsequent to the study were used to prepare this Fiscal Policy.
Policy:
The policy has three main components:
• Provision for ongoing review
• Process of establishing cost recovery levels
o Factors to be Considered
Target Cost Recovery Levels
o Parks and Recreation Programs
o Development Review Programs
o Public Works Services
o Public Safety Services
o Library
o Administrative Services
Provision for ongoing review
Fees will be reviewed at least annually in order to keep pace with changes in the cost of living and
methods or levels of service delivery. In order to facilitate a fact -based approach to this review, a
comprehensive analysis of the city's costs and fees should be made every three to five years. In the
interim, fees will be adjusted by annual cost factors reflected in the appropriate program's operating
budget.
Process of establishing user fee cost recovery levels
The following factors will be considered when setting service fees and cost recovery levels:
Community -wide vs. special benefit
• The use of general purpose revenue is appropriate for community -wide services while user
fees are appropriate for services that are of special benefit to individuals or groups. Full cost
recovery is not always appropriate.
Page 1 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
2. Service Recipient Versus Service Driver
• Particularly for services associated with regulated activities (development review, code
enforcement), from which the community eventually benefits, cost recovery from the
"driver" of the need for the service (applicant, violator) is appropriate.
Consistency with City public policies and objectives
• City policies and Council goals focused on long-term improvements to community quality of
life may also impact desired fee levels, as fees can be used to change community behaviors,
promote certain activities or provide funding for pursuit of specific community goals, for
example: health and safety, environmental stewardship.
4. Impact on demand (elasticity)
• Pricing of services can significantly impact demand. At full cost recovery, for example, the
City is providing services for which there is a genuine market not over -stimulated by
artificially low prices. Conversely, high cost recovery may negatively impact lower income
groups and this can work against public policy outcomes, especially if the services are
specifically designed to serve particular groups.
5. Discounted Rates and Surcharges
• Rates may be discounted to accommodate lower income groups or groups who are the
target of the service, such as senior citizens or residents.
• Higher rates are considered appropriate for non-residents to further reduce general fund
subsidization of services.
6. Feasibility of Collection
It may be impractical or too costly to establish a system to appropriately identify and charge
each user for the specific services received. The method of assessing and collecting fees
should be as simple as possible in order to reduce the administrative cost of collection.
Target cost recovery levels
1. Low cost recovery levels (0% - 30%) are appropriate if:
• There is no intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received
• Collecting fees is not cost-effective
• There is no intent to limit use of the service
• The service is non -recurring
• Collecting fees would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements
• The public at large benefits even if they are not the direct users of the service
High cost recovery levels (81% - 100%) are appropriate if:
• The individual user or participant receives the benefit of the service
• Other private or public sector alternatives could or do provide the service
• For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there be a direct
relationship between the amount paid and the level and cost of the service received
• The use of the service is specifically discouraged
• The service is regulatory in nature
Page 2 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
3. Services having factors associated with both cost recovery levels would be subsidized at a mid-
level of cost recovery (31% - 80%).
General categories of services tend to fall logically into the three levels of cost recovery above and can
be classified according to the factors favoring those classifications for consistent and appropriate fees.
Primary categories of services include:
• Parks and Recreation Programs
• Development Review Programs - Planning and Building
• Public Works Department - Engineering, Utilities, and Maintenance
• Public Safety
• Library
• Administrative Services
Parks and Recreation Proarams
Cost analyses of Parks and Recreation activities do not follow a typical unit -based approach, as the unit
costs for these types of programs are largely affected by the participation numbers, which can vary
significantly. Instead, the cost analysis for the Parks and Recreation Department consists of a comparison
of the overall full cost and revenue of each program area. The individual activities are grouped into the
nine different program areas shown below.
General Categorization of Programs, Services, Activity, and
Facilities
Low Cost
Recovery
(0-30%)
Mid Cost
Recovery
(31-80%)
High Cost
Recovery
(81-100%)
Parks
Park and Playground Maintenance
Tennis Courts
Dog Park
Street Banner Hanging
Landscape Maintenance
X
X
X
X
X
Arborist Services
Tree Plantings
Protected Tree Removal Permits
X
X
Recreation Programs: Senior Services
Senior Activities
Bingo-N-Bag Lunch
X
X
Page 3 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
Recreation Programs: Youth Services
Pre -School and Enrichment
Youth Camps/Trips
X
X
Recreation Programs: Teen Services
Youth Advisory Committee
X
Recreation Programs: Leisure Classes
Performing Arts
Art
Language
Culinary
Fitness
Special Interest Miscellaneous
X
X
X
X
X
X
Recreation Programs: Sports
School Age Sports
Tennis Lesson/Camps
Softball
Miscellaneous Sports/Camps
X
X
X
X
Events/ Celebration
City Sponsored
City -Wide
Movies/Music in the Park
Pet Parade
Other Events
X
X
X
X
X
Facility Usage
City Functions (e.g. commissions)
Co -Sponsored Organization
Non -Profit
Fields (Youth: Non -Profit)
Fields (Adult: Non -Profit)
Tennis Courts
Picnic Rentals (Private Party)
Private Rentals
Fields (For Profit)
Contracted Venues (For Profit)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
It should be noted that discussions regarding the potential (or desirability) for full cost recovery do not
apply to Parks and Recreation Services as a whole. Park and recreation programs occupy a unique service
niche in local government. A breadth of recreation and park services provides a general community
benefit that warrants a significant measure of subsidization. Normally, market/economic and
social/political pressures will dictate or heavily influence the fee levels for these discretionary programs.
Page 4 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
Low Recovery Expectations
Low to zero recovery is expected for programs in this category as the community benefits from the
service. Non-resident fees (if allowed) may provide medium cost recovery.
In general, low cost programs or activities in this group provide a community wide benefit. These
programs and activities are generally programs or activities enhancing the health, safety and livability
of the community and therefore require the removal of a cost barrier for optimum participation. For
example:
• Parks - As long as collecting fees at City parks is not cost-effective, there should be no fees
collected for general use of parks and playgrounds. Costs associated with maintaining the City's
parks represent a large cost for which there is no significant opportunity for recovery - these
facilities are public domains and are an essential service of Citygovernment.
• Senior Classes/Events - The primary purpose of senior classes and events is to encourage
participation. The seniors served in these classes may not have the means of paying for the
classes. The classes should continue to be offered in collaboration with outside agencies when
possible.
• Pilot Programs - In any program year, certain classes or activities may be offered on a "pilot" basis at
subsidized levels to determine initial interest and how favorably the program would be received
overall.
• Events/Celebrations - Community Services events provide opportunities for neighborhoods to
come together as a community and integrate people of various ages, economic and cultural
backgrounds. Events also foster pride in the community and provide opportunities for
volunteers to give back. As such, the benefits are community -wide. In addition, collection of fees
are not always cost effective.
• Facility Usage - Safe and secure facilities for neighborhood problem -solving and provision of
other general services support an engaged community and should be encouraged with low or
no fees.
Medium Recovery Expectation
Recovery of most program costs incurred in the delivery of the service, but without recovery of any of
the costs which would have been incurred by the department without the service. Both community
and individuals benefit from these services. Non-resident fees if allowed may provide higher cost
recovery.
• Youth Sports / Camps — Programs that encourage outdoor fitness for youth should be offered at
moderate fees to encourage use of City facilities and help defray the cost of their maintenance.
• Field Usage and Tennis Courts — Cost should be kept low for local non-profit organizations
providing sports leagues open to residents and students in Burlingame Schools that encourage
healthy lifestyles and lifelong fitness. Opportunities exist to collect a reasonable fee for use to
defray citywide expenses for tennis facilities and fields.
High Recovery Expectations
Present when user fees charged are sufficient to support direct program costs plus up to 100% of
department administration and city overhead associated with the activity. Individual benefit foremost
and minimal community benefit exists. Activities promote the full utilization of parks and recreation
facilities.
• Programs - Activities in this area benefit the individual user. Programs, classes, and sports
leagues are often offered to keep pace with current recreational trends and provide the
Page 5 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
opportunity to learn new skills, improve health, and develop social competency. The services are
made available to maximize the use of the facilities, increase the variety of offerings to the
community as a whole, and spread department administration and city-wide overhead costs to
many activities. In some instances offering these activities helps defray expenses of services with
no viable means of collecting revenue e.g. parks, playgrounds, etc.
Facility Usage — Facility use is set at a higher rate for the private use of the public facility for
meetings, parties, and programs charging fees for services and celebrations.
Contracted Venues -(for profit)- Longterm arrangements where a facility is rented or
contracted out to reduce general funding expense in orderto provide specialized servicesto
residents.
Page 6 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
Development Review Services
• Planning (planned development permits, tentative tract and parcel maps, re -zonings, general plan
amendments, variances, use permits)
• Building and safety (building permits, structural plan checks, inspections)
General Categorization of Programs, Services, Activity, and
Facilities
Low Cost
Recovery
(0-3051.)
Mid Cost
Recovery
(31-8094.)
High Cost
Recovery
(81-1009,.)
Pre -Applications
Preliminary Plan Check (New Construction*)
Preliminary Plan Check (Remodel*)
Zoning Verification/ Property Profile Letter
X
X
X
Applications
Ambiguity/Determination Hearing before Planning
Commission (applies to Planning, Fire, and Building
requests)
X
Amendment/Extension of Permits
X
Antenna Exception Fee
X
Appeal to Planning Commission of administratively approved
permits/appeal to City Council of Planning Commission
decisions
X
Legal Review -Substantive work by City Attorney for
development projects requiring discretionary review before
the Planning Commission under Title 25
X
Conditional Use Permit
X
Condominium Permit (4-10 Units or Fewer)
X
Condominium Permit (11 Units-25 Units)
X
Condominium Permit (26 Units-50 Units)
X
Condominium Permit (51 Units-100 Units)
X
Condominium Permit (101 Units and Greater)
X
Design Review, Addition
X
Design Review, Amendment
X
Design Review —Handling Fee
X
Minor Amendment to Approved Project
X
As -Built Variation from Approved Project
X
Design Review, New Construction
X
Fence Exception
X
Minor Modification
X
Hillside Area Construction Permit
X
Secondary Dwelling Unit
X
Reasonable Accommodation
X
Page 7 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
Re -zoning
X
Second Unit Amnesty Permit
Building Official Inspection Deposit
X
Special Use Permit
X
Variance
X
Wireless Communications Administrative Use Permit
X
Plan Recheck Fee
More than two revisions to plans
Major redesign of project plans
X
X
Environmental
Categorical Exemption
Negative Declaration
Mitigated Declaration and/orwith a Responsible Agency
Impact Report
Posting Fee, Negative Declaration and EIR
X
X
X
X
X
Parks
Arborist Review (when required)
X
Noticing
R-1 and R-2
All Other Districts
R-1 Design Review, Residential
R-1 Design Study, Residential
Design Review, all other districts
Minor Modifications or Hillside Area Construction
Permits
General Plan Amendment
Environmental Impact Report
City Council Appeal
Second Unit Amnesty
Wireless Communications
Replacement of Posted Sign
Design Review Yard Sign
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sign
50 square feet or less
Over 50 SF and less than 200 square feet
Over 200 square feet
Sign Variance
Removal of Illegal Sign
X
X
X
X
X
Publications
Zoning Map
X
Page 8 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
Building Fees
General Categorization of Programs, Services, Activity,
and Facilities
Low Cost
Recovery
(0-30%)
Mid Cost
Recovery
(31-80%)
High Cost
Recovery
(81-100%)
Building Permit Fees Not Based on Total Valuation
All inspections outside normal business hours
(minimum charge is for 2 hours)
All reinspection fees (minimum 1 hour)
X
X
Energy Upgrade California
Basic Package
Advanced Package
X
X
Plan Review Fees
Review request for alternate materials and
methods
Review of unreasonable hardship request
Plan revisions for planning department
Plan revisions subsequent to permit issuance
Arborist Review Fee
X
X
X
X
X
Plumbing Permit Fees
Fixtures and Vents (each fixture)
Sewer and Interceptors (each)
Water Piping and Water Heaters
X
X
X
Gas Piping Systems
For each gas piping system of one to five
outlets
For each additional outletover five
X
X
Irrigation Systems and Backflow Prevention Devices
X
Swimming Pools
Public or Private Pool
Public or Private Spa
X
X
For each appliance orfixture which no fee is listed
X
Mechanical Permit Fees
Furnaces
Boilers, Compressors, Absorption Systems
Air Handlers
X
X
X
Ventilation and Exhaust
Each ventilation fan attached to a single duct
Each hood including ducts
X
X
Page 9 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
Miscellaneous appliance or piece of equipment not
specifically listed above
X
Electrical Permit Fees
System Fee Schedule
Public Swimming Pools and Spas
Private Pools and Spas
Temporary Service Pole
X
X
X
Unit Fee Schedule
Receptacle, Switch and Light Outlets
Residential Appliances
Power Apparatus
X
X
X
Photo Voltaic Systems
Residential Systems
X
Commercial Systems X
Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees
X
Services
600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in
rating
600 volts or less, over 200 amperes to 1000
amperes
Over 600volts or over 1000 amperes
X
X
X
Miscellaneous
For apparatus, conduits, and conductors for
which a permit is required but for which no
fee is set forth
X
General Fees
Building Moving
X
Low Recovery Expectations
Low to zero recovery is expected for services in this category to maintain open and accessible
government processes for the public, encourage environmental sustainability and encourage
compliance with regulatory requirements. Example of Low Recovery items:
• Planning — The fee for Zoning Maps is set well below full cost recovery as the map assists the
public without excessive use of staff time.
• Planning — Fees associated with Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty Permits are kept at low cost
recovery levels to encourage the maintenance of legal accessory dwelling units.
Building- The elimination or reduction of building permits for residential solar array installations
is consistent with California Government Code Section 65850.5, which calls on local agencies to
encourage the installation of solar energy systems by removing obstacles to, and minimizing
costs of, permitting for such systems.
Building — Unit fees established as for additional fixtures, outlets, appliances, etc. are set at low cost
recovery so as not to burden the cost of improvements to existing buildings.
Page 10 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
Medium Recovery Expectations
Recovery in the range of 31% to 80% of the costs incurred in the delivery of the service reflects the
private benefit that is received while not discouraging compliance with the regulation requirements.
• Planning — While the preparation of Zoning Verification/Property Profile provides a benefit to
the public by confirming applicable zoning restrictions and indicates any existing zoning
inconsistencies or outstanding code violations for a particular property, this service requires a
significant amount of staff time. A cost recovery level of 50% is appropriate.
• Planning - The fees for applicants who wish to appeal a Staff Decision or for a Burlingame
resident or neighbor who wishes to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission is
purposefully lower than full cost recovery to allow for accessibility to government processes.
Similarly, Ambiguity/Determination Hearings before the Planning Commission are set to recover
some of the significant staff time entailed without discouraging rational appeals.
• Planning — Application fees for smaller condominium projects (< 50 units) are set at mid -cost
recovery levels to encourage the development of such housing projects.
• Planning — Design Review fees are largely set at mid cost recovery levels in recognition of the
significant public benefit derived from a consistent review of project plans. Minor modifications and
amendments are permitted at less than full cost recovery levels as well.
• Planning - Administrative permits for fences are set at mid -level to encourage compliance.
• Planning — The fee for a Categorical Exemption (Environmental) is set at less than full cost recovery
to reduce hardship on small development projects.
• Planning — Fees for Reasonable Accommodation applications are kept at mid cost recovery levels to
encourage compliance with ADA regulations and general accessibility standards.
High Recovery Expectations
Cost recovery for most development review services should generally be high. In most instances, the
City's cost recovery goal should be 100%.
• Planning - Most Development Pre -Application and Application fees, including plan recheck,
rezoning, variance and special use fees are set at full/high cost recovery levels, as the cost of
these services should be borne mainly by the applicant.
• Planning - Most noticing costs associated with Development Applications should be borne by
the applicant; these fees are established at a high range of cost recovery.
• Building - Building Plan review fees are set at high cost recovery levels as benefits accrue to the
applicant only.
• Building —The fees established for inspections outside of normal business hour and all re -inspections
are costly, and only the applicant receives the benefit of such services; these fees are intended to
fully recover the City's costs.
Page 11 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost R
Public Works Department - Enaineerina
Engineering (public improvement plan checks, inspections, subdivision requirements,
encroachments)
General Categorization of Programs, Services, Activity,
and Facilities
Low Cost
Recovery
(0-30%)
Mid Cost
Recovery
(31-80%)
High Cost
Recovery
(81-100%)
Encroachment Permits
Minor (no excavation involved)
Sewer Lateral Test
Sewer Lateral Replacement
Water Service Connection (with Sidewalk Add No.
Fire System Connection (with Sidewalk Add No. 5)
Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200 S.F. (includes Curb
Sidewalk Closure/ Pedestrian Protection
Traffic Control
Block Party (includes up to 6 barricades)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Parking Permit (temporary encroachment permit)
Commercial Areas and Construction Purposes
Moving Only Purposes (Residential Area)
X
X
Special Encroachment Permits
Subsurface Shoring Systems:
• Per 10'-20' deep tieback
• Per >20' deep tieback
• For permanent space used
Permanent structures, such as retaining walls,
fences
Non -permanent installations, such as tables, chairs,
planters
X
X
X
X
X
General Fees
Demolition Permit (in addition to any Building
Department -issued Demolition or Construction
Permit):
Includes sewer, water and sidewalk
Add fire line
Add curb drain
Add sidewalk closure
Add PG&E
Address Change
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 12 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
Single Trip - Transportation Fee (Fixed rate set Per
Caltrans)
Leaf Blower Testing Certification Fee
Creek Enclosures
Abandonment of Public Utility Easement
Hauling Permit
X
X
X
X
X
Deposits or Bonds for Encroachment Permit Work
Openings in Public Right -of -Way (not in sidewalk or
street)
Openings in Public Right -of -Way in sidewalk (not in
street)
Street Roadway Opening (AC Pavement
Water Main Modification
Sewer Main & Storm Drain Modification
X
X
X
X
X
Subdivision Maps
Lot Line Adjustment
Lot Combination
Subdivision Map
Condominium Map
X
X
X
X
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Construction Permits
** The fees represent the labor cost to inspect and security deposit
Type 1 Project: Single family dwellings with 1st or
2nd floor additions on a 10,000 sf lot or smaller
Type 2 Project: Multi -family dwellings of
commercial additions (excluding tenant
improvements) that are on a 10,OOOsf lot or smaller
Type 3 Project: Any project 10,000 sf up to an acre
lot
Type 4 Project: Any project greater than one acre in
size
X
X
X
X
Planning Application Reviews
Single Family Dwelling (Addition)
Single Family Dwelling (New)
Multi -Family
Commercial/Industrial
Environmental Review
Traffic and Parking Studies
X
X
X
X
X
X
Grading Permit
1-100 cubic yards
101-1,OOOcubic yards
1,001-10,OOOcubic yards
Over 10,000 cubic yards
X
X
X
X
Page 13 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
Low Recovery Expectations
Low to zero recovery is expected only for services that provide a community -wide benefit.
However, the nature of most of the Public Works services provided for a fee are intended to
enhance a private property or land use specific to a particular development application. Low cost
recovery expectations are generally limited to those services required to maintain the livability of
the community. Examples of Low Recovery items:
• Encroachment Permits — issued to allow for parking privileges in an area typically controlled
by metered parking in residential areas for a temporary period (moving purposes), this
permit is set at a low cost recovery level.
• Fees associated with Fire system connection or Fire Line access are generally set at low cost
recovery levels as these services provide a general public safety benefit.
• Truck Route Permits Fees -maximum fee set by State Law.
• Planning Application Reviews for Single Family Dwelling (additions or new constructions)
are set at a low cost recovery level to encourage compliance without adding undue costs to
the project.
• Fees for Stormwater Pollution Prevention Construction Permits are set at low cost recovery
to ensure compliance for small single family home additions (projects of low impact to
Stormwater system).
• Single Trip Transportation Fee — this fee is set by Caltrans.
Medium Recovery Expectations
Recovery in the range of 31% to 80% of the costs incurred in the delivery of the service. Typically
both the community and individuals benefit from these services.
• Encroachment permit fees to provide barricades for small block parties are established at
medium cost recovery to ensure compliance with regulations intended to improve safety
for the participants of the community event.
• Fees for Creek Enclosures are set at mid -cost recovery to help ensure compliance to
regulations that protect land and property in the vicinity of the project area.
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Construction Permits for medium to large projects are set
at mid -cost recovery levels to ensure compliance with Stormwater regulations that benefit
the entire community.
• Planning Application reviews for multi -family or commercial/industrial projects are
provided at a fee that will recover some of the City's costs without discouraging
development.
High Recovery Expectations
Recovery in the range of 81% to 100% when user fees charged are sufficient to fully recover costs
of providing the service. Individual benefit is foremost and minimal community benefit exists.
Most services provided by the Public Works Department fall in this area.
• For Encroachment Permits where the public right of way is used or impacted on a
temporary or permanent basis for the benefit of the permittee, full cost recovery is
appropriate.
• Development Permit applications, including construction and demolition permits,
subdivision maps, environmental review, traffic and parking studies and grading permits,
are for services that benefit only the applicant (with few exceptions), and command higher
cost recovery levels.
Page 14 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
Public Safety - Police Services
(Police Reports, False Alarms, Parking Permits, Abatements, Emergency Response, Background
Investigations)
General Categorization of Programs, Services, Activity, and
Facilities
Low Cost
Recovery
(0-30%)
Mid Cost
Recovery
(31-80%)
High Cost
Recovery
(81-100%)
Vehicle Release
X
Police Reports Copies
X
Fingerprint Rolling Fee
X
Videotapes/CD's/DVD's
X
Clearance Letter
X
Repossessed Vehicle
X
Preferential Parking Permits (Residential Permit Parking Program)
Issuance (up to 2 permits for same address)
Annual renewal (up to 2 permits for same address)
Charge for replacement of lost permit
X
X
X
Driving Under Influence (DUI) Fees
X
Security Service (Outside Detail - minimum charge of four
hours)
X
Alarm Permits
X
False Alarm Charge
1 to 2 false alarms
3 to 5 false alarms
6 or more false alarms
Any false alarm for which no alarm permit has been
issued
X
X
X
X
Live Entertainment Permit
X
Peddlers and Solicitors
X
Curb Painting
X
Tanning Salon
Application
Sale or Transfer
Renewal
X
X
X
Massage Operator
Application
Sale or Transfer
Renewal
X
X
X
Model/Escort Service
Application
Sale or Transfer
Renewal
X
X
X
Page 15 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
Private Patrol Company
Application
Renewal
X
X
Taxi Driver
Application
Renewal
X
X
Taxicab Annual Inspection
X
Valet Parking
X
Concealed Weapon
X
Fortune Teller
X
Unruly Gathering
X
Special Events & Street Closing Permit
Application
Sidewalk Closure
Road Closure
X
X
X
Verification of non-resident "proof -of -correction" citations
X
Low Recovery Expectations
Low to zero recovery is expected for services in this category as the community generally benefits
from the regulation of the activity. The regulation of these activities is intended to enhance or
maintain the livability of the community. However, in some instances the maximum fee that can
be charged is regulated at the County or State level and therefore the City fee is not determined
by City costs (repossessed vehicle, fingerprint rolling fee).
• Fingerprint Rolling Fee — Because this activity is required for many of the City -issued
permits, the cost of this activity should remain low to the recipient to ensure the proper
permits are obtained.
• Alarm Permits/False Alarms - primarily residential. Because alarm permits/registration
provides updated contact information so that public safety personnel can communicate
directly with the property owner, lower cost recovery is appropriate. Property owners with
current alarm permits can experience 2 false alarms with no assessment of additional fees.
• Clearance Letters and Proof -of -Correction citations are issued at low or no cost to the
recipient. These routine services are considered available to all members of the
community.
• Permits for Private Patrol Company and Taxi Driver services are offered at low cost recovery
levels to encourage compliance.
• Street and Sidewalk Closures allow for safer community/neighborhood events, and should
therefore be provided at low cost recovery levels.
• Curb Painting - permits for this low -risk activity should be offered at low cost recovery levels
because the service enhances public safety efforts and convenience for the community at large.
Medium Recovery Expectation
Recovery in the range of 31% to 80% of the costs of providing the service. Both community and
individuals benefit from these services.
• Alarm Permits/False Alarms - Although prompt alarm response provides a disincentive to
Page 16 of 17
City of Burlingame
Financial Policy Document
User Fee Cost Recovery
crime activity, excessive false alarms negatively impact the ability of timely police
response to legitimate alarms.
• Preferential Parking Permits are provided to allow vehicles to be parked without
restriction in the permit area of the vehicle's registered address. The public benefits from
having parking available in certain neighborhoods, but because residents are impacted by
the lack of parking close to their homes, full cost recovery of these permits is not
appropriate.
• The use of Security Service Detail services actually complements the City's existing Public
Safety efforts by providing extra coverage of non -recurring private events. Full cost
recovery would be prohibitive, discouraging use of these available resources, and
stressing regular shift coverage.
• Peddlers and Solicitors, Fortune Teller — permits are issued for these low -impact, low
incident activities to provide a layer of security to the community who may wish to
utilize such services. Fees are set at moderate cost recovery levels to increase
probability of compliance.
• Valet Parking permits are offered below full cost recovery levels as the service provides a
level of convenience to the community by providing parking at less crowded locations
• Taxicab Annual Inspections are required and offered a medium cost recovery as there is
a benefit of having secure taxi/ transportation services available in the community.
High Recovery Expectations
Recovery in the range of 81% to 100% when user fees charged are sufficient to recover costs of
the service provided. Individual benefit is foremost and minimal community benefit exists. Items
such as DUI Emergency Response, Vehicle Releases, and Unruly Gathering are punitive in nature
and the costs should not be funded by the community.
Other services for which 100% of the cost for services is recovered include:
• Applications/Sale or Transfer/Renewal of Permits for Tanning Salon, Massage Operators,
Model/Escort Services - the fee charged for these required permits are set at high levels of
cost recovery as they allow adult -oriented services to be offered by the business at a profit
for the benefit of customers. No community benefit is afforded.
• Live Entertainment Permits are issued solely for the benefit of the business providing the
entertainment, and should not be subsidized by the general public.
• Concealed Weapon Permits require intense background checks. Because such permits are
issued solely for the benefit of the applicant, a 100% cost recovery is appropriate.
Library
(Library Cards, Overdue Fines, etc.) - fees are primarily established by the Peninsula Library
Service. Certain medias/supplies for purchase may be made available as a service to patrons
at the City's cost. Fees for Passport services are set by the US State Department.
Administrative Services — City Clerk and Elections, Finance
(Copying Charges, Postage, etc.) -fees are primarily set by regulations and are generally high cost
recovery or pass-thru charges.
Page 17 of 17
BiFRL- 1NAGENDA NO: 8h
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 6, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 6, 2020
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222
Subject: Notice of Decision by the Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District
Board of Directors to Forego Assessments to Businesses within the
District for Fiscal Year 2020-21
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational item only. No Council action is required.
BACKGROUND
The Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District (BABID) usually submits its annual report
to the City at this time of year in preparation for the annual approval of assessments for the
subsequent fiscal year. This allows for all businesses within the district to be notified, and a
public hearing to be established in May so that the businesses have an opportunity to voice their
opinions. Upon approval at the public hearing, the City then levies assessments on the
businesses in the district for the subsequent fiscal year, and collects the levies with the annual
renewal of business licenses in June.
However, the widespread health and economic issues resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic
have harshly impacted the businesses in the district. Closure of many of the businesses on
Broadway Avenue, as well as the uncertain and ever -evolving nature of this unprecedented
event, prompted the District's Board to consider waiving assessments for the upcoming fiscal
year.
DISCUSSION
Since the BABID was first established in the 1990s, the Broadway Avenue Business
Improvement District has operated to promote the businesses in the district and provide for the
area's physical attractiveness. Each year in March, the BABID files an annual report of the
district's improvements and activities with the City, prior to requesting the City Council's approval
of BID assessments for the subsequent fiscal year.
On March 19th, noting the struggle that many merchants in the district were experiencing during
the COVID-19 public health emergency, the Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District's
Board of Directors unanimously voted to waive the BID's assessments for fiscal year 2020-21.
The City was notified of the decision last week by the Board's President, John Kevranian, via e-
1
Broadway Avenue BID
April 1, 2019
mail (attached). The Board's annual report for the 2019-20 fiscal year is also attached to this staff
report.
FISCAL IMPACT
The assessments for fiscal year 2020-21 would have approximated $23,000 for the Broadway
Avenue Business Improvement District. As these assessments are typically collected with the
City's annual business license renewal process, with the funds forwarded directly to the BABID,
there is no fiscal impact to the City.
Exhibits:
• E-mail Notification of BABID Board of Directors to forego fiscal year 2020-21 assessments
• Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District Annual Report for FY 2019-20
2
From: John Kevranian
To: GRP-Council
Cc: MGR-Lisa Goldman; CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner; FIN -Carol Augustine; CD/PLG-Joseph Sanfilippo
Subject: Fwd: Broadway BID Fees
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2020 8:52:16 PM
Dear Madame Mayor and City Council Members,
During these unprecedented times, I made the decision of making a bold proposal to the
Broadway Business Business Improvement District(BID) Board of Directors to waive the BID
assessments(Approx $23,000) for approximately 100 merchants for 2020-2021. Our
merchants will be struggling to keep their doors open for months or years to come. Many
merchants have questions in regards to when they will be able to reopen, how they will pay
their rent and so on.
It was my responsibility as their elected President to help them in a small way by asking the
BID Board to waive the assessments. I will guide these merchants during these difficult times
to work with them and their landlords so they can recover.
As of today, the BID Board unanimously voted to Waive the assessment for 2020-2021.
Thanks to all of you and the city staff for all your hard work during these difficult times.
Please stay safe and healthy.
Best Regards,
John Kevranian
President
Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District
650-676-7301
Begin forwarded message:
From: John Kevranian <jkevran amail.com>
Subject: Re: Broadway BID Fees
Date: March 19, 2020 at 8:09:27 PM PDT
To: Ross Bruce <ross&avrr.com>, Christopher Diez <chris&pot-
pourri.com>, "Dr. Soss" <theeyedoctor&att.net>, Gerald at Weimax
<gerald weimax.com>, Gateways To The World
<gate1234&pacbe1l.net>, Greg Holtmann <greg&sutterfields.com>, Linda
Bullis <lindabullisQaol.com>, Gigi <iluv iais amail.com>
Hello BID Board Members,
I want to take this opportunity to thank every one of you for voting yes to waive
the BID assessment for 2020-2021. It was a unanimous vote. I will let the city of
Burlingame officials know and I will also notify the merchants.
Thank you again!
John Kevranian
President
Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District
650-676-7301
On Mar 18, 2020, at 1:01 PM, John Kevranian
<jkevran&gmail.com> wrote:
Dear BID Board of Directors,
During these unprecedented times, we have to prioritize our goals
and do what is for the best interest of our BID members. We as small
business owners know how difficult things are right now and don't
know what to expect in the near future.
The reason for my email today is to make a bold recommendation to
you the Board members that we WAIVE the 2020-2021 BID fees.
Many of the merchants on Broadway are closed and we don't know
when they will reopen. We also don't know if any landlords will
waive any business rent. We all have may questions with no answers.
Some stores may close for good and some businesses will lay off
employees.
I have discussed this with our BID Treasurer(Chris Diez) and he has
mentioned to me we have the funds to pay our recurring expenses
until the next year assessment(2021-2022) such as the Burlingame
Trolley and the Pet Parade.
This was a difficult decision for me to make but at the end of the day,
I have to decide what is the best thing to do for our fellow
merchants.
I would like to have each of you vote and give me your feedback.
YES -WAIVE THE FEES OR
NO- DON'T WAIVE THE FEES
We are all passionate about our businesses, our members and our
community.
Please stay safe and healthy and I wish everyone the best!
Sincerely
John Kevranian
President
Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District
650-676-7301
BROADWAY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BBID)
650-347-3400 April 1, 2020
chris4pot-pourri.com
City Manager
1235 Broadway City of Burlingame
Burlingame, CA Burlingame, CA
94010
RE: BBID 2019 Annual Report and 2020 Budget
Dear City Manager:
The BBID proposes no changes in boundaries or assessments.
Budget outline for fiscal 2020 activities in percent of total revenue):
A) Advertising & BBID Events 30%
B) Burlingame Shuttle 30%
C) Streetscape Beautification 30%
D) Website Design and Maintenance 10%
Income Received:
Ex e
Interest Income $ 6.14
BBID Assessment Collected $ 26,162,50
Sponsorship $ 1,000.00
TOTAL INCOME RECEIVED: $ 27,168.64
Advertising
$ 2,905.00
Accounting Fees
$ 6,160.00
Bank Charges
$ 94.00
Maintenance
$10,226.54
Supplies
$ 288.10
Insurance
$ 656.00
Burlingame Trolly $ 12,000.00
Utilities $ 483.10
Website $ 653.85
Promotions $ 3,542.86
TOTAL EXPENDITURES: $ 37,009,45
Status of Funds as of December 31 2019 (Funds on Hand):
Saving Account - Wells Fargo Bank $ 500.03
Checking Account - Chase Bank $ 3,551.89
Checkin Account - Wells Fargo Bank $ 25,892.42
TOTAL:
$ 29,944.34
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Christopher Diez at
Pat-Pourri, 650-347-3400.
Sincerely,
Christopher Diez
Treasurer, BBID
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 6, 2020
From: Carol Augustine — (650) 558-7222
AGENDA NO: 9a
MEETING DATE: April 6, 2020
Subject: Public Hearing and Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame
Adjusting the Storm Drainage Fee for Fiscal Year 2020-21 By 2.0% Based
on the CPI - San Francisco Area as Published on March 11. 2020
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing on the proposed CPI increase of
2.0% for the annual storm drainage fee, and, following the public hearing, adopt the attached
resolution.
BACKGROUND
The City of Burlingame Ordinance (as approved by the voters) determines the methodology for
adjusting the annual storm drainage fee. The ordinance language is as follows:
4.30.030 Setting the fee.
(a) Commencing with fiscal year 2010-11, the city council, following a public hearing,
shall determine the storm drainage fee. In no event shall the square footage rate for impervious
area be increased beyond that rate approved by a majority vote of the property owners subject
to the storm drainage fee without further approval by a majority vote of the property owners
subject to the storm drainage fee; provided, however, that, without approval by a majority
vote of the property owners subject to the storm drainage fee, the maximum per square
foot rate for impervious area, commencing fiscal year 2010-2011, may be increased by an
amount equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the
area including San Mateo County (the "CPI"), including all items as published by the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics as of March 1st of each year, not to exceed a maximum
increase of two (2) percent per year.
(b) The storm drainage fee shall not be deemed to be increased in the event the actual fee
upon a parcel in any given year is higher due to an increase in the amount of the impervious
area of the subject parcel.
(c) In any year in which the city council does not change the rate per square foot of
impervious area, the previously adopted fee shall continue in full force and effect for the next
1
Storm Drainage Fee Adjustment April 6, 2020
fiscal year. Property owners whose storm drainage is increased/decreased as a result a change
in impervious area have appeal rights under Section 4.30.050.
(d) The city council shall not be required to enact an inflation increase in each year but may
accumulate the inflationary increases and enact the cumulative amount. (Ord. 1836 § 2, (2009))
DISCUSSION
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov) data for the San Francisco area is published
bimonthly in even -numbered months: February, April, June, August, October, and December.
The report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as of March 11, 2020 was the CPI report
for February 2020, which indicated a CPI increase of 2.9%. The ordinance caps the annual
increase at 2.0%.
Last year's adjustment (for FY 2019-20) of 2.0% was based on the February 2019 CPI of 3.5%.
FISCAL IMPACT
The increase of 2.0% in the storm drainage fee raises the rate charged per square foot of
impervious area from 5.086 cents to 5.189 cents effective July 1, 2020. The increase is
estimated to produce an additional $60,200, for estimated revenue of over $3.0 million in fiscal
year 2020-21. The additional revenue will be included in the City budget for fiscal year 2020-21.
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
ADJUSTMENTS TO STORM DRAINAGE FEE
Fiscal
Increase
Rate Per
Year
CPI
Amount
Square Ft.
FY 09-10
N/A
N/A
$
0.04192
FY 10-11
2.0%
$
0.00084
$
0.04276
FY 11-12
1.5%
$
0.00064
$
0.04340
FY 12-13
2.0%
$
0.00087
$
0.04427
FY 13-14
2.0%
$
0.00089
$
0.04516
FY 14-15
2.0%
$
0.00090
$
0.04606
FY 15-16
2.0%
$
0.00092
$
0.04698
FY 16-17
2.0%
$
0.00094
$
0.04792
FY 17-18
2.0%
$
0.00096
$
0.04888
FY 18-19
2.0%
$
0.00098
$
0.04986
FY 19-20
2.0%
$
0.00100
$
0.05086
FY 20-21
2.0%
$
0.00102
$
0.05187
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Western Information Office, Consumer
Price Index - San Francisco Area, February 2020 (dated March 11, 2020)
2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME LEVYING A
STORM DRAINAGE FEE ON ALL PARCELS IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 AND DIRECTING THAT A LIST OF THE STORM DRAINAGE
FEES FOR BURLINGAME PARCELS BE PROVIDED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO FOR PLACEMENT ON THE 2020-21 TAX BILLS
RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME that:
WHEREAS, pursuant to, and in accordance with the provisions of, Article XIIID of
the California Constitution (Proposition 218), the City of Burlingame held a mail ballot
election on May 5, 2009 to consider the enactment of an annual storm drainage fee;
and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk certified the results to the City Council; the City
Council declared the storm drainage fee to be approved; and the City Council levied the
storm drainage fee on all parcels in Burlingame for fiscal year 2009-2010; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 4.30.030 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the
City Council is required each fiscal year to determine the storm drainage fee for parcels
in the city, not to exceed the fee rate established by the electorate; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by the electorate in the May 2009
election, the City Council may increase the storm drainage fee each fiscal year by the
annual CPI index for all urban consumers, San Francisco region, but not to exceed 2%;
and
WHEREAS, the annual CPI index for all urban consumers, San Francisco region,
exceeds the 2% cap denoted in the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.30.060 of the Burlingame Municipal Code the
storm drainage fee is to be collected through the County tax bills.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS DETERMINED and ORDERED that:
1. Pursuant to Chapter 4.30 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the City Council
determines that the storm drainage fee for all parcels in the City of Burlingame for fiscal
year 2020-21 shall be the same rate as fiscal year 2019-20, or $0.05086 plus an
increase of 2.00% for the annual CPI adjustment, for a total rate of $0.05187.
2. The City Manager, the Finance Director, or their designee, shall provide to the
County of San Mateo a list of storm drainage fees for all Burlingame parcels for fiscal
year 2020-21, for collection through the property tax bills. For those properties whose
fees have been modified pursuant to the appeal provisions of Chapter 4.30 prior to
providing the County the list of properties and fees, the approved modified fee shall be
provided to the County and shall be certified as correct by the Director of Public Works.
3. The City Manager is authorized to execute such documents as may be
required by the County of San Mateo to place the storm drainage fee on the tax bills.
Emily Beach, 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 6t"
day of April, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NOES:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk
2
N EWS RELEASE
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
U. S. D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R :
r
—_1=1BL.P ATES o P�
For Release: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 20-426-SAN
WESTERN INFORMATION OFFICE: San Francisco, Calif.
Technical information: (415) 625-2270 BLSinfoSF@bls.gov www.bls.gov/regions/west
Media contact: (415) 625-2270
Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area — February 2020
Area prices were up 0.9 percent over the past two months, up 2.9 percent from a year ago
Prices in the San Francisco area, as measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U),
advanced 0.9 percent for the two months ending in February 2020, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. (See table A.) Assistant Commissioner for Regional Operations Richard Holden noted that the
February increase was influenced by higher prices for shelter and apparel. (Data in this report are not
seasonally adjusted. Accordingly, month -to -month changes may reflect seasonal influences.)
Over the last 12 months, the CPI-U increased 2.9 percent. (See chart 1 and table A.) The index for all items
less food and energy advanced 2.8 percent over the year. Food prices rose 3.5 percent. Energy prices increased
4.0 percent, largely the result of an increase in the price of electricity. (See table 1.)
Chart 1.Over-the-year percent change in CPI-U, San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward,
CA, Febrtiary 2017—Felmiary 2020
Percent change -f;ll items
F.0
All items less tod and enen
�.0
'.0
2.0
1.0
C.0 �
F et
1.
Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb
'is '19 '20
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Food
Food prices increased 1.4 percent for the two months ending in February. (See table 1.) Prices for food away
from home increased 2.7 percent, but prices for food at home edged up 0.1 percent for the same period.
Over the year, food prices rose 3.5 percent. Prices for food way from home moved up 6.3 percent since a year
ago, and prices for food at home increased 0.5 percent.
Energy
The energy index decreased 0.8 percent for the two months ending in February. The decrease was mainly due
to lower prices for gasoline (41 percent). Prices for natural gas service advanced 3.1 percent, and prices for
electricity rose 2.7 percent for the same period.
Energy prices increased 4.0 percent over the year, largely due to higher prices for electricity (11.2 percent).
Prices paid for natural gas service increased 3.3 percent, but prices for gasoline edged down 0.1 percent during
the past year.
All items less food and energy
The index for all items less food and energy increased 0.9 percent in the latest two -month period. Higher
prices for apparel (12.0 percent), household furnishings and operations (2.3 percent) and shelter (0.7 percent)
were partially offset by lower prices for medical care (-1.6 percent) and recreation (-0.7 percent).
Over the year, the index for all items less food and energy advanced 2.8 percent. Components contributing to
the increase included medical care (5.1 percent), household furnishings and operations (3.7 percent) and
shelter (3.5 percent). Partly offsetting the increases were price decreases in education and communication and
new and used motor vehicles, both down 0.8 percent).
Table A. San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA, CPI-U 2-month and 12-month percent changes, all items index,
not seasonally adjusted
Month
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
12-
12-
12-
12-
12-
2-month
month
2-month
month
2-month
month
2-month
month
2-month
month
February ..................................................
0.9
3.0
0.8
3.4
1.4
3.6
0.5
3.5
0.9
2.9
April.........................................................
0.7
2.7
1.1
3.8
0.8
3.2
1.2
4.0
June .........................................................
0.6
2.7
0.3
3.5
0.9
3.9
0.2
3.2
August .....................................................
0.7
3.1
0.2
3.0
0.6
4.3
0.1
2.7
October ....................................................
0.9
3.6
0.6
2.7
0.7
4.4
1.0
3.0
December ................................................
-0.31
3.5
-0.11
2.9
0.1
4.5
-0.51
2.5
The April 2020 Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco area is scheduled to be released on May 12,
2020.
Consumer Price Index Geographic Revision for 2018
In January 2018, BLS introduced a new geographic area sample for the Consumer Price Index (CPI). As
part of the new sample, the index for this area was renamed. Additional information on the geographic
revision is available at: www.bls.gov/cpi/additional-resources/geographic-revision-2018.htm.
Technical Note
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change in prices over time in a fixed market
basket of goods and services. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes CPIs for two population groups: (1) a
CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) which covers approximately 94 percent of the total population and (2) a
CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) which covers 28 percent of the total population.
The CPI-U includes, in addition to wage earners and clerical workers, groups such as professional, managerial,
and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, and retirees and others not in
the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors' and
dentists' services, drugs, and the other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. Each month,
prices are collected in 75 urban areas across the country from about 5,000 housing units and approximately
22,000 retail establishments --department stores, supermarkets, hospitals, filling stations, and other types of
stores and service establishments. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are included
in the index.
The index measures price changes from a designated reference date (1982-84) that equals 100.0. An increase
of 16.5 percent, for example, is shown as 116.5. This change can also be expressed in dollars as follows: the
price of a base period "market basket" of goods and services in the CPI has risen from $10 in 1982-84 to
$11.65. For further details see the CPI home page on the Internet at www.bls.gov/cpi and the BLS Handbook
of Methods, Chapter 17, The Consumer Price Index, available on the Internet at www.bls.gov/opub/hom/
homchl7_a.htm.
In calculating the index, price changes for the various items in each location are averaged together with
weights that represent their importance in the spending of the appropriate population group. Local data are
then combined to obtain a U.S. city average. Because the sample size of a local area is smaller, the local area
index is subject to substantially more sampling and other measurement error than the national index. In
addition, local indexes are not adjusted for seasonal influences. As a result, local area indexes show greater
volatility than the national index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. NOTE: Area indexes do
not measure differences in the level of prices between cities; they only measure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.
The San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA. metropolitan area covered in this release is comprised of Alameda,
Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo Counties in the State of California.
Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone:
(202) 691-5200; Federal Relay Service: (800) 877-8339.
Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Indexes and percent changes for selected
periods San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA (1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted)
Item and Group
Indexes
Percent change from -
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Dec.
Jan.
2019
2020
2020
2019
2019
2020
Expenditure category
All items..................................................................
297.007
299.690
2.9
0.9
Al items (1967=100)..............................................
913.082
921.330
-
-
Food and beverages ..........................................
291.161
294.897
2.7
1.3
Food...............................................................
289.795
-
293.860
3.5
1.4
Food at home ..............................................
255.160
252.943
255.459
0.5
0.1
1.0
Cereals and bakery products ......................
261.685
-
260.713
3.4
-0.4
-
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ......................
257.727
259.584
5.2
0.7
Dairy and related products ..........................
272.909
276.983
2.7
1.5
Fruits and vegetables ..................................
339.390
337.537
-2.3
-0.5
Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage
208.244
205.500
-1.8
-1.3
materials(1).................................................
Other food at home .....................................
215.083
215.951
-2.8
0.4
Food away from home ....................................
329.746
338.700
6.3
2.7
Food away from home .................................
329.746
338.700
6.3
2.7
Alcoholic beverages .......................................
311.197
310.927
-3.6
-0.1
Housing..............................................................
352.601
-
355.875
3.8
0.9
-
Shelter............................................................
403.366
404.651
406.369
3.5
0.7
0.4
Rent of primary residence(2).......................
465.399
467.145
469.062
4.1
0.8
0.4
Owners' equiv. rent of residences(2)(3).......
431.525
432.813
435.428
3.4
0.9
0.6
Owners' equiv. rent of primary
431.525
432.813
435.428
3.4
0.9
0.6
residence(1)(2)........................................
Fuels and utilities ............................................
421.094
-
428.216
7.6
1.7
-
Household energy .......................................
361.199
370.673
371.120
9.1
2.7
0.1
Energy services(2)..................................
362.411
371.961
372.547
9.2
2.8
0.2
Electricity(2)..........................................
394.942
405.709
405.709
11.2
2.7
0.0
Utility (piped) gas service(2).................
278.293
284.492
286.953
3.3
3.1
0.9
Household furnishings and operations...........
140.571
-
143.846
3.7
2.3
-
Apparel...............................................................
105.638
118.319
1.1
12.0
Transportation....................................................
205.815
207.576
2.4
0.9
Private transportation .....................................
200.558
199.614
1.5
-0.5
New and used motor vehicles(4)....................
94.248
94.584
-0.8
0.4
New vehicles(1)...........................................
157.614
158.826
-3.3
0.8
Used cars and trucks(1) ..............................
247.540
-
247.896
-1.7
0.1
-
Motor fuel ....................................................
261.728
254.945
251.171
-0.1
-4.0
-1.5
Gasoline (all types) ..................................
260.603
253.829
250.046
-0.1
-4.1
-1.5
Gasoline, unleaded regular(4)..............
260.154
253.300
249.274
-0.5
-4.2
-1.6
Gasoline, unleaded midgrade(4)(5)......
246.885
240.385
236.047
1.4
-4.4
-1.8
Gasoline, unleaded premium(4)...........
248.322
242.254
239.787
1.3
-3.4
-1.0
Motor vehicle insurance(1).............................
534.852
-
543.610
5.3
1.6
-
Medical care .......................................................
554.645
545.970
5.1
-1.6
Recreation(6)......................................................
120.285
119.462
1.3
-0.7
Education and communication(6).......................
150.738
150.916
-0.8
0.1
Tuition, other school fees, and child care(1) ..
1,832.700
1,832.748
0.0
0.0
Other goods and services ..................................
502.634
506.920
1.4
0.9
Commodity and service group
All items..................................................................
297.007
299.690
2.9
0.9
Commodities......................................................
191.711
194.559
0.7
1.5
Commodities less food & beverages ..............
138.789
141.125
-1.2
1.7
Nondurables less food & beverages ...........
183.571
186.302
-1.0
1.5
Durables......................................................
95.685
97.551
-1.7
2.0
Services..............................................................
1 384.5541
387.1821
3.81
0.7
Note: See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Indexes and percent changes for selected
periods San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA (1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted) - Continued
Item and Group
Indexes
Percent change from -
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Dec.
Jan.
2019
2020
2020
2019
2019
2020
Special aggregate indexes
All items less medical care .....................................
286.521
289.597
2.7
1.1
All items less shelter ...............................................
252.809
255.428
2.5
1.0
Commodities less food ...........................................
146.124
148.395
-1.4
1.6
Nondurables...........................................................
238.667
241.910
1.2
1.4
Nondurables less food ............................................
193.523
196.037
-1.3
1.3
Services less rent of shelter(3) ...............................
377.741
379.913
4.4
0.6
Services less medical care services .......................
373.552
-
376.538
3.6
0.8
Energy....................................................................
302.900
302.554
300.439
4.0
-0.8
-0.7
All items less energy ..............................................
300.324
-
303.282
2.9
1.0
-
AII items less food and energy ...........................
302.804
305.596
2.8
0.9
Footnotes
(1) Indexes on a December 1977=100 base.
(2) This index series was calculated using a Laspeyres estimator. All other item stratum index series were calculated using a geometric means
estimator.
(3) Indexes on a December 1982=100 base.
(4) Special index based on a substantially smaller sample.
(5) Indexes on a December 1993=100 base.
(6) Indexes on a December 1997=100 base.
- Data not available
NOTE: Index applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date.
znww
suR�- iNGn,m� AGENDA NO: 9b
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 6, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 6, 2020
From: Christine Reed, Fire Marshall (650) 558-7601
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney (650) 558-7204
Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend Title 17 of the Burlingame
Municipal Code and Adoption by Reference of the 2019 California Fire
Code and the 2018 Edition of the International Fire Code
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt revisions and amendments to Title 17 of the
Burlingame Municipal Code. These amendments were originally briefed to Council during the
October 21st, 2019 session, but by technical oversight were not actually included in the signed
ordinance. These amendments will bring the City into compliance with current California Fire
Code standards. In its action, the Council should:
A. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff.
B. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance.
C. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance.
D. Conduct a public hearing.
E. Following the public hearing, discuss the ordinance and determine whether to bring it back
for second reading and adoption. If the Council is in favor of the ordinance, direct the City
Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed
adoption.
BACKGROUND
On October 21, 2019, City Council was briefed on an ordinance proposing updates to our
Municipal Code required for compliance with current California standards. On November 4tn
2019, Council approved Ordinance 1969 by unanimous vote, thereby approving changes to the
City's Building Code, as well as various other changes reflecting current state law updates.
Changes to Title 17, the Burlingame Fire Code, were also scheduled to be completed at that time,
and in fact the changes were presented to Council during the October 21st, 2019 meeting.
However, they were not included in the printed text of the ordinance as it was passed, and
therefore staff is proposing these amendments be approved through a new ordinance.
Burlingame Municipal Code Title 17 Amendments
April 6, 2020
DISCUSSION
Existing ordinances were researched and justified for continued enforcement. Some local
ordinances have been codified by the newly adopted codes and/or minimum state regulations,
while others have been removed or clarified for easier comprehensive of code requirements.
The Central County Fire Department worked regionally to develop local ordinances that would
streamline construction processes, provide consistency to ordinances intended to complement
emergency response tactical needs, as well as promote economic development. Additionally, the
Central County Fire Department and the City of Burlingame Building Division worked
cooperatively to review all ordinances currently in existence and verify that they are in the best
interest of the Burlingame community and based upon climatic, geological, or topographical
conditions consistent with California State law.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibit:
• Proposed Ordinance
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2019
CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (TITLE 24, PART 9, CFC) AND THE 2018 EDITION OF
THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE
The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows:
Section 1. The City of Burlingame is located between the Santa Cruz Mountains
foothills and San Francisco Bay, with a number of substantial creeks flowing through highly
developed residential and industrial areas. It is surrounded by large areas of open space
maintained in natural condition, as well as having a significant natural canyon in the center of
residential area. The City normally receives no measurable precipitation between May and
October, and it can often extend into late October or early November. During this period,
average temperatures range between 70' F and 90' F, and strong winds come down the foothills.
These conditions eliminate most of the moisture in the natural vegetation and heavily wooded
hillsides. Recent experience with statewide incidents proves that hazardous conditions exist
year-round. In addition, many wood roofs over wood construction predominate the residential
areas. The City is directly east of the San Andreas Fault, and much of the highly developed part
of the City is located along the front of the Bay, some on fill. The foothill areas have a variety
soil formations with steep canyons and heavy precipitation. Fires in the community could
quickly spread because of the extensive, natural vegetation throughout the City. The City has a
number of highly developed commercial areas with older buildings, and an industrial area that is
4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
filled with mixed uses utilizing various materials that could be highly hazardous. In addition,
heavily traveled approach and departure routes for San Francisco International Airport are
immediately adjacent to or over the City. Much of the residential areas that are immediately
adjacent to woodland and canyon are served by narrow one- or two-lane roads with challenging
access caused by the steepness of the terrain. Access by fire suppression equipment is extremely
limited by both topography and access. It is only through strong building standards and effective
fire prevention and containment programs that citizens will receive the protection they deserve,
and that citizens will be able to obtain reasonably priced insurance for their homes and
businesses. In seeking to attain these goals, the fire prevention standards in Title 17 are adopted.
Section 2. In addition, in order to provide appropriate, clear information to
applicants for construction approvals, Section 17.04.020 is adopted to conform Title 17 to Title
18 and the Zoning Code requirements established in the Municipal Code.
Section 3. The City operates its own sanitary sewer system and water quality
control plant and is subject to State and Federal laws regarding both point and non -point
discharges. Section 17.04.105 is adopted to ensure responsibility for hazardous materials and to
clarify liability to assist the City in meeting its responsibilities regarding those laws as well as
protecting the public safety and welfare.
Section 4. Chapter 17.04 is amended to read as follows:
Chapter 17.04
INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17.04.010 Adoption of the California Fire Code and International Fire Code.
17.04.020 Amendments to the California Fire Code and International Fire Code.
17.04.025 Administrative, Operational and Maintenance Provisions
17.04.030 Occupancy Prohibited Before Approval & Examination of Documents
17.04.035 Permits and Fees
17.04.040 Board of Appeals
17.04.045 (RESERVED)
17.04.050 General Storage
17.04.055 Marking — Fire Lanes
17.04.060 Premises Identification
17.04.065 Key Boxes
17.04.070 Fire Protection Water Supplies
17.04.075 Fire Command Center
17.04.080 Fuel -Fired Appliances
17.04.085 Shunt Trip - Prohibited
17.04.090 Additions and Alterations — Fire Sprinkler Systems
17.04.091 Provisions for all Sprinklered Buildings
17.04.092 Where Required
17.04.093 Existing Buildings and Structures
17.04.094 Inspectors Test
17.04.095 Additional Residential Sprinkler Locations
17.04.096 Monitoring
17.04.097 Location of Class I Standpipe Hose Connections
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17.04.100 Hazard Identification Signs
17.04.101 On -Demand Mobile Fueling Operations
17.04.105 Deposits of hazardous materials and unlawful burning — Cleanup or
abatement — Liability for costs.
17.04.010 Adoption of text of the California Fire Code, International Fire Code, and Public
Resources Code, Division 4, Section 4291.
There is adopted by the City for the purpose of prescribing regulations governing
conditions hazardous to life and property from fire, explosion, or wildfire that certain codes
which contains building standards known as the 2019 California Fire Code (International Fire
Code, 2018 Edition as amended by the State of California), and the non -building standards
known as the International Fire Code, 2018 Edition, together with all appendices, except
Appendices A, D, and J, and the State of California amendments thereto, and the Public
Resources Code, Division 4, Section 4291.
1 17.04.020 Amendments to the California Fire Code and International Fire Code
The California Fire Code and the International Fire Code are amended or
modified as follows:
17.04.025 Chapter 1, Division II, Section 102.2, IFC is amended — Administrative,
operational and maintenance provisions.
Section 102.2 is amended to delete item #2 of this section.
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17.04.030 Chapter 1, Division II, Section 105.3.3, IFC and 105.4.1.1, IFC is amended
Occupancy prohibited before approval and Examination of Documents
Section 105.3.3 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Section 105.3.3. No final inspection by the Building Official as to all or any portion of a
development shall be deemed complete, and no certificate of occupancy or temporary
certificate of occupancy shall be issued unless and until the installation of the prescribed
fire protection facilities and access ways have been completed and approved by the Fire
Chief.
Section 105.4.1.1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Section 105.4.1.1. When required by the fire code official, plans submitted to the
Building Official for a permit shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief to determine
compliance with the California Fire Code and the International Fire Code. Upon review a
written report shall be returned to the Building Official listing deficiencies or compliance
with the Code.
17.04.035 Chapter 1, Sections 106.1 and 106.3, CFC are amended as follows:
Section 106.1.2, CFC is added to this code and shall read as follows:
Section 106.1.2. Permits and Fees
a. The fees for the permits and other services shall be as established by resolution of
the Central County Fire Department Fire Board as amended from time to time.
The fee shall be set to cover the cost of the Fire Department to review and inspect
the intended activities, operations or functions. The fees must be applied to the
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
appropriate agency, City of Burlingame or Central County Fire Department,
depending on the type of service.
EXCEPTION: (1) The applicant for a given permit shall be exempt from the
payment when the work to be conducted is for the City of Burlingame under
written contract to the City or for events sponsored or co -sponsored by the City.
b. In the case of multiple permits for an applicant, the permit applicant will be
charged the single highest listed rate of all the permits required. The other
permitable items will be charged at a rate of 50% of the listed fee as long as the
permits are for the same address.
C. Where processes or materials are inherent with a permitable item, subsequent fees
may be waived at the discretion of fire chief.
d. All fire permits and fire construction permits shall have a set number of
inspections per permit as set forth by the Central County Fire Department Fee
Schedule. Additional inspections and additional re -inspections will be billed at
hourly rate consistent with the Central County Fire Department Fee Schedule.
e. Application for "event" type permits (i.e.: Assembly, Pyrotechnic, Tents, etc.)
shall be submitted 14 days prior to the event date. Applications submitted within
13 days prior to the event date shall be charged double the regular permit rate as
established by the Central County Fire Department Fee Schedule.
-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
f. "After Hours" inspections shall be invoiced at a rate of one and one-half time the
normal hourly rate. "After Hours" inspections will be billed at a rate of three
hours minimum. "After Hours" inspections are defined as follows: Inspections
conducted outside of normal business hours for the Fire Prevention Division, as
defined on the Central County Fire Department website.
g. Any person, group, organization, institution or business failing to pay the
applicable fees under this Article shall after 30 days of the due date, for either
existing or new permit applicants, shall be issued a citation for non-payment of
the required permit fee. The penalty for all permit payments delinquent after 30
days shall be a doubling of the original fee.
Section 106.3, CFC is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Section 106.3. Investigation and Fee.
Section 106.3. Investigation — Work without a permit
Investigation. Whenever construction or work for which a permit is required by
this code and has been commenced without first obtaining a permit, a special investigation shall
be made before a permit may be issued for the work. All work done without a required permit,
including demolition of all or part of a structure or system shall be subject to the investigation
and fees imposed by this section.
Section 106.3.1 is added to this code and shall read as follows:
Section 106.3.1. Fee — Work without a permit
In the event work is done without an issued permit, an investigation fee, in
-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
addition to the permit fee, shall be collected as a civil penalty, whether or not a permit is then or
subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be up to 10 times the fire permit fee. The
investigation fee shall be determined by the Fire Chief and shall be based on the staff time
reasonably required to resolve all of the issues related to the work that has been performed
without a permit. No construction work permit shall be issued until the investigation fee has b
paid in full.
Nothing in this section shall relieve any persons from fully complying with the
requirements of this code, in the execution of the work, or from any other fees or penalties
prescribed by law.
17.04.040 Chapter 1, Section 109, CFC is amended
Board of Appeals.
Section 109, CFC is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Section 109. Appeal and review.
(a) The chief of the fire department shall be charged with the duty and
responsibility of administering the provisions of this chapter.
(b) Whenever it is provided herein that certain actions shall be done in accordance
with an order of the fire department, such order shall be complied with. Any person aggrieved
thereby, may appeal to the fire chief in writing within ten (10) days after the date of such order,
except as otherwise provided in this chapter. The fire chief shall issue a written decision to
affirm, modify or reverse the order within two (2) business days of the receipt of the appeal. The
fire chief s written decision may be appealed to the City Council no later than ten (10) days from
-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the date of the fire chief s written decision. The City Council's decision shall be final and
conclusive. Except in the cases of immediate hazard, the enforcement of the order shall be
suspended until such person has exhausted the appeal process as described above.
47.04.045 RESERVED
17.04.050 Sections 315, CFC- General Storage.
Section 315.2, CFC is amended and Section 315.3.5 is added to read as follows:
Section 315.2 Permit required. A permit for miscellaneous combustible materials shall be
required as set forth in Section 105.6.
Exception:
Storage of combustible materials other than motorized vehicles or vessels shall not be
permitted in a public parking garage or in a garage or carport serving a Group R, Divisi
1 or Group R, Division 2 Occupancy, unless the method of storage is approved by the
Fire Code Official.
Section 315.3.5, CFC is added to read as follows:
Section 315.3.5. Designation of storage heights. Where required by the fire code official,
a visual method of indicating the maximum allowable storage height shall be provided in
accordance with Section 315.3.5.1, CFC.
Section 315.3.5.1, CFC added to read as follows:
Section 315.3.5.1. The approved visual method of indicating maximum allowable storage
shall be a four (4") inch wide line in contrasting color along a wall or storage rack.
-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17.04.055 Section 503.3, IFC - Marking.
Section 503.3, IFC is amended by adding section 503.3.1 to read as follows:
Section 503.3.1 Fire Lane Designation. Designation of fire lanes shall be by one of the
following means:
1. By white signs measuring at least 12 inches by 18 (12" x 18") inches posted
immediately adjacent thereto and clearly visible. It should clearly state, in red
letters not less than one inch (1 ") in height, that the space is a fire lane and
parking is prohibited.
2. By outlining and hash marking the area in contrasting colors clearly marking it
with the words "Fire Lane - No Parking."
3. By identifying the space with a red curb upon which the words "Fire Lane - No
Parking" are stenciled every 15 feet.
a. Both sides of fire lanes shall be red curbed when the fire lane is twenty
(20) to twenty-eight (28) feet in width.
b. At least one side of a fire lane shall be red curbed and stenciled when the
fire lane is over twenty eight (28) and up to thirty-six (36) feet in width.
C. Curbs need not be painted red nor stenciled when the fire lane is more tl
thirty-six (36) feet in width.
17.04.060 Sections 505.1 through 505.1.3, CFC - Premises identification.
Section 505.1.1 is added to read as follows:
Section 505.1.1 Size of numbers shall be as follows:
1. When the structure is thirty-six (36) to fifty (50) feet from the street or fire
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
apparatus access, a minimum of one -half -inch ('/2") stroke by six inches (6") high
is required.
2. When the structure is more than fifty (50) feet from the street or fire apparatus
access, a minimum of one -inch (1") stroke by nine inches (9") high is required.
Sections 505.1.2, 505.1.3, and 505.1.4 CFC are added to read as follows:
Section 505.1.2 Multi -Tenant Buildings. Numbers or letters shall be designated on all
occupancies within a building. Size shall be a minimum of one-half inch (1/2") stroke by
four inches (4") high and on a contrasting background. Directional address numbers or
letters shall be provided. Said addresses or numbers shall be posted at a height no greater
than 5 feet, 6 inches (5' 6") above the finished floor and shall be either internally or
externally illuminated in all new construction.
Section 505.1.3 Rear Addressing. When required by the chief, approved numbers or
addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the fire apparatus road at the back of a property or where
rear parking lots or alleys provide and acceptable vehicular access. Number stroke and
size shall comply with 505.1.1.
Section 505.1.4 ADU Addressing. Address for Residential Accessory Dwelling Units
shall meet City of Burlingame specifications.
17.04.065 Sections 506.1, CFC -Key Boxes.
Section 506.1, CFC is amended and 506.1.1.1, CFC is added to read as follows:
-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Section 506.1 is modified to include:
Section 506.1 Where Required. The key box shall be of an approved type and shall
contain contents as established in Section 506.1.1.1. A key box shall be installed in
accordance with Fire Department standards for all new buildings. For existing buildings
equipped with key box, it shall be upgraded to current Fire Department standards at time
of Building permit issuance including modifications or alterations to front entrance of
building.
An emergency gate key switch shall be installed on all new electronic driveway or
entryway gates. The key switch shall conform to current Fire Department standards.
Section 506.1.1.1, CFC is added to read as follows:
Section 506.1.1.1 Key box contents requirements. Required keys include, but are not
limited to: a master entry key, elevator control, fire alarm control panels, fire sprinkler
control valve access, and building utilities. Based on specific site conditions, the fire
department may notify the property owner of additional required keys. Contents inside
key box shall follow approved fire department standards. If the business/operation is
required to have a Hazardous Material Inventory Statement (HMIS), the HMIS shall be
included in the key box. Electronic key cards or keyless remotes may be provided as long
as the locking system has a failsafe feature at loss of building power and doors are
operational without a key or special knowledge.
17.04.070 Section 507 — Fire Protection Water Supplies
Section 507.5.4.1 CFC is added to read as follow:
-12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Section 507.5.4.1. Private Hydrants. Whenever any on -site fire protection equipment or
access ways have been installed as provided in this section, the following provision shall
apply:
With respect to hydrants located along private access ways where curbs exist, said
curbs shall be painted red or otherwise appropriately marked by the owner, lessee or
other person in charge of the premises, to prohibit parking for a distance of 10 feet in
either direction from such hydrant. In such cases where curbs do not exist, there shall be
appropriate markings painted on the pavement, or signs erected, or both giving notice that
parking is prohibited for a distance of 10 feet from any such hydrant. Hydrant caps shall
be color -coded in accordance with NFPA 291 (National Fire Protection Association). The
base of the hydrant shall be painted either reflective red or yellow.
17.04.075 Section 508 — Fire Command Center
Section 508.1.1.1 CFC is added to read as follows:
Section 508.1.1.1. Requirements. Fire command center shall be equipped with an
exterior door and be located at the exterior of the building at a location approved by the
Fire Chief.
17.04.080 Section 603, CFC - Fuel -Fired Appliances
Section 603.6.6, CFC is added to read as follows:
Section 603.6.6 Spark arrestors. Every chimney shall have an internally or externally
mounted spark arrestor. Any spark arrestor to be mounted internally shall not be installed
until installation plans for such arrestor have been submitted to and approved by the
-13-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building department. All chimneys as described in section 603.6 shall be retroactively
protected when one or more of the following conditions exist:
1. Upon the sale or transfer of the real property on which any chimney is located.
a. The transfer of title shall not be made until each such chimney contains
the required spark arrestor, properly installed and in proper working order.
2. In the event of any construction on such property for which a building permit is
required.
a. The final building permit sign off shall not be made until each such
chimney contains the required spark arrestor, properly installed and in
proper working order.
17.04.085 Section 606.8.5, CFC - Shunt Trip.
Section 606.8.5 is deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:
Section 606.8.5. Shunt Trip Prohibited. Where elevator hoistways and/or elevator
machine rooms containing elevator control equipment are located within buildings
equipped with automatic fire sprinklers, the following is required in lieu of a shunt trip:
1. The elevator machine room shall be constructed with the minimum fire rating as
the hoistway. For non -rated hoistways, the minimum rating shall be one hour
throughout in accordance with Section 707 of the California Building Code for
fire barriers.
2. Fire sprinklers at the top of the hoistway and inside the elevator machine room
shall not be installed.
3. Means for elevator shutdown shall not be installed.
-14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17.04.090 Section 903.1.2, CFC - Additions and Alterations.
Section 903.1.2, CFC is added to read as follows:
Section 903.1.2 Additions and Alterations. The standard for calculating the size of
addition and/or alteration for determining the threshold for fire sprinkler systems shall be:
1. The square footage of every room being added or altered shall be included in the
calculation of total square footage of addition or alteration.
2. The entire square footage of an individual room shall be considered added or
altered when at least fifty percent (50%) or greater of the linear length of interior
wall sheeting or ceiling of any one wall within the room is new, removed, or
replaced.
17.04.091 Section 903.1.3, CFC - Provisions for all sprinklered buildings.
Section 903.1.3, CFC is added to read as follows:
Section 903.1.3, Provisions for all sprinklered buildings:
1. When a commercial building is partially retrofitted with an approved automatic
sprinkler fire extinguishing system pursuant to this section, the building owner
shall complete the fire extinguishing system retrofit throughout the unprotected
building interior areas within six (6) years of completing the initial partial retrofit
or within every tenant space where a building permit is obtained, whichever is
less.
2. When a residential building is partially retrofitted with an approved automatic
-15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sprinkler fire extinguishing system pursuant to this section, the building fire
extinguishing system retrofit shall be completed throughout the unprotected
building interior areas within two (2) years from completing the initial partial
retrofit.
3. When a property owner or responsible party of a commercial or residential
building chooses option 1 or 2 from above, the property owner shall file a deed
restriction with San Mateo County Assessor's Office and obtain a performance
bond to ensure compliance with Section 17.04.091. The bond shall be in an
amount equal to or greater than the estimated cost of completion, as determined
by Central County Fire Department.
17.04.092 Section 903.2, CFC is amended — Where required.
Section 903.2, CFC shall be deleted and replaced as follows:
Section 903.2 Where required. Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be
installed in all new occupiable and/or habitable -buildings and structures. In addition, approved
automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be provided in locations described in Sections 903.2.1
through 903.2.21.
Exceptions:
1. When approved by the fire chief, canopy structures used solely for vehicular parking
which have a photovoltaic system attached are not required to be equipped with a fire
sprinkler system as long as the structure meets distance requirements to other
structures and property lines.
-16-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2. Group U occupancies less than 1,200 square feet.
17.04.093 Sections 903.2.21 and 903.2.22 CFC are added - Existing Buildings and
Structures.
Section 903.2.21 is added to read as follows:
Section 903.2.21, CFC Existing Buildings and Structures. All existing buildings and
structures shall be retroactively protected by an approved automatic extinguishing system
when the following conditions exist:
a. Commercial and multi -family residential buildings with a total building floor
area in excess of 2,000 square feet or more than two stories in height, and when additions
or alterations for which a building permit is required will exceed 1,200 square feet in
area.
Exception: Group U occupancies less than 1,200 square feet.
b. Residential one- and two-family dwellings and structures with a total building
floor area in excess of 2,000 square feet or more than two stories in height, and when
additions or alterations for which a building permit is required will exceed 750 square
feet in area.
Exceptions:
1. Additions or alterations of commercial and multi -family residential buildings
that do not exceed 20% of the completed building's total replacement cost
calculation. The replacement cost calculations for the additions/alterations and
the completed building shall be calculated utilizing the latest Building Valuation
Data (BVD) published by the International Code Council.
-17-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2. Additions or alterations to residential one- and two-family dwellings and
structures that do not exceed 20% of the total square footage of the entire
completed building.
3. The cost of additions and alterations used in calculating the replacement cost
value formula shall be exclusive of the cost to design and install an automatic fire
sprinkler extinguishing system pursuant to this section; building roof
repair/replacement; fire damage repair; building heating and/or cooling unit
repair/replacement; and any other federal, state and local construction code
upgrade requirements including but not limited to the seismic retrofit
requirements, asbestos, and other hazardous material abatement.
Section 903.2.22, CFC is added with the following:
Section 903.2.22 Aggregate. The size or cost of additions and alterations used in
calculating the size or replacement cost value formula shall not be cumulative with r
to individual additions or alterations in a building unless the following circumstance
applies:
a) Where more than one (1) addition or alteration for which building permits are
required are made within a two (2) year period from the final date of the initial permit,
the sum of the square footage or replacement costs of these additions or alterations during
this two (2) year period shall be aggregated for the purpose of determining calculations in
Section 17.04. 090.
-18-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17.04.094 Section 903.3.1.4, CFC amended - Inspector's Test.
Section 903.3.1.4, CFC is added to read as follows:
Section 903.3.1.4 Inspectors Test Valves. Single-family residential fire sprinkler systems
within buildings greater than 3600 square feet shall be equipped with an inspectors test
valve for each system and located the furthest point away from the sprinkler riser.
17.04.095 Section 903.3.1.5 and 903.3.1.6, CFC is added - Additional Sprinkler Locations.
Section 903.3.1.5, CFC is added to read as follows:
Section 903.3.1.5 Additional Residential Sprinkler Locations. The installation of a
residential fire sprinkler system shall conform to the following:
1. Sprinklers shall be required throughout carports and garages.
Exception: Detached carports and garages less than 2,000 square feet in area and
separated from residential buildings complying with Section 503.1.2 and Table
602 of the building code and assuming a property line between all other
structures.
2. Sprinkler coverage shall be provided in the following locations:
a. Attic access openings
b. Areas of attics and crawl spaces containing storage, mechanical and/or
electrical equipment.
Section 903.3.1.6, CFC is added to read as follows:
Section 903.3.1.6 Additional Commercial and Multi -family Dwelling Sprinkler
Locations. Rooms or spaces which contain vehicle parking lifts or vehicle
-19-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
M
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stacking systems shall be designed as an Extra -High Hazard Classification.
Sprinkler design to include sidewall sprinkler heads designed at minimum
Ordinary Group 2 in between each level.
Exception: Buildings classified as single-family dwellings.
4 7.04.096 Section 903.4.1 CFC is amended — Fire Sprinkler Monitoring Systems
Section 903.4.1 CFC is amended by adding the following
903.4.1 Monitoring. For new fire sprinkler monitoring systems, the approved supervisory
station shall be defined as a UL approved central receiving station.
17.04.097 Section 905.4 CFC is amended — Location of Class I standpipe hose connections
Section 905.4 CFC, subsection 1 is deleted and replaced with the following:
1. In every required interior exit stairway, a hose connection shall be provided for each
story above and below grade plane. Hose connections shall be located at an intermediate floor
level landing between floors, when such a landing exists. See section 909.20.2.3 of the Califorr,
Building Code for additional provisions in smoke proof enclosures.
4 7.04.100 Section 5003.5, CFC is amended — Hazard Identification Signs
Section 5003.5.2, CFC is added to read as follows:
5003.5.2 Sign size and locations. Two NFPA 704 diamonds shall be placed on buildings
so that they are clearly visible from at least two directions of travel.
1. The signs shall be at least fifteen inches by fifteen inches (15" x 15"). The signs
shall not be placed on windows.
-20-
2.
1
2
3
4 3.
5
6 17.04.101
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
When NFPA 704 diamonds are required for the interior doors, the signs shall be
applied to the doors at a level no higher than the doorknob. The signs for the
interior doors shall be at least six inches by six inches (6"x 6").
The Fire Code Official may require fewer or more NFPA diamonds if the building
configuration or size makes it reasonably necessary.
Section 5707, CFC, On -Demand Mobile Fueling Operations
Section 5707.4.3 is added to read as follows:
Section 5707.4.3 Adequate lighting. Adequate site lighting shall be provided for
all mobile fueling operations which are performed in dim or dark outdoor conditions. Acceptable
means of lighting are flood or box lights which are self -standing or mountable.
17.04.105 Deposits of hazardous materials and unlawful burning-
--Liability for costs.
(a) The fire department is authorized to clean up or abate the effects of any
hazardous material deposited upon or into property or facilities of the City. Any person who
intentionally or negligently caused such deposit shall be liable for the payment of all cleanup or
abatement costs incurred by the fire department. The remedy provided by this section shall be in
addition to any other remedies provided by law.
(b) For the purposes of this section, "hazardous materials" shall be defined as any
substances or materials, in a quantity or form which, in the determination of the fire chief or his
authorized representative, poses an imminent risk to life, health or safety of persons or property
or to the ecological balance of the environment, and shall include, but not be limited to, such
substances as explosives, radioactive materials, petroleum or petroleum products or gases;
-21-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
poisons, etiologic (biologic) agents, flammables and corrosives.
(c) Any person in violation of Section 17.04.010 and 17.04.020 which results in
fire damage to persons or property shall be charged as unlawfully burning and is liable for costs
incurred by the fire department and other responding county or state fire agencies for suppressic
activities.
(d) For purposes of this section, costs incurred by the fire department shall
include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, the following: actual labor costs of city perso
including workers' compensation benefits, fringe benefits, administrative overhead; cost of
equipment operation, cost of materials obtained directly by the city; and cost of any contract
labor and materials.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be published as required by law, and shall be
effective thirty days from its adoption, or when the ordinance is filed with the Building Standards
Commission, whichever occurs later.
Mayor
I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame certify
that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
day of, 2020, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held
on the day of , 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
-22-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
-23-
BiFRL- 1NAGENDA NO: 9c
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 6, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 6, 2020
From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204
Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7253
Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the City's Municipal Code Chapter
18.07 — Permit Expiration and Permit Exempt Structures
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider introduction of an ordinance amending Chapter
18.07 of the Burlingame Municipal Code regarding permit exemptions and expiration. In order to
do so, Council should:
A. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff.
B. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance.
C. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance.
D. Conduct a public hearing.
E. Following the public hearing, discuss the ordinance and determine whether to bring it back
for second reading and adoption. If the Council is in favor of the ordinance, direct the City Clerk to
publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption.
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
In September 2018, Governor Brown approved Assembly Bill (AB) 2913, which changed building
permit requirements in the State of California. Specifically, AB 2913 imposed a 180-day limit for
each permit extension granted by the Building Official, and required that all approved permits
remain valid for 12 months so long as work on the project has commenced. Currently, Burlingame
Municipal Code Chapter 18.07.070 conflicts with AB 2913 by requiring certain projects be
completed within six months, and allows permit extensions to be given for up to one year. This
amendment would amend the Code to comply with AB 2913, but would also allow for multiple
extensions of 180 days to be given when justified.
Separately, the Building Official has also requested that Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter
18.07.050 be amended to change the maximum floor area square footage of permit -exempt
buildings from 100 square feet to 120 square feet. This change would bring the Burlingame
Municipal Code in line with the maximum square footage for similar structures in the California
Residential Code (R105.2). Neighboring Cities, including Belmont and San Mateo, similarly
exempt structures under 120 square feet. However, in contrast, Millbrae has set their maximum
floor area square footage for such structures at 64 square feet.
1
Amendment on Permit Exemption and Expiration
April 6, 2020
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the City General Fund.
Exhibit:
• Proposed Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING TWO SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 18.07 OF THE BURLINGAME
MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows:
Division 1. Factual Background
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame wishes to make changes to two sections of
Chapter 18.07 of the Burlingame Municipal Code which govern permit -exempt buildings
and permit expiration;
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame currently exempts many one-story detached
accessory buildings provided the floor area does not exceed 100 square feet;
WHEREAS, California Residential Code R105.2 currently exempts one-story
detached accessory structures provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet;
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame no longer believes it is necessary to deviate
from the square footage requirement set by the California Residential Code for such
structures;
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2018, Governor Edmund Gerald Brown approved
Assembly Bill (AB) No. 2913, which changed building permit requirements, including
imposing a limit of 180 days to each permit extension granted by the building official, and
requiring that all permits remain valid for at least twelve months after issuance so long
as work has commenced;
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of AB 2913, Chapter 18.07.070 Section
303.4 of the City's Municipal Code required certain projects to be completed within six
months of permit issuance;
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of AB 2913, Chapter 18.07.070 Section
303.4 of the City's Municipal Code allowed extensions of building permits up to one (1)
year;
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of AB 2913, Chapter 18.07.070 Section
303.4 of the City's Municipal Code did not allow the approval of more than two total
permit extensions;
WHEREAS, the City will comply with the provisions of AB 2913, while still
ensuring permitees may extend projects for good cause;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Division 2. The following code sections are amended, repealed or deleted as follows
with underlining indicating new text and strikeouts (strut) indicating deleted text.
Section 1: The following two Sections of Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 18.07
Uniform Administrative Code are hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 18.07 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
18.07.50 Section 301.2.1 amended —Building permits —Exempted work.
1. One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds,
playhouses and similar uses provided the floor area does not exceed 400 120 square
feet.
18.07.070 Section 303.4 amended —Permit expiration —Failure to complete.
303.4 Expiration. All work to be performed under a building permit shall be
completed within the maximum time allowed for the construction as follows:
Total Estimated Cost Total Time Allowed
QveFUp to and including $50,000 12 months
Over $50,000 to and including $1,000,000 18 months
Over $1,000,000 to and including $2,000,000 24 months
Over $2,000,000 to and including $10,000,000 30 months
Over $10,000,000 36 months
Failure to complete the work within the time allowed, unless an extension of time
has been specifically approved by the building official, will cause the permit for such
work to become null and void. Failure to commence work on any permit within twelve
(12) months of issuance will cause the permit for such work to become null and
void. Abandonment of the work authorized by the permit will also cause the permit to
immediately become null and void. In each instance, A -a new permit requiring
compliance with all current codes and payment of all fees shall be required to
recommence work. The request for an extension of time must be submitted in writing
prior to the expiration of the time allowed.
The time limit allowed to complete the work and obtain a building final for any
permit that has been extended shall be eee yea 180 days from the date of the
extension. Failure to complete the work within the time allowed by a first permit
extension will cause the permit for such work to become null and void, unless a second
extension has been specifically approved by the building official. A new permit requiring
compliance with all current codes and payment of all fees shall be required to
recommence work. Prior to expiration of a first extension of a building permit, an owner
may apply for a second extension. The request for a second extension of time must be
submitted in writing prior to the expiration of the time allowed under the first
extension. All extension requests shall be made in writing, and must demonstrate
justifiable cause for the extension.
Every permit extension issued by the Building Official under the provisions of the
technical codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or
work authorized by such permit extension is not recommenced within 120 days from the
date of such permit extension, or if the building or work authorized by such permit
extension is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is recommenced for a
period of 120 days. The building or work shall be considered suspended or abandoned if
a substantial inspection has not been conducted. The following are considered
substantial inspections when all corrections have been performed and that portion of the
work has been signed off by a city inspector:
Foundation;
2. Underground plumbing, electrical, and mechanical;
3. Underfloor framing, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical;
4. Shear walls, hold downs, roof diaphragm, and connectors;
5. Rough framing, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical;
6. Insulation;
7. Sheetrock; and
8. Final.
After suspension or abandonment and before such work can be recommenced, a
new permit shall be first obtained and the fee therefore shall be the amount required for
the original permit.
The expiration of a building permit without an extension pursuant to this section
shall result in the expiration of any approvals under Chapter 25 (Zoning) of the
Burlingame Municipal Code and the California Fire Code, including local amendments.
The fees for the first extension shall be the amount required for the original permit.
If no changes in plans or specifications have been made, no additional plan checking
fees will be required. The fee for the seee d any additional extension following the first
extension shall be two (2) times the original building permit fee.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if a building permit was issued
for part or all of a project or building which was required to obtain a special permit,
variance or traffic allocation, the building permit shall expire and such special permit,
variance or traffic allocation shall be null and void if substantial progress has not
occurred within one year from the issuance of the building permit. Substantial progress
shall be when the total foundation has been formed, inspected and poured. The Council
may grant an extension of a permit upon the showing by the permittee of hardship or
unforeseen circumstances.
DIVISION 2:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses
or phrases be declared invalid.
DIVISION 3:
This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance
with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of
Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.
EMILY BEACH, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on the 6th day of April, 2020, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of
the City Council held on the day of 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NOES:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk
BiFRL- 1NAGENDA NO: 10a
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 6, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 6, 2020
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243
Subject: Consideration of Appointment to the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council make appointment to fill one vacancy on the Planning
Commission or take other action.
BACKGROUND
The vacancy is due to the expiring term of Commissioner Richard Sargent. The vacancy was
publicized, and staff sent notification letters to past Commission applicants. The City received five
applications as of the deadline; one applicant subsequently withdrew. The Council interviewed
the following four applicants via Zoom on March 25, 2020: Raymond Larios, Peter Roddy, Phyllis
Mayer Mittler, and Richard Sargent. The appointment will be for a four-year term.
1
BiFRL- 1NAGENDA NO: 10b
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 6, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 6, 2020
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243
Subject: Discussion and Direction on Potential Small Business Support Programs in
Resaonse to COVID-19 Public Health Emeraencv
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council review the potential small business support programs in
response to the COVID-19 public health emergency and provide direction.
BACKGROUND
At the March 25 City Council special meeting, the City Council discussed the COVID-19 public
health emergency and agreed to provide an initial $30,000 in funding to assist individuals
struggling during the COVID-19 public health emergency. The funds are being distributed to
CALL Primrose ($10,000) and Samaritan House ($20,000). The Council funds these nonprofits,
as well as a variety of others, through its annual Community Groups Funding program that
accompanies the adoption of the budget in June.
Individuals and nonprofit organizations will also be able to access funds from SMC Strong, which
the County set up and seeded with an initial $3 million donation. The SMC Strong funds will be
split evenly among individuals needing assistance, nonprofits, and the business community. The
County and SAMCEDA are also soliciting additional donations to this fund. Donations can be
made via www.smcstrong.org/. The SMC Strong website contains information about how
individuals can access these funds, as well as information on which nonprofits will receive funds.
That information can be found at www.smcstrong.orq/frequentlyaskedguestions.
DISCUSSION
At the March 25 meeting, the Council also agreed to the formation of a subcommittee to develop
programs to assist Burlingame's small business community. Councilmembers Brownrigg and
Colson volunteered to serve on this subcommittee since they are the Council's liaisons to the
Chamber of Commerce. The members of the subcommittee consulted with a number of
businesses, local and regional business support organizations, and City staff and developed the
attached document for the Council's review and direction.
1
Potential Business Support Programs
April 6, 2020
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact is unknown at this time and will depend on which programs the Council decides
to support and at what level.
Exhibit:
• Subcommittee Proposal
2
City of Burlingame
Small Business Support Options During COVID-19 Local Health Emergency
Background: The Coronavirus contagion and the unique shelter -in -place public health
mandates will have a major negative impact on City finances as well as our local business
community. After 9/11, revenue to the City of Burlingame dropped by 25% over two years; in
the Great Recession of 2008/9, City revenue dropped by 15%. Given the likely sustained impact
to hotel tax revenues, it is in the City's financial interest and our community interest to work
with local merchants to ensure revenues (and sales taxes) bounce back as quickly as possible
once life returns to normal. Sales taxes typically provide 18-20% of the City's income.
The subcommittee interviewed over 100 small businesses and, not surprisingly, most are
reeling. Revenue for many have been cut to zero or near -zero while daily living and commercial
expenses like rent and utilities continue. Business owners are making decisions now as to
whether to re -open their doors once the shelter -in -place rules are lifted. If business owners
decide to stay shut, it is uncertain how quickly stores will be leased to new merchants in the
midst of an economic downturn. These factors explain why we believe the City should consider
strong and innovative support to the private sector, especially our small business community.
The Burlingame City Council Economic Recovery Sub -Committee has assembled several
economic stimulus options for consideration by the full Council. We have consulted with staff,
the Chamber, the Downtown BID, the Broadway BID, over 100 individual business owners in
Burlingame, and the San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA) to
determine ways in which we can support and sustain these important businesses that drive our
economy, employ our residents, and serve our constituents.
The concepts are as follows, and are explained below. They are not mutually exclusive.
Programmatic details would be developed over the next week if Council elects to proceed with
any or all of these measures, and brought back to Council for final approval.
1. Provide business advisory services to our community to help them tap into the plethora
of county/state/federal business support programs
2. Provide direct financial support to qualified Burlingame merchants, either through a
loan program or a grant program
3. Provide stored value cards to means -tested Burlingame residents that can be spent only
on local Burlingame goods and services
4. For one year, underwrite the DBID and BBID fees so that the business districts can
maintain community services while relieving merchants of paying dues
5. Maintain one month of free parking downtown after the recovery commences
6. Commit to a "Buy Local, Act Local" program by city government
7. Advertise in local media to support our merchants and to support local journalism
8. Debate possible commercial rent forbearance policies if the County does not act.
1
1. Provide advisory assistance to Burlingame businesses to secure County, State, and
Federal relief:
Both the State and the Feds are offering significant relief for small businesses, but
accessing this relief is complicated. In our call with 50 small businesses and others, it
was clear that some had already availed themselves of the process and others were
far behind. The purpose of this proposal is to provide expertise inhouse through our
Economic Development expert and by supporting SAMCEDA in creating a county-
wide information resource for small businesses.
The most relevant recent bill, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
(the CARES Act), which the President signed on February 27, provides:
• Loans through the Small Business Administration (SBA) that can be used for
employee salaries under $100,000; paid sick or medical leave; insurance
premiums; and mortgage, rent and utility payments;
• The loan is eligible for 100% forgiveness if used for the above purposes and in
conjunction with guidelines related to staff retention;
• Funding for businesses or 501(c)(3) nonprofits with less than 500 employees,
including sole -proprietors, independent contractors, and other self-employed
individuals;
• Waives affiliation rules for businesses in the hospitality and restaurant
industries, and specifies that businesses with more than one physical location
can be eligible so long as no one location employs more than 500 individuals;
• Requires eligible borrowers to make a good faith certification that the loan is
necessary due to the uncertainty of current economic conditions caused by
COVID-19. (CPAs may have a role in assisting in the verification of loan eligibility
and forgiveness.)
There are two ways to provide supplemental advisory services to our business
community. First, we recommend steering our own Economic Development officer
into focusing virtually 100% of his time over the next several months on assisting our
small business community to tap into these support programs. Second, we should
utilize SAMCEDA's growing expertise. SAMCEDA is examining the Small Business
Development Center (located at CSM) to determine if they are able to assist San
Mateo County small businesses. SAMCEDA is also going to work on either a virtual
training meeting or video resources to assist business owners attempting to file for
relief, and will consider providing a help hotline for the County.
Cost: Burlingame could consider making a contribution to SAMCEDA of up to $5,000
to assist in developing general resources to aid small businesses in their efforts to
tap federal, state and county relief.
2
2. Create a Small Business Support Fund, either loan or grant -based:
Given ongoing expenses and zero revenue for most small businesses, there is an
immediate cash flow need to help bridge the time before full revenue operations
return and/or County/State/Federal funds arrive. Some financial support early
would be widely appreciated; this was one of the main points made during our
interview process.
The Council has to determine first whether providing "bridge financing" to small
businesses is a good idea and if we do, then whether a financial support program
should be structured as grants or "soft loans". Talking to merchants and based on
what other cities and SMC Strong have done, we recommend grants/loans of
between $5,000-$20,000 per successful applicant. The program would need to be
managed in a way that is transparent, equitable and justifiable, with a minimal
administrative impact on staff. if the Council agrees to proceed with a program, the
Subcommittee recommends a $500,000 allocation from our Economic Catastrophe
reserve funds. The finer administrative details of the program would be fleshed out
over the week ahead based on Council guidance. The goal should be to have money
ready to be deployed by the last week in April, before May rent is due.
Loan vs Grant —the pros and cons of each should be debated by Council. Not
surprisingly, our small business community would prefer a grant program because
they are already stretched financially. A grant -based program is also much simpler to
administer, especially in terms of follow up. The benefits of a loan program are that
the money could return to the Council one day for other public uses and the
program would be more business -like overall, but it would also be more challenging
and expensive to administer since one has to track each loan.
2A. Loan Program:
There are two programmatic options developed below; in either case, the
administration of the loan program would require hiring a third party:
I. Business Loan Program — Soft loan program for qualified merchants:
• One-year holiday from any repayment
• Starting one year after date of loan, loan amount + 2 % flat processing fee
is split into 24 payments, paid monthly over the ensuing 24 months
• Certified sales taxes paid by the merchant that come to the City can be
used to offset the loan amount, up to 50% of the value of the loan
• This has the advantage of linking the value of the loan to sales taxes.
II. Rent Stabilization Loan Program for qualified merchants:
If a merchant needs some help making the rent, then the city could lend
up to $5k/month for up to (but not to exceed) 50% of the monthly rent
for up to 3 months, provided the landlord agrees to roll over the 50%
3
balance to the future for repayment. This has the advantage of
encouraging landlords to participate.
• Six months after drawing the loan, the merchant shall begin repaying the
city/landlord the outstanding balances in 12 equal payments over the
following 12 months, with the City to be paid pari passu with the
landlord.
• As an example, rent is $9,000 /month. The merchant borrows 50% of one
month's rent from the city, so $4500, which the merchant pays to the
landlord. The Landlord rolls the balance, $4500 into a future payment. Six
months after the loan, the merchant begins to repay the $9,000 over 12
months, 50% to the landlord (back rent) and 50% to the city for its loan.
In this example, that merchant's rent burden would rise from
$9,000/month to $9,750/month for the following 12 months.
This has the benefit of encouraging landlords to participate. On the other
hand, it might cause some landlords to be less generous than they were
planning to be with tenants.
2B. SMALL BUSINESS GRANT PROGRAM
The other approach to expeditiously support local small businesses is to develop a
grant program, targeting $5,000-$15,000 per applicant. After discussions with
SAMCEDA, they have agreed to help us administer a Burlingame -based program if
that is the direction we select. Council would approve the funding allocation and
the general qualification criteria, provide the funding to the SMC Strong Fund and
then SAMCEDA would evaluate applications and make the grants directly via their
fiscal partner. This would remove Council from the decision -making process while
creating a competitive process that assists those businesses that have a path
forward to a successful recovery. The Council would also approve the
implementation timeline and the follow up metrics to determine program success.
As noted, one benefit of a grant program is that there is no ongoing administrative
burden as there would be in a loan program.
SUGGESTED BUSINESS QUALIFICATION CRITERIA, whether loan or grant, are:
a. Must hold a local Burlingame business license for at least the last year
b. Have a Burlingame address with a physical retail storefront location that is
open to the public
Complete an application packet that includes information on current
financials including cash on hand (bank statement), credible business plan to
re -open and succeed, even if shelter in place remains in effect through May,
other financial support that has been applied for or received, any
demonstrable evidence of commitment to remain in Burlingame, for
example, lease term, and expected use of the funds
4
d. Number of FT and PT employees and estimated payroll size per month pre -
closure (target businesses with fewer than 20 FTE — allow flexibility for
restaurants that hire PTE)
e. Gross receipts in a normal year (target businesses with no more than $5
million a year in gross receipts for 2019)
3. Kickstart Burlingame Debit Card for qualified residents:
This concept would help both our most struggling residents and our local business
community. The concept is to create a "Kickstart Burlingame" pre -loaded debit card
that could only be spent in the 94010 area. We would make the debit cards
available to the most vulnerable households through a simple written application,
screened using the Peninsula Clean Energy CARE program criteria (applies to about
5-6% of Burlingame households, representing the most financially vulnerable). The
benefits would flow quickly to families in need and to our local merchants, albeit the
beneficiaries might be a grocery or a chain store, not necessarily a small business or
restaurant. A program administrator would need to be retained and the feasibility of
the program, such as geographic spending limitations, determined if the Council
wishes to proceed.
Cost: The Council would determine the program size, but the recommendation
would be to allocate $250 debit cards per family. If we use the CARE criteria
referenced above, targeting about 5% of our community, that would require about a
$150,000 to $250,000 funding commitment. Obviously, each of these financial
parameters can be adjusted by Council.
Gift Card Concept: a related idea that members of the public have suggested is to
create a Burlingame Merchant gift card program, where community members could
buy a card, effectively pre -paying for local services. Financially, this is not as optimal
for a merchant since, for accounting reasons, the money can't be counted as
revenue until the services are actually provided, so technically it does not provide
upfront capital. (That would be different if the Gift Card cost the public, say, $200
but only was "worth" $100 in store value.) The subcommittee considered the
complexity of this approach. After discussing it with several merchants, we
determined that we can certainly encourage the public to proceed but this is not the
highest and best use of City resources or time.
4. Cover Downtown and Broadway Business Improvement District Fees:
The City Council could opt to pay the DBID and Broadway BID fees for the 2020 year
so that those groups could waive fees for their members for one year. The
estimated total is approximately $125,000 and would relieve small businesses of
paying dues while maintaining funds for our community events that attract visitors
into downtown when we are open for business.
5
5. Waive Parking Meter Fees for one month after re -opening:
Several merchants expressed gratitude for the "Free Parking" program at our
metered spots. They asked us to please extend the parking meter fee waiver for up
to one month after the shelter in place is concluded. The cost is the forgone fee
revenue which is difficult to estimate. We would have to work with merchants to be
sure they steer employees to satellite lots.
6. "Buy Local, Act Local" Marketing Campaign:
The City staff will make a point of ordering all food and supplies locally when
possible and facilitate information sharing resources to promote local businesses.
Recognizing the importance of the construction and remodeling industry to
Burlingame, city staff will also continue to look for innovative ways to streamline
and expedite necessary inspections and services, for example using remote video for
inspections where feasible. There may be modest costs associated with some of
these efforts.
7. Support Local Media:
We recommend taking out advertisements in our local newspaper for several weeks
to promote our downtown merchants and indirectly to support local journalism,
which is important for our community and for our businesses. A budget allocation
should be discussed.
8. Commercial Eviction Protection Program:
The issue of paying rent when no revenues are coming in is one that haunts many of
our small business community; a large number of commercial tenants expressed
concern to us about making their May rent. In SAMCEDA's guidance to business, one
of the first steps they urge small business to take is to reach out to landlords.
Landlords have generally said they will work with their tenants on a case -by -case
basis.
Most Burlingame commercial tenants have reached out for some form of
forbearance with mixed results; some landlords have waived April rent entirely,
others have deferred it, and still others have insisted on being fully paid. The owner
of UK Hair, to give just one shining example, stated to his hair dressers (who rent
their stations) that he did not expect to be paid until they could make money.
Several interviewees noted that rent forbearance, if it means paying the total
accrued rent back in a lump sum after 4 or 6 months, would be very difficult to do,
even if the economy comes back. In other words, forbearance without a reasonable
repayment plan over time is not much help.
The subcommittee believes this is a very important matter, but given that the
County is considering a commercial rent forbearance measure at their next meeting
in April, we recommend delaying consideration of any local measures until we see
0
the outcome of the County deliberations and only after organizing a meeting with
Burlingame land owners so we can hear directly from them as well.
7
11a
�URLINGAME Memorandum
To: City Council
Date: April 6, 2020
From: Mayor Emily Beach
Subject: Committee Report
3/16-present
Significant constituent communications and Q&A related to COVID-19 and other City
matters.
3/16
City Council Meeting
Thank you meeting with City Finance Team
3/16-3/27 (Monday through Friday)
Daily San Mateo County Elected Official COVID-19 Virtual Meeting & Coordination updates
• Provided daily written summaries to City Manager for roll -up and distribution among
City Council and staff leaders
Monday, 3/18
San Mateo County Mayors' Call #1
• Discussed residential and commercial eviction protections County -wide
3/18, 3/25, 4/1
Congresswoman Speier's COVID-19 Telephone Town Halls
• Forwarded relevant notes to City Manager
Thursday,3/19
San Mateo County Express Lane Joint Powers Authority Finance Committee
• Extensive meeting #2 with JPA financial advisors, legal advisors, staff, and C/CAG JPA
elected representative Diane Papan regarding JPA's $100 million loan agreement with
the Transportation Authority for construction of US 101 Express Lanes.
Tuesday, 3/24
Burlingame Virtual Town Hall
• Thanks to colleagues and staff (particularly City Clerk, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer and
City Manager Lisa Goldman) for making this event possible and so successful.
Approximately 200 logins, with even more residents watching together from home.
We'll do this again. To our knowledge, Burlingame was the first Peninsula City to
offer a Virtual Town Hall to engage and inform residents.
Beach Committee Report
April 6, 2020
Wednesday, 3/25
Emergency City Council Meeting - COVID-19
• COVID-19 update
• City Council subcommittee (Colson/Brownrigg) will lead City's efforts to support
local businesses.
Planning Commission Interviews
• Thank you to four excellent candidates who applied for one Planning Commission
position. Very inspiring to see so many qualified people volunteer for our City.
Federal Office of Intergovernmental Affairs Call via League of California Cities Board
General Info
Coronavirus.gov Federal website
Administration's plan to slow the spread
Administration's vision for COVID-19 response, repeated multiple times:
Locally executed
State Managed
Federally supported
Commerce Department
• Goal to ramp up industrial base when problems occur in the supply chain;
help streamline and fast -track private sector solutions: e.g. fast -tracked red -tape that
enabled Honeywell to move machinery from Massachusetts to new plant to Rhode
Island that will produce 5 million N-95 masks weekly starting in about 30 days.
Community Development
• HUD-- programs helping to build affordable housing during COVID-19
• waiving requirement for on -site inspections
• Extending deadline for grants and action plans
• Expanding technical assistance
• Weekly call on Fridays for HUD and affordable housing fund updates
• Website: hud.gov/coronavirus.com
Department of Homeland Security
• Travel restrictions do not block citizens and legal residents from coming into the USA
• Travel restrictions reduced people coming into USA from 60,000 daily to 4,000 daily
• SFO is one of 13 authorized airports for receiving international travelers
• Screening involves gloves, masks, medical questions and referral to secondary
medical personnel (CDC) if needed
Monday, 3/27 - present (Monday, Wednesday, Friday)
San Mateo County Elected Official COVID-19 virtual Zoom Meeting coordination updates
• Provided daily written summaries to City Manager for roll -up and distribution among
City Council and staff leaders
2
Beach Committee Report
April 6, 2020
Monday, 3/30
San Mateo County Mayors' Call #2
• Discussed residential and commercial eviction protections County -wide
Commute.org Strategic Planning Committee Meeting
• Discussed SWOT analysis of Commute.org's strengths, weakness, opportunities and
threats. Developed next steps for Strategic Planning Process.
Interview with Journalism college student from Burlingame for national article on local
government response to COVID-19
Tuesday, 3/31
San Mateo County Express Lane Joint Powers Authority Finance Committee
• Meeting #3 with JPA financial advisors, legal advisors, staff, and C/CAG JPA elected
representative Diane Papan related to terms of JPA's $100 million loan agreement
with the Transportation Authority for construction of US 101 Express Lanes.
Wednesday, 4/1
Agenda Review Meeting with City Manager and City Attorney
Burlingame Rotary Club Virtual Meeting - provided City update
League of Cities State-wide Board of Directors Meeting
Governor's spring budget will likely start from scratch (huge departure from
ambitious January plan) -- probably a bare -bones budget will be passed in June, with
a significant "August revise" once tax returns are registered in July -- since tax filing
deadline has been extended. State legislature expected to pass a state budget by 6/15,
or legislators do not get paid -- per our Constitution.
• State currently accessing its "rainy -day" fund and re -directing into COVID-
19 operations
• State Legislature due to reconvene by 4/13, but most likely will extend
recess through May 3rd like the Bay area, possibly even later.
2,400 bills introduced in January, however, they currently expect to hear only 20% of
those bills at most, and will prioritize COVID-19 related bills.
• Governor has broad Executive Orders (EO) powers in an emergency like this, so
expect more of these.
• League helped shape and win some big statutory relief EO's, including
o Loosening Brown Act
o Form 700 extension - FPPC did it independently of EO
o EO on District Elections compliance -- suspended right now, more info to come
3
Beach Committee Report
April 6, 2020
About two weeks ago, the League of CA Cities joined a coalition letter
advocating against property tax extensions; pointing out that property taxes are a key
component of city revenues.
Federal Stimulus: California gets at least $15 billion from package
League of CA Cities and NLC fought hard to get Federal funding directly flowing to
cities of all sizes, but instead stimulus package only gives direct funding to cities
of 500,000 and larger. Cities with populations under 500,000: each State determines
how to disperse those Federal funds. NLC and CA League recognizes clearly not
enough money flowing directly to Cities yet, given the impact of this fiscal crisis. They
hope to make additional progress during the next stimulus package. Large California
Cities reported advocating for this as well.
More Federal stimulus packages coming, so continue to communicate our needs to
the League (e.g. replacing loss of sales tax revenue, TOT, relief from pensions, etc.)
League staff re -opened member survey regarding what resources cities need from
League during COVID-19 crisis and encourage everyone's participation. So
far, top request from members is for the League to advocate for state and federal
financial resources, and help Cities understand the legislation once passed by State
and Feds.
Thursday, 4/2
Virtual San Mateo County Transportation Authority Meeting
E
11b
SURLfNGAME Memorandum
fto
To: City Council
Date: April 6, 2020
From: Councilmember Donna Colson
Subject: Committee Report
Weekly Conference Calls MWF for Covid-19 updates - County has been outstanding in
communications.
March 20, 2020
• Burlingame Capital Campaign check in meeting - getting the website up and running and
the framework for materials
March 23, 2020
• Meeting with Nextdoor regarding public official interactions on the social platform
• Meeting with Park and Recreation Foundation for update regarding changes during
upcoming year
March 24, 2020
• Zoom Internal Meeting to get City Update
March 25, 2020
• City Council meeting and interviews with planning commissioners
March 26, 2020
• Employment practices webinar - Cal Matters
• PCE Board Meeting included work on mission and vision statement, updated strategic
planning, CARE and FARE reductions of $3.1 million or $100 per account rebate
March 27, 2020
• Meeting with Chamber to discuss small business planning and council options
1
Colson Committee Report
April 6, 2020
March 31, 2020
• Meetings with Small Business DBID to review program implementation options
April 1, 2020
Meeting PCE for Fitch Rating Call
April 2, 2020
Meeting with Non -Profit Housing leadership to assess current issues and laws - concerns
over where and how to house homeless upon end of SIP. Possibly use state funds to
purchase the hotels or residential units and donate to the housing providers for long-term
management. Concerns over tax -credits and how to leverage those and review of upcoming
housing legislation.
Meeting with BSD recruiter for new Superintendent position
Sub -Committee Call for Burlingame Plaza work with staff
Hundreds of calls and meetings with constituents with questions and needing help over the last
few weeks. Thanks to Council and staff for pitching in on all the work and getting it done!
2