The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2020.04.20City of Burlingame BURLINGAME F, Meeting Agenda - Final City Council Monday, April 20, 2020 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 (which was then extended on March 31, 2020) , the statewide Shelter -in -Place Order issued by the Governor in Exeuctive 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 20, 2020 Burlingame City Council meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom meeting listed below. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on Youtube and 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 Calendar. 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 that 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 20, 2020. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will be 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. CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Online To Join Closed Session: https://zoom.us/j/466145158?pwd=RTBIT3VVcVBYOUVIVmJBc2wvOEdWQT09 Meeting ID: 466 145 158 Password: 216620 One tap mobile +16699006833„466145158#„#,216620# US (San Jose) +13462487799„466145158#„#,216620# US (Houston) Online City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 411612020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 20, 2020 a. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda b. Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the Public May Address the Council on any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time C. Adjournment into Closed Session d. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation (Gov't Code Section 54956.9): Employee* v. City of Burlingame (workers' compensation cases; employee's name and case numbers withheld to arotect the medical orivacv of the individual) e. Personnel Matter: Annual Evaluation of the City Attorney (Government Code Section 54957 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Online To Join the Zoom Meeting Note: the link below doesn't look like a hyperlink, but it is. https://zoom.us/j/93787206713?pwd=dlp4ZUlvQUN4N2JZMysl NOZpUU1 nZz09 Meeting ID: 937 8720 6713 Password: 919728 One tap mobile +16699006833„93787206713# US (San Jose) +13462487799„93787206713# 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: 937 8720 6713 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/atO2Zps4o 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 411612020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 20, 2020 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS a. Proclamation Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day on April 22, 2020 Attachments: Proclamation 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. a. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for March 25, 2020 Attachments: Meeting Minutes b. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2020 Attachments: Meeting Minutes C. Adoption 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 Ordinance d. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the City's Municipal Code Chapter 18.07 — Permit Expiration and Permit Exempt Structures Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance e. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizina the Citv Manaaer to Execute an Aareement with Fung Collaboratives for the Public Art Project to Honor Anson Burlingame, City Project No. 86090 in the Amount of $210,000 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Agreement with Fung Collaboratives City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 411612020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 20, 2020 f. Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project, City Project No. 85090, in the Amount of $306,646 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Final Progress Payment Project Location Map g. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City of Burlingame to Prioritize Zero Emission Vehicles First When Purchasing Vehicles and Equipment Attachments: Staff Report Resolution h. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizina the Citv Manaaer to Renew the Service Aareement with Granicus, Inc. for Agenda Management, Video Streaming Services, and Closed Captions Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Service Agreement L Approval of "Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution" for the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Attachments: Staff Report Resolution 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) a. Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 8.10 of the Burlingame Municipal Code and Adopting a New Chapter 8.10 to Regulate the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities Attachments: Staff Report Proposed Ordinance San Mateo County Ordinance Frequently Asked Questions 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 411612020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 20, 2020 a. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with BHM Construction, Inc. for the Construction of the New Community Center, City Project #83240, at a Cost of $39,967,000 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Agreement with BHM Construction, Inc. b. Adoption of a Resolution Approving Small Business Support Programs and Criteria for "Burlingame Back in Business" Grant Program in Response to COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Original Subcommittee Proposal "Burlingame Back in Business" Grant Fund Description Kickstart Burlingame Program C. Discussion and Direction Reaardina Potential Assistance for Individuals and Families in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Attachments: Staff Report Resources for Residents Impacted by COVID-19 Response 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. a. Mayor Beach's Committee Report Attachments: Committee Report 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability -related modificaiton or accomodation 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 20, 2020 at 650-558-7230 or at 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. City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 411612020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 20, 2020 NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Regular City Council Meeting on May 4, 2020 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING 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 6 Printed on 411612020 g1,JRUN�AME PROCLAMATION Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day on April 22, 2020 Whereas, April 22, 2020, marks the 50th anniversary of Earth Day; and Whereas, the first Earth Day was proclaimed in 1970 to foster public awareness of the need to protect the environment and conserve resources; and Whereas, the initial concept for the national day emerged after Senator Gaylord Nelson (D), Wisconsin, witnessed a massive oil spill in Santa Barbara; and Whereas, Senator Nelson recruited Californian Representative Pete McCloskey (R) in the effort to raise public consciousness in a bipartisan manner about growing environmental concerns including oil spills, polluting factories, toxic dumps, pesticides, and loss of wilderness and wildlife; and Whereas, the US Environmental Protection Agency was created at the end of 1970, and the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species acts all passed in the 1970s; and Whereas, the Earth continues to face degradation of ecosystems, wildlife and habitat loss, pollution, and climate change; and Whereas, it is essential to expand and defend environmental progress, especially with the looming risks related to climate change; and Whereas, Earth Day is an annual reminder of the constant need for environmental activism, stewardship commitments, and sustainability efforts; and Whereas, the City of Burlingame seeks to involve all of its community members in protecting the environment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving quality of life by taking such actions as: conserving energy; using clean energy; reducing water usage; avoiding single use plastics; minimizing waste and maximizing recycling and composting; opting for non -toxic products, pesticides, and other materials; avoiding littering and picking -up litter in public spaces such as streets and parks; maintaining and enhancing parks and open space; addressing impacts of sea level rise; supporting clean and alternative transportation; and increasing affordable housing options. Now therefore I, Emily Beach, Mayor of the City of Burlingame in the State of California, do hereby proclaim April 22, 2020, as the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day in the City of Burlingame and encourage all residents and businesses to celebrate the Earth and strive for a sustainable future for the protection of all the Earth's habitats and all its species. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Burlingame to be affixed this the 20th day of April, 2020. Emily Beach, Mayor Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 CITY C BURLINGAME $AaiEo JLNE � O BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Special Meeting on March 25, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held online on the above date at 6:01 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 COMMENT There was no public comment. 5. STAFF REPORTS a. UPDATE ON COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY AND LOCAL MEASURES: COUNCIL DIRECTION ON CHARITABLE SUPPORT, ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE REOUIREMENT THAT RETAILERS CHARGE FOR SINGLE -USE BAGS DURING THE LOCAL EMERGENCY, AND DISCUSSION OF MEASURES TO ADDRESS EVICTIONS City Manager Goldman stated that on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that COVID- 19 was a pandemic. She noted that the County declared a local emergency on March 10, and the City declared its own local emergency on March 16. City Manager Goldman stated that six Bay Area county health directors issued a strict shelter -in -place order for residents and businesses starting on March 17. She noted that Governor Newsom issued a similar stay at home order on March 19 for the entire state. Burlingame City Council March 25, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 City Manager Goldman stated that on March 24, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution establishing a temporary countywide moratorium on residential evictions for nonpayment of rent. She noted that this only applied where the individual could not pay rent as a result of COVID-19. Additionally, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution authorizing the donation of $3 million in Measure K funds to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. She explained that the Silicon Valley Community Foundation started a new fund called SMC Strong. SMC Strong was established to assist individuals, families, non-profit organizations, and small businesses that are adversely impacted by COVID- 19. She noted that if people are interested in donating, they can go to https://www.smcstrong.org// City Manager Goldman stated that on March 24, the City hosted a virtual town hall to answer the community's questions. She explained that the town hall had been recorded and was on the City's website. She added that City Council and Commission meetings would be held virtually for the foreseeable future. City Manager Goldman stated that the Peninsula Hospital needs childcare services for emergency personnel. She explained that Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad and CCFD Community Risk and Resiliency Specialist Dena Gunning are working with Burlingame School District and others to assist with this need. City Manager Goldman stated that the Community Development Department is reviewing options for receiving plan and permit applications electronically. She noted that under the County's shelter -in -place order (the March 16t' order), housing construction can continue. Under the March 16 order, commercial construction is not allowed to continue. City Manager Goldman stated that the Public Works Department is seeing an increase in calls for sewer lateral tests and encroachment permits. She noted that staff is doing their best to accommodate these requests. City Manager Goldman stated that the Police Department is getting calls about violations of the shelter -in - place order. She added that Sephora's headquarters has ordered all their stores to board up their windows to prevent looting. City Manager Goldman explained that staff is looking for Council's direction on a few issues. City Manager Goldman explained that at the March 16, 2020 Council meeting, the Council discussed providing $30,000 in funding to Samaritan House and Call Primrose to assist those in need during the shelter -in -place. She asked Council for direction on whether $30,000 was still the correct amount and how much each organization would receive. Councilmember Colson asked if individuals could direct their SMC Strong donations to a specified region. City Manager Goldman replied in the negative. She stated that the SMC Strong fund did let the public choose whether they wanted the donation direced to individuals/families, small businesses, or nonprofits. 2 Burlingame City Council March 25, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 Councilmember Colson discussed SAMCEDA (San Mateo County Economic Development Association). She noted that SAMCEDA is compiling business assistance programs and a variety of other resources for local small businesses. City Manager Goldman noted that she believed the small business loan application would be coming out in the following week. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he didn't believe $30,000 would be adequate. He asked which fund the City would be utilizing for this donation. City Manager Goldman stated that the City had an unassigned fund balance that could be used. Mayor Beach asked if there were any public comments on this issue. There were no public comments. Mayor Beach stated that the needs of the community were changing daily. She noted that at a later date, the Council would need to discuss utilizing the City's affordable housing funds for emergency rental assistance. Councilmember Brownrigg agreed with Mayor Beach that the situation was changing on a daily basis and suggested that the Council should meet at least every two weeks to be able to quickly address the needs of the community. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Councilmember Ortiz that $30,000 would not be enough and that the City would make additional donations. He suggested that the City start with $30,000, with $10,000 for Call Primrose and $20,000 for Samaritan House. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg that the Council would need to meet more regularly to address the changing needs of the community. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran discussed SAMCEDA's work to assist small businesses and stated that the County was working on some small business programs. Councilmember Brownrigg explained that while he appreciated the work of SAMCEDA and SMC Strong, he believed that it was important for the City to also reach out to assist local small businesses. Councilmember Colson stated that she concurred with Councilmember Brownrigg. She stated that Councilmember Brownrigg and she would be speaking to SAMCEDA President Rosanne Foust on March 26 about assistance for small businesses. She explained that after this discussion, the Council would have a better understanding of what the City's approach to assisting small businesses should be. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to provide $10,000 in funding to Call Primrose and $20,000 to Samaritan House; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Burlingame City Council March 25, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 City Manager Goldman stated that the next issue that staff needed Council direction on came from a resident voicing concern about the public using their own bags at stores during the pandemic. She explained that in 2013, the City adopted San Mateo County's program restricting the use of single -use carry -out bags. She stated that under the ordinance, retailers must charge those customers who request a single -use bag upon checkout. She noted that given the ongoing health emergency and the need to protect cashiers and customers, staff is recommending temporarily suspending the requirement to charge for single -use bags. She added that staff included a resolution with the staff report that would temporarily suspend the requirement. Mayor Beach asked if the resolution suspends the fee or allows the use of single -use bags. City Attorney Kane stated that the resolution suspends enforcement of the ordinance. However, she noted that the resolution would not require retailers to provide single -use bags. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran noted that the staff report states that staff recommends temporarily suspending the charge for single -use bags. She explained that her concern is that if residents read that, they are going to think they won't be charged a fee for bags at grocery stores. She asked if staff reached out to the Chamber of Commerce and grocery stores. City Manager Goldman replied in the negative. She explained that staff wanted to get Council's input first. City Attorney Kane stated that the resolution does not mandate that retailers hand out single -use bags for free. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that if the Council adopts this resolution, staff should state on the City's website that it is up to individual grocers whether they waive the fee for single -use bags. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was confused about the purpose of suspending the ordinance. He explained that when he goes to the grocery store, he uses his own bags and bags his own groceries. He stated that this seems like the safest practice to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Councilmember Colson asked if the point of the resolution is that retailers don't want people bringing in bags that could be contaminated. She discussed how Starbucks stopped allowing customers to use their own mugs to protect their employees. She stated that if this was the point, then it might be better for the City to just tell the public that they can't use their own bags at grocery stores. City Attorney Kane stated the resolution is designed to take the City out of the equation. Instead each retailer would be able to decide what is best for them in order to keep their staff safe. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 034-2020; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 4 Burlingame City Council March 25, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 Mayor Beach stated that the next topic for Council discussion was measures to address evictions. She explained that the Council received inquiries from the community about whether the City would take action to prevent both residential and commercial evictions. City Attorney Kane stated that the County's necessary shelter -in -place order has had immediate and, in some cases, devastating economic effects on many households and businesses in the Bay Area. She explained that a lot of people don't have a significant cash cushion to assist them if their hours are cut, they are furloughed, or they are laid off. Therefore, many people will have issues paying their rent. City Attorney Kane explained that she worked with the County's general counsel and the other San Mateo County cities on the issue of residential evictions. She stated that it was determined that because the shelter - in -place order came from the County, that the County was the appropriate entity to deal with the question of residential displacement. She explained that on March 24, the County Board of Supervisors adopted a moratorium on residential evictions. She added that the County did not take on the issue of mortgage payments because of the federal nature of those arrangements. City Attorney Kane discussed the issue of commercial evictions. She explained that commercial evictions were not addressed in the County's moratorium because there is less of a direct nexus to the public health portion of the County's powers. City Attorney Kane discussed the confusion with the Governor's executive orders and press releases. She noted that a press release had announced that Governor Newsom was putting a moratorium on residential evictions until May 31. However, she explained that the Governor's Executive Order pushed the question down to local jurisdictions. Councilmember Brownrigg commended the City Attorney for her work with County counsel on the countywide moratorium. He noted that he was happy to see that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had announced that they wouldn't foreclose on mortgages where the individual couldn't pay their mortgage due to COVID-19. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he thought the City needed to look at ways to support small businesses in the community. He noted that the City of Sacramento adopted a four -month moratorium on commercial evictions where the underlying issue was COVID-19. Mayor Beach stated that Governor Newsom released a press release saying that he is working with major banks to assist in residential mortgage pauses. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. She stated that Governor Newsom reached agreements with Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, US Bank, and 200 State charter banks and credit unions. She explained that under the agreements, there would be a 90-day grace period for mortgage payments for those impacted by COVID-19. Mayor Beach noted that other banks that were notably missing from that list. 5 Burlingame City Council March 25, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 City Attorney Kane noted that because the County took action on residential evictions, the City has the opportunity to focus on assisting local businesses. She discussed the issue of the gift of public funds but stated that she believed that the City could avoid this by creating bridge loans for small businesses as an economic development tool. She stated that the requirement would be that the program is open and accessible. Mayor Beach stated that she hadn't heard of any business in Burlingame being evicted for nonpayment of rent. She noted that she has heard that several landlords are working with their commercial tenants. She asked if her colleagues had heard anything. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she hadn't received any phone calls or emails from small businesses on issues they were having with their landlords. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he hadn't heard of any businesses being evicted. However, he noted that he has heard from many businesses whose income has been completely shut down due to the shelter -in -place order. He explained that while some of the commercial tenants may be able to pay April rent, if the shelter - in -place order is extended, they would be in trouble. He stated that he believed the City needed to step in and help local businesses. Councilmember Colson stated that she spoke with several landlords and tenants, and no one has indicated that commercial tenants are getting an eviction notice. Councilmember Colson stated that she had received an email from a commercial tenant asking the Council to adopt a moratorium on commercial evictions. She noted that her concern is that the landlords and tenants seem to be negotiating amongst themselves, and therefore she didn't know if the City should get involved. She explained that if she heard that businesses were going to get evicted, then she would be more inclined to put an emergency ordinance together halting commercial evictions. She added that she had heard that some landowners were offering commercial tenants rent reductions and abatements. Therefore, it might not be in the best interest of the tenant for the City to get involved. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that his concern was that if the City waits for commercial tenants to be evicted, then the Council is past the point of being able to do something meaningful. He explained that he believed the City needed to be robust in showing that they are assisting businesses. He noted that he believed that the Sacramento approach of halting commercial evictions or City Attorney Kane's suggestion of bridge loans would both work. He added that the two approaches weren't mutually exclusive. Mayor Beach asked the City Attorney to discuss the eviction process. City Attorney Kane stated that the unlawful detainer schedule for the Superior Court has been suspended. She explained that this is the mechanism by which an eviction is completed. She added that the Sheriff's office is not enforcing eviction notices except in the case where the tenant is posing a threat. However, she explained that a lot of people leave without a formal eviction process. Therefore, while the court process is not going forward, a lot of tenants respond to the landlord's notice and leave. 6 Burlingame City Council March 25, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 Mayor Beach stated that Redwood City considered a moratorium on commercial evictions but decided to wait and see, and San Mateo implemented a moratorium on commercial evictions. She asked if Measure T would impact the City's ability to enact a moratorium on commercial evictions. City Attorney Kane gave a brief background on Measure T. She explained that it was approved by the voters in 1987, and pursuant to the measure, the Council can't set the sale or rental price of any real estate unit. She noted that the measure's simplicity creates ambiguity in how it applies in different situations. She stated that the City can anticipate that people will raise Measure T as an impediment to various things that the Council considers in terms of addressing affordable housing and other issues. She added that any action taken by the voters can only be undone by the voters. She noted that there is the question of whether a temporary moratorium would violate Measure T. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that it would be helpful to review San Mateo and Sacramento's commercial eviction moratoriums. She also asked that the City's Economic Development Specialist call property owners and tenants to see if they are working out agreements amongst themselves. Mayor Beach stated that she talked with two property owners that own significant real estate on Burlingame Avenue. She explained that it was her understanding that the property owners are deeply invested in keeping Burlingame Avenue thriving. She noted that if a property owner does evict a tenant, they would not be able to show the property or move in a new tenant. Therefore, she didn't think property owners would serve eviction notices. She stated that the bigger fear that she has heard is that some businesses' funds are very low, and they may not make it even with a rent deferral. She added that she has heard that other landlords are waiting to hear what happens in the mortgage industry prior to reaching out to their tenants. Mayor Beach suggested setting up a City email address to hear from small businesses so that the Council and staff could obtain more information on what is happening and what is needed. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he agreed with his colleagues that it is in the property owner's best interests to work with their tenants. He explained that he believed the City should establish a fund to help the small businesses. He stated that if the shelter -in -place goes longer, the businesses will be further strained. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that time is of the essence. He suggested creating a Council subcommittee to formulate a package of options for small businesses. He noted that then this could be reviewed by Council. Councilmember Colson stated that in speaking to restaurant owners, she was informed that many would be okay for 30 days. If the shelter continued for 60 days, it would put several out of business. Therefore, she agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg that the timing is critical. She noted that she didn't believe evictions would be the issue for commercial tenants as landlords know they are unable to get another tenant in. Councilmember Colson suggested that a subcommittee put a package together for the Council to consider within a week to assist businesses. 7 Burlingame City Council March 25, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 Mayor Beach agreed with Councilmember Colson. She stated that before the Council considers a moratorium on commercial evictions, she would want to see data that this is an issue. She discussed SAMCEDA and the SMC Strong Fund and how they will be assisting small businesses. Mayor Beach asked if any of her colleagues would want to be on the subcommittee. Councilmember Colson, Councilmember Ortiz, and Councilmember Brownrigg all acknowledged their willingness to help. City Manager Goldman stated that for scheduling purposes it would be best to limit it to two Councilmembers. However, she noted that if more wanted to attend the meetings, this could be done, but the committee would then need to comply with the Brown Act. Mayor Beach determined that Councilmember Brownrigg and Councilmember Colson would work on putting together a package for small businesses. City Manager Goldman stated that this package could be discussed at the City's next Council meeting. Councilmember Colson suggested that she and Councilmember Brownrigg could create the framework of the project, and then if the City decided to go with loans, Councilmember Ortiz's expertise would be beneficial. Council agreed. 6. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Beach adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 8 Burlingame City Council March 25, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 CITY C BURLINGAME $AaiEo JLNE � O BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on April 6, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date online at 7:04 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. 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. COVID-19 UPDATE City Manager Goldman stated that the County has issued a new, more restrictive shelter -in -place order that extends through 11:59 p.m. on May 3. She explained that under the original shelter -in -place order, housing construction and remodels were allowed. However, under the new order, only affordable housing projects can go forward. She noted that this includes mixed -income projects with at least 10% affordable units. She stated that there are exceptions to this rule including if an individual has emergency repairs that need to be made. Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 City Manager Goldman stated that the new order has further restricted recreation. She explained that the order now denies the public access to dog parks, sports courts (tennis, basketball courts, etc.), and picnic areas. She noted that staff has locked up these areas and put up signs to acknowledge their closure. City Manager Goldman stated that the order continues to prohibit commercial gardening and landscaping. City Manager Goldman stated that under the order, some businesses may remain open including grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants that provide takeout, and a few others. She explained that these businesses are required to have social distancing policies in place that are posted in their facilities. City Manager Goldman stated that the City offices continue to be closed to the public. She explained that staff that can work from home are doing so, and for those that can't, the City is implementing social distancing protocols and providing PPE. She stated that the City has furloughed casual (temporary/part- time) employees. The City is paying these employees a severance, and they can apply for unemployment insurance. She added that hopefully the City will be able to recall these employees when the shelter is lifted. City Manager Goldman stated that the City is continuing to conduct public outreach about the order and COVID-19 through the e-newsletter, social media, and the City's website. She noted that the County's website includes a detailed FAQ on the latest shelter -in -place order and what is considered essential versus non -essential. The County's website also has information about the SMC Strong Fund and how individuals can volunteer and donate PPE. City Manager Goldman stated that Finance Director Augustine updated the City's financial projections for FY 2019-20. She explained that on March 11, 2020, the City was projected to have $1.3 million in surplus. However, now the City is projecting a deficit of $10.1 million. She stated that the City had about $18 million in unassigned fund balance, and therefore this new projection leaves the City with approximately $9.9 million in unassigned funds. City Manager Goldman stated that the City is continuing to review expenditures carefully, and staff is being very judicious in their budget requests. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked the City staff for their hard work. He asked when Council should regroup to review the City's financial forecast. City Manager Goldman stated that Finance Director Augustine would be bringing a budget amendment at the May 6, 2020 meeting. Therefore, she didn't know if there was a need to regroup before that date. Mayor Beach stated that she was impressed with the collaboration that was occurring within the County. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame resident Michael Rau asked if anything could be done about the noise of leaf blowers and other devices during the shelter -in -place order. (comment received via publiccomment(&burlin ag me.org). 2 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 City Manager Goldman stated that commercial gardening is not allowed and that the households are responsible for telling their garden that they can't work. She explained that if the public sees commercial gardening, they should call the Police Department's non -emergency line: 650-777-4100. Burlingame resident Madeline Frechette asked that the City assist pedestrians and cyclists during the pandemic by automating walk signals in the city. (comment received via publiccomment(d),,burlin ame.org). DPW Murtuza stated that the City has implemented this change where it can be done. However, he noted that there are a lot of factors that go into automating the pedestrian signal, and that it isn't always feasible. A resident asked what the status is of the Broadway Grade Separation project during the shelter -in -place order. (comment received via Zoom chat). City Manager Goldman stated that the Mayor and staff went to Washington D.C. prior to the shelter -in -place order to ask for $125 million in federal grants for the Broadway Grade Separation project. She explained that the City is waiting to hear if they won any of the grants and noted that the City is looking into other grant sources to assist with the project. A resident asked if the Police Department is conducting night patrols in order to deter break-ins during the shelter -in -place order. (comment received via Zoom chat). Police Chief Matteucci replied in the affirmative. He added that there has only been one overnight commercial burglary since the shelter -in -place order went into effect. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Beach asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Burlingame resident Manito Velasco pulled item 8d. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8e, and 8f; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Later in the meeting, ACA Spansail through City Attorney Kane noted that the Council had neglected to approve items 8g and 8h. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve items 8g and 8h; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 11, 2020 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes for March 11, 2020. Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING ON MARCH 16, 2020 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meeting on March 16, 2020. c. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 16, 2020 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes for the Special Meeting on March 16, 2020. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE STREET RESURFACING PROJECT TO COMPLY WITH SENATE BILL NO. 1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021 DPW Murtuza stated that the State requires cities to submit a list of projects that are included in SB 1 funding. He explained that the staff report outlines the streets that need to be resurfaced utilizing SB 1 funds. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Manito Velasco asked how the City intends to comply with the SB 1 mandate to consider bicycle and pedestrian improvements as part of all projects consistent with the goals of SB 1. (comment submitted via publiccommentkburlin ag me.org). DPW Murtuza explained that once the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is completed, these projects would be included when the street is resurfaced. Mayor Beach asked if Complete Streets is applied to street resurfacing projects. DPW Murtuza stated that where feasible, those improvements are incorporated in the project. Mayor Beach closed public comment. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 035-2020; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRCT 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 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 036-2020. 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 4 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY IN BOOK 13 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 18, AT 1095 ROLLINS ROAD DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 037-2020. 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 Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 038-2020. h. 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 Finance Director Augustine requested Council accept the Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District Board's decision to forego assessments to businesses within the District for Fiscal Year 2020-21. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. 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 Finance Director Augustine stated that in 2010, Burlingame voters approved a storm drainage fee measure. She explained that under this measure, the storm drainage fee can be increased annually by an amount equal to the CPI up to a maximum of 2%. She stated that this year's CPI is 2.9%, and therefore the proposed fee increase will be limited to 2%. Councilmember Colson asked if the City deferred the fee increase, could they roll it into next year's increase. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. She noted that the fee is attached to the property tax bill. Mayor Beach opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that considering everything the community is currently experiencing, she thought the Council should defer the 2% increase to next year. Mayor Beach asked what the 2% equates to for an average homeowner. DPW Murtuza stated that the average residential parcel size in the City is 6,000 square feet. The current average storm drainage fee is approximately $305. Therefore, the increase would equate to an additional $6. 5 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 Mayor Beach stated that her gut instinct is that the City needs to keep the storm drain projects going, and the fee increase is minimal. Therefore, she explained that she thought the Council should approve the 2% increase. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he agreed with Mayor Beach. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that it won't be a large hit to homeowners, but it also wouldn't be a large hit to the City. He explained that he believed it seemed a little tone deaf to mechanically pass on rate increases at this point. He stated that he didn't feel strongly but would probably vote against a rate increase at this time. Councilmember Colson asked if there is a drop -dead date by which the Council would have to pass this rate increase. She noted that she agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg that although it is a small amount, that the Council should wait to increase the rate. Finance Director Augustine stated that she wasn't quite sure of the deadline but noted that it would appear on the County's July roll. DPW Murtuza stated the increase needs to be sent to the County by June. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion that the Council not pass a rate increase for the next fiscal year and that the City reconsider it in the third or fourth quarter of this calendar year; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed by roll call vote, 3-2 (Councilmember Ortiz and Mayor Beach voted against). b. 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 Assistant City Attorney Spansail stated that at the October 1, 2019 Council meeting, CDD Gardiner introduced Ordinance 1969. He explained that CDD Gardiner gave an overview of the ordinance, which was intended to do a routine update on Chapter 17 and Chapter 18 of the municipal code. He stated that the updates are required every three years and comply with the tri-annual State updates. He noted that Council was briefed on the major changes to both the building and fire codes. Unfortunately, it was later learned that due to a technical oversight, the ordinance before Council that evening didn't include the Chapter 17 updates. ACA Spansail stated that to remedy this situation, staff is presenting a new ordinance for the fire code update. He noted that the update only includes the changes outlined in October. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the requirement for key boxes for electric gates was just for commercial properties, or was it also for residential properties. Fire Marshall Christine Reed stated that it is for any gate in order to give CCFD access to the building. 6 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 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 ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Mayor Beach opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Mayor Beach asked the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days prior to its adoption. c. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.07 — PERMIT EXPIRATION AND PERMIT EXEMPT STRUCTURES CDD Gardiner stated that the proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 18.07 of the City's Municipal Code to be consistent with Assembly Bill 2913. He explained that 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. CDD Gardiner stated for Burlingame, this would make all permits valid for at least one year but that extensions could be no longer than 180 days. Furthermore, justifications would be required for any extensions. He stated that additional extensions would also be subject to the doubling of fees. CDD Gardiner explained that Chapter 18.07 provides guidance on what is required for a permit to be considered active and not abandoned. The building or work shall be considered abandoned or suspended if a substantial inspection has not been conducted within a 120-day time frame. He noted that the code provides a list of what is considered substantial inspections. CDD Gardiner stated that separately as a clean up item, the proposed ordinance would also amend Chapter 18.07.050 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 code in line with the maximum square footage for similar structures in the California Residential Code. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that the staff report mentions that San Mateo and Belmont exempt structures under 120 square feet. She asked if most cities on the Peninsula follow this rule. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach stated that it seemed like the new State code allows for indefinite extensions. She asked if the City's process will keep construction projects moving so that they do not stall. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. 7 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 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 ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Mayor Beach opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Mayor Beach asked the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days prior to its adoption. 10. STAFF REPORTS a. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Councilmember Ortiz recused himself from this item. Mayor Beach noted that normally the Council votes by ballot. She asked the City Clerk to explain how the Council would be voting in the Zoom meeting. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer asked that each of the Councilmembers send her a Zoom chat message that included who they were voting for. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. City Manager Goldman stated that the following individuals were interviewed via Zoom on March 25, 2020: Raymond Larios, Peter Roddy, Phyllis Mayer Mittler, and Richard Sargent. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the Zoom chat ballots. Congratulations to Richard Sargent, who was reappointed to the Planning Commission. The Council thanked all the candidates for applying. b. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON POTENTIAL BUSINESS SUPPORT PROGRAMS IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY Mayor Beach thanked the subcommittee of Councilmember Brownrigg and Councilmember Colson for their creativity and hard work drafting the list of potential business support programs. City Manager Goldman stated that at the March 25, 2020 meeting, the Council discussed COVID-19 and agreed to provide an initial $30,000 in funding to assist individuals struggling due to the emergency. She noted that Council directed that the funds be distributed in the amount of $10,000 to CALL Primrose and $20,000 to Samaritan House. City Manager Goldman discussed the SMC Strong Fund that received $3 million in initial funding from the County's Measure K. She stated that $1 million would go to nonprofits, $1 million to families and 8 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 individuals, and $1 million to businesses. For more information on the available programs and to donate, people can go to: www.smcstrong.org. City Manager Goldman stated that at the March 25 meeting, the Council agreed to form a subcommittee to assist the City's small businesses. She noted that Councilmember Brownrigg and Councilmember Colson were chosen to serve on this subcommittee in part because they are the liaisons to the Chamber of Commerce. She explained that the two Councilmembers consulted with local and regional businesses and business associations, and from these conversations developed a list of proposed programs to help small businesses. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the health emergency is going to have a tremendous impact on City revenues. He explained that previously, he thought that the current situation's economic impact would be similar to 9/11, where the City saw a 25% decrease in revenues. However, he now expects this situation to be much worse. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he and Councilmember Colson wouldn't be suggesting the programs attached to the staff report if they didn't believe that the City's budget could handle it, while also taking care of the City and its employees. He explained that their suggestions were a mix of both direct support to businesses and a proposal to assist lower income residents in the community with a modest revenue supplement. Councilmember Colson stated that after reaching out to several businesses and members of the community, the subcommittee created a list of eight potential programs. She noted that the Council could adopt all eight programs, or the Council could focus on some of the programs. She added that their memo, attached to the staff report, included the estimated cost of each program. The Council began by reviewing the first proposal, which was to provide advisory assistance to Burlingame businesses to secure County, State, and Federal relief. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the various programs that were being formed at the County, State, and Federal level to assist businesses during this health emergency. He explained that what the subcommittee heard loud and clear from the business community was a need for assistance in reviewing and filing for these different programs. He stated that this proposal asks the City's Economic Development Specialist to turn his focus solely on helping businesses navigate as best they can these different programs. He added that the proposal also suggests having the City provide a moderate amount of funding to SAMCEDA. He explained that SAMCEDA was assisting businesses throughout the County navigate these programs. Councilmember Colson added that in speaking to SAMCEDA President Rosanne Foust, she learned that the organization has several lawyers and accountants that have volunteered to assist small businesses. She stated that she and Councilmember Brownrigg are suggesting a $5,000 City donation to SAMCEDA. 9 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if she was correct that businesses going through SAMCEDA for assistance would be given information for City, County, State, and Federal programs. Councilmember Brownrigg replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the City was utilizing SAMCEDA in case the City's Economic Development Specialist is unable to answer questions. She explained that she believed it is a good idea but thought there was going to be a ton of questions as the State and Federal programs are not easy to navigate. Councilmember Colson replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he spent the past week dealing with the payroll protection program. He noted that it is very generous, and once an individual gets through the basic questions, it is fairly simple to complete. He added that he believed this first proposal was easy, and the sooner the City assisted businesses with this program, the better. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. There were no comments. The Council discussed the best approach to reviewing the different program options that the subcommittee created. Mayor Beach asked what the total cost was of the eight proposed programs. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that if the Council selected all programs, the total cost would be approximately $900,000. Councilmember Colson noted that the most expensive program is the loan/grant program with an estimated cost of $500,000. Councilmember Colson outlined the eight programs that the subcommittee created: 1. Provide advisory assistance to Burlingame businesses to secure County, State, and Federal relief 2. Create a small business support fund, either through a loan or grant program 3. Kickstart Burlingame debit card for qualified residents 4. Cover Downtown and Broadway Business Improvement District fees 5. Waive parking meter fees for one month after re -opening 6. "Buy Local, Act Local" marketing campaign 7. Support local media 8. Commercial eviction protection program Councilmember Brownrigg stated that they talked with several businesses and cities about creating a small business support fund. He explained that it was suggested that $10,000 would be the correct amount to allocate to a successful applicant. He stated that he and Councilmember Colson proposed establishing a range for successful applicants of $5,000 to $20,000. This is because expenses in Burlingame are higher than in many other cities. He added that included in their memo was suggested criteria for this program. 10 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 Councilmember Brownrigg stated that their proposal to provide $250 per household in store value cards or debit cards to shop in Burlingame would use Peninsula Clean Energy's established means test. He explained that these debit cards could only be spent in storefronts in the City's zip code. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the proposal to waive the Downtown and Broadway Business Improvement Districts' fees would cost the City approximately $125,000. Councilmember Brownrigg suggested tabling the commercial eviction protection program proposal until after the County acts on their commercial eviction moratorium on April 7. He noted that the County's moratorium would only affect businesses in unincorporated San Mateo County. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. Juan Loredo stated that the business community supported a grant program as it would help small merchants with short-term cash flow issues. He asked that the grant program include requirements to review the business's budget to ensure that the funding is used correctly. (comment received via Zoom chat). Mayor Beach closed public comment. Mayor Beach asked that the Council discuss the proposal for the City to cover the Downtown and Broadway Business Improvement Districts' fees. Councilmember Colson explained that these fees go to assist with the Holiday Tree Lighting, Pet Parade, Burlingame trolleys, and other events. She stated that these fees are critical community -oriented contributions that the businesses make. Therefore, the City backfilling these fees would benefit the merchants and the residents. Mayor Beach stated that she believed this sounded reasonable. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the Council would make it clear to the two business districts that this is a one-time deal. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed this was a great idea but that it needed to be stressed that it is a one-time deal. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she agreed with her colleagues. Councilmember Brownrigg suggested wrapping the following three proposals together into one discussion: waiving parking meter fees for an additional month after re -opening; "Buy Local, Act Local" marketing campaign; and support local media. Councilmember Colson stated that to show their support for the community and to support local media, elected officials could use their campaign accounts to take out advertisements in the local newspapers. She 11 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 explained that this would be a great way to advertise the programs that the County and various cities are putting together for individuals and businesses. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the subcommittee had talked to the merchants about extending the parking meter fee waiver for an additional month. He noted that this waiver wouldn't encourage turnover. Councilmember Colson stated that if the City decided to waive the parking meter fee for an additional month, she would want a commitment from the merchants that their employees would park in the distant lots. City Manager Goldman stated that normally the City gets about $200,000 a month from parking meter fees. Therefore, the proposed waiver is not an insignificant amount of funding that the City would lose. Councilmember Colson asked if all the parking enforcement officers are working. Police Chief Matteucci explained that at the beginning of the shelter -in -place order, the parking enforcement officers' hours were reduced. However, on April 7, these officers will be brought back full-time and used to conduct school and park checks. Councilmember Colson suggested reducing the length of the waiver to two weeks. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she would be in favor of two weeks of free parking. She explained that she believed it was better to start with a shorter time frame. Mayor Beach concurred with Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. City Manager Goldman noted that at the March 16 meeting, when the Council discussed waiving meter fees, it was for the initial shelter -in -place order. She explained that staff was going to assume that Council wanted to waive parking meter fees through the length of the shelter -in -place order and its extensions with an additional two weeks. Mayor Beach agreed. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the Police Department could chalk tires and waive the parking meter fee for the just the first two hours during that additional two -week period. This way the City would still encourage turnover. Police Chief Matteucci stated that it is feasible. However, he stated that he wondered if the City would need to adopt an ordinance to do that. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. A resident stated that they believed the extended waiver of parking fees was a great idea, but there needed to be monitoring of the amount of time that a car utilized a meter. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). 12 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 John Kevranian suggested allowing two-hour free parking, with chalking thereafter. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mayor Beach closed public comment. Councilmember Colson discussed their proposal to create a small business fund. She explained that in talking to the businesses, they heard about a lot of different needs. Therefore, they decided that the small business fund needed to be flexible. She noted that in their memo, they outlined two options: loans or a grant program. Councilmember Brownrigg reviewed the loan program options. He explained that they came up with two different loan structures: 1. Business Loan Program — a soft loan program for qualified merchants with a one-year holiday from any repayment. Thereafter, the merchant would be paying back the loan amount plus a 2% processing fee over the next 24 months. He noted that the City could allow for loan forgiveness through sales tax. 2. Rent Stabilization Loan Program — City lends merchants 50% of a merchant's monthly rent (maximum $5,000) for up to three months, provided that the landlord agrees to roll over the 50% balance to the future for repayment. Six months later, the merchant shall begin repaying the City/landlord the outstanding balance in 12 equal payments over the following 12 months. Councilmember Colson reviewed the small business grant program. She explained that both options are not only concerned with the City's sales tax but also about putting Burlingame residents back to work. Councilmember Colson stated that after talking with Rosanne Foust, SAMCEDA has agreed to administer a Burlingame -based grant program that would augment what businesses receive from the SMC Strong fund. She stated that by having SAMCEDA administer the program, the Council would be removed from the decision -making process. She explained that under the program, recipients of the grant would need to follow an implementation timeline, and there would be metrics to measure the success of the program. Councilmember Colson stated that after the subcommittee hears from Council on which of the two options it would like to pursue (loan or grant based program), they will come back to Council with a more detailed plan. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that they envisioned this being a retail -oriented program in order to support the vibrancy of the two business districts. He noted that one of the suggested qualifications would be that the business has a Burlingame address with a retail storefront open to the public. Mayor Beach asked if retail included restaurants. Councilmember Brownrigg replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the administration of the loan program would be difficult and would consume funds that could instead go to the merchants. Therefore, he explained that he was leaning towards 13 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 the grant program. He noted that he would add to the criteria that the merchants have to certify that they applied for State and County programs. Councilmember Colson explained that the subcommittee suggested the following business qualification criteria: local Burlingame business license for at least the last year, Burlingame address, credible business plan to re -open and succeed, other financial support that has been applied for or received, and any demonstrable evidence of commitment to remain in Burlingame. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she agreed with Councilmember Ortiz about the grant program. She noted that the City is not in the loan business. She thought the grant program would assist both the merchants and property owners. She suggested creating tiers in the grant programs so that the funds could be further spread out amongst the businesses to meet their needs. She stated that she thought there should be a weekly report on how the funds are going to be distributed and how much each merchant receives. She added that it was important that the merchants also apply for other grants. City Manager Goldman stated that working through SAMCEDA was an idea that they came up with to minimize the burden on staff. She explained that she believed that loans would be complicated for the City to administer. She noted that because SAMCEDA is doing the City a huge favor by administering the program, the City needed to be careful about its requests for weekly reports. However, she believed that the City could come to some agreement with SAMCEDA about reporting. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the Council should discuss the total amount of the grant program and how much each applicant could be awarded. He noted that the Vice Mayor had discussed creating a tier system for the grant program. He stated that if the City was to allocate $500,000 for the program and allow up to $20,000 per successful applicant, the City may have as few as 25 applicants. He noted that every other grant program in the Bay Area has been quickly oversubscribed. Mayor Beach asked if the grant program's funding would come from the Catastrophic Reserve or the Economic Stability Reserve. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that they recommended utilizing the Economic Stability Reserve. Mayor Beach asked if the Economic Stability Reserve could also be used if the City doesn't have the revenue it needs to provide basic services. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. She explained that the City would first use the unassigned fund balance and then the reserve. Finance Director Augustine stated that if the City utilized the Economic Stability Reserve, it would then be replenished from the unassigned fund balance so that it could be back up to 24% of revenues (funding level). Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. John Kevranian voiced concern about the loan program for businesses that don't generate sales tax for the City. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). 14 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 Scott voiced his support for the grant program. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Stephanie Lee voiced her support for the grant program. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mayor Beach closed public comment. Mayor Beach stated that there seemed to be consensus amongst the Council to move forward with the grant program over a loan program. She asked that the Council now discuss the total funding level for the grant program and how much each business could be allocated. Mayor Beach asked if there was any consideration to make the grant program a needs -based program. She also wondered if there was a way to give businesses bonus points on their applications if they had managed to keep their employees paid during the shelter -in -place order. She added that she liked the tiered approach that the Vice Mayor had discussed. Councilmember Ortiz stated that his first thought was that the City should focus on the businesses that were not deemed essential during the shelter -in -place order. He stated that he would set the tiers based on number of employees or have the businesses certify what their monthly overhead is. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that it needed to be acknowledged that the grant program would be oversubscribed. He noted that he believed this program should be treated differently than when the City assists families and individuals. He explained that when the City assists families and individuals, it first assists those who have the least income. However, in this case what the City is trying to do is help businesses survive. Therefore, the City shouldn't give money to a business that is so weak that it will fails even with support, as this wouldn't be a good use of public resources. He stated that it was important that the businesses that receive the grant funds are ones that the City believes will survive. Mayor Beach agreed that there were some businesses that were struggling prior to the shelter, and therefore the City doesn't want to put funds into businesses that aren't going to survive. She explained that her point was that there are some business owners whose business is struggling while the owner is independently wealthy. She asked if there was a way to factor this into the equation. Councilmember Colson noted that SAMCEDA President Rosanne Foust stated that the SMC Strong fund is going to focus on businesses with the greatest chance of success. She stated that they reviewed San Francisco's fund, which gave allocations up to $10,000, and the fund was immediately oversubscribed in three days. She explained that it could get tricky to tier the program based on employee size. She gave the example of restaurants where they might have three full-time employees and 80 part-time employees. She suggested tiering based on gross revenues and the number of full-time employees. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked when businesses apply for the grant, will they need to specify what they are using the funds for. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that they haven't developed the application yet; however they will be including that question. 15 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran noted that the SMC Strong fund requires individuals who are applying to state how they will use the money. For example, if the money is for rent and the application is successful, SMC Strong will write out a check to the landlord. She suggested reviewing SMC Strong's process. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if it would be a requirement that businesses have a certain amount of time left on their lease. Councilmember Brownrigg stated this would be something considered. Mayor Beach suggested giving businesses credit if they had been in Burlingame for a long time. Councilmember Colson stressed that the grant program is not only about supporting local businesses but also about getting residents back to work. She noted that some of the restaurants in Burlingame employee 90 people. She explained that if these people get back to work, they can pay for their groceries, their rent, and other costs. Therefore, the small business grant program ends up assisting the community in totality. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that the City should be careful to not have the allocation amount too low as then it wouldn't provide adequate assistance. She explained that she was in favor of a tiered system as restaurants would probably need more funds than some of the small retailers. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if his colleagues agreed that $500,000 was the right funding level for the program. He noted that from there the subcommittee could then determine the tier levels. Mayor Beach asked if staff felt that $500,000 was the right amount. City Manager Goldman stated that it was a policy decision. Mayor Beach asked if her colleagues were comfortable with $500,000. Council agreed. Mayor Beach asked if there was any additional public comment on this discussion. Benjamin Boren asked if there would be any consideration for non -essential versus essential businesses. (comment submitted via publiccomment(&burlin ag me.org). Mayor Beach closed public comment. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the subcommittee's proposal to give gift cards/debit cards to qualified residents. He noted that this proposal came from the business community. He stated that the idea would be to provide debit cards/or stored value cards of $250 to need -based families. He noted that individuals would have to apply for the gift cards. Councilmember Colson stated that the program would be modeled off of the $3.1 million grant program at Peninsula Clean Energy. She explained that PCE focused on the countywide CARE and FERA customers. She stated that 5.58% of Burlingame residents qualify for this program (approximately 600 households). She explained that the issue with this program would be figuring out how to set up the debit cards so that they 16 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 could only be used in the City's zip code. She added that the program would cost the City approximately $150,000. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that this program would support residents and the business community. City Manager Goldman stated that it seemed like it would be tough to restrict the debit card geographically. She asked if Councilmember Ortiz had some thoughts on how this could work. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he thought it was a great idea. However, mechanically, he didn't know how it would work. He suggested approaching the vendors directly and purchasing gift cards from them. Mayor Beach stated that she had a lead that she would send to the subcommittee for this program. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. Stephanie Lee stated that she believed that this was an insufficient way to transfer funds as l 0% to 17% of card values never get used. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). An individual asked how the City would guarantee that the funds are spent in the City's zip code. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mayor Beach closed public comment. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that there is no guarantee that all of the funds would be spent. However, the advantage of this program is that it would limit the funds to Burlingame. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she thought there was some issue with the merchants where they couldn't count the gift cards towards their revenue upfront. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that this was correct. He noted that if businesses issue gift cards, they don't get to spend the revenue until they deliver the service. Therefore, these gift cards would have to be issued for fast -consuming items like groceries and products from drugstores. He noted that this moves the City away from the purpose. Mayor Beach stated that she felt there was value in exploring this concept. Council agreed. Councilmember Colson asked that because of the expediency required and the amount of work, would it be possible to bifurcate the subcommittee with Councilmember Brownrigg and Councilmember Colson working on the grant program and Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Brownrigg taking the lead on the debit card. 17 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 City Attorney Kane stated that it creates a bit of a Brown Act problem to the degree that the issues are not clearly separated. She stated that if there is a clear and narrow mandate for the newly created ad hoc subcommittee, then it would be okay. Mayor Beach stated that the $250 gift cards for lower income families are essentially a subsidy. She explained that maybe this is a bigger discussion about creating a subcommittee to assist residents. She discussed utilizing housing impact fees to assist residents with paying their rent. City Attorney Kane stated that from a procedural perspective, the gift card straddles both residential and commercial lines. She noted that she believed the gift cards should live in this subcommittee since it was mostly connected to business aid. Councilmember Colson suggested talking with the business community to see what their idea is regarding gift cards. Mayor Beach thanked the subcommittee for their hard work. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if it was okay to have two subcommittees. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. She explained that as long as the gift card subcommittee is regulated to the narrow issue of the implementation of the gift card, it is acceptable. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. MAYOR BEACH'S COMMITTEE REPORT b. COUNCILMEMBER COLSON'S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlin ag me.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Beach adjourned the meeting at 10:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 18 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 04/20/2020 Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 19 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes BiFRL- 1NAGENDA NO: 8c STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 20, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 20, 2020 From: Christine Reed, Fire Marshall — (650) 558-7601 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption 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 By motion, the City Council should adopt the following ordinance: 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 To do so, the Council should: 1. By motion, adopt the proposed ordinance. 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. DISCUSSION The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and discussed the proposed amendments at its regular meeting of April 6, 2020. No changes to the proposed ordinance were requested; therefore, the ordinance is presented to the City Council for adoption at its regular meeting of April 20, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibit: • Ordinance 1 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 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: COUNCILMEMBERS: -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 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk -23- BiFRL- 1NAGENDA NO: 8d STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 20, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 20, 2020 From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7253 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the City's Municipal Code Chapter 18.07 — Permit Expiration and Permit Exempt Structures RECOMMENDATION By motion, the City Council should adopt the following ordinance: An Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Two Sections of Chapter 18.07 of the Burlingame Municipal Code To do so, the Council should: 1. By motion, adopt the proposed ordinance. 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. DISCUSSION The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and discussed the proposed amendments at its regular meeting of April 6, 2020. No changes to the proposed ordinance were requested; therefore, the ordinance is presented to the City Council for adoption at its regular meeting of April 20, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the City General Fund. Exhibit: • Ordinance 1 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 201h day of April 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk BiFRL- 1NAGENDA NO: 8e STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 20, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 20, 2020 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director — (650) 558-7307 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Fung Collaboratives for the Public Art Project to Honor Anson Burlingame, City Project No. 86090, in the Amount of $210,000 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Fung Collaboratives for the Public Art Project to honor Anson Burlingame, City Project No. 86090, in the Amount of $210,000. BACKGROUND The Anson Burlingame Public Art Project is intended to create a timeless artwork that commemorates the values and spirit of Anson Burlingame (as opposed to the man himself) and evokes a sense of place making within the community while engaging the history and culture of Burlingame and embracing both aesthetics and content. On February 21, 2017, the Council held a study session to discuss a public artwork to honor Anson Burlingame and agreed that further work could be done by an ad hoc Subcommittee. Subsequently, the City established a Subcommittee that included then -Vice Mayor Brownrigg, then-Councilmember Beach, Lance Fung and John Talley of Fung Collaboratives, Ruth Waters, Russ Cohen, Leslie Holtzman, Janet Martin, and David Chai. To complete the Subcommittee, Andra Norris joined the group in March 2018. In order to develop the best artwork to honor Anson Burlingame, the project was originally developed in three phases: Phase 1: • Plan and facilitate two educational workshops, for the Councilmembers and community members, about what public art is, the benefits of public art, national and local views on public art, best practices, how the public can get involved, and what art can mean in Burlingame. • Hold one meeting of the Subcommittee to begin the conversation, talk about ideas and locations, and create a list of potential artists and/or ways to advertise the project. 1 Agreement with Fung Collaboratives for the Public Art Project to Honor Anson Burlingame April 20, 2020 Phase 2: • Research possible grant opportunities to help fund the art. • Meet with potential local funders, such as businesses or patrons. • Create the Call for Artists, Request for Qualifications, and Request for Proposals. • Present to Council to update the status of the project. Phase 3: • Advertise and promote the Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposals. • Select the final location and artist to commission the new site -specific artwork. • Work directly with the artist to create the draft proposals and the final proposal. • Schedule meetings with City stakeholders to provide information about the work. • Obtain funding and present the final proposal to the Council for final approval. • In conjunction with the City Attorney, develop and execute a contract between the City and the artist. • Work on installation details such as engineering, safety, ADA compliance, and signage. • Schedule and complete a ribbon -cutting event. An additional phase (2.5) was added and approved by the City Council on January 2, 2018, to allow for portions of Phase 3 to move forward to get an idea of the artwork and location for installation. Phase 2.5: • Advertise the Call of Artists. • Post on the web and promote the Call for Artists and solicit applications from known artists. • Request preliminary renderings from two selected artists. • Review submissions, schedule interviews with the Subcommittee, and help the Subcommittee select the preferred artist. • Refine the selected artist vision and help the Subcommittee select the final location. • Help obtain funding. To date, phases 1, 2, & 2.5 have been completed. In Phase 2.5, the consultants received 18 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) submissions. Of the 18 submissions, eight were disqualified because the artist didn't meet the minimum requirements of the RFQ or didn't follow the RFQ instructions. The consultants, based on their extensive art background, selected the top seven most qualified and appropriate submissions for the Subcommittee's review. After evaluation and discussion, the Subcommittee selected three artists to be interviewed on April 4, 2018: Kate Dodd, John Roloff, and Stutz/Dihn. The Subcommittee interviewed all three artists and determined that John Roloff and Stutz/Dihn should be invited to the Request for Proposals (RFP) phase. The artists were given eight weeks to complete the RFP phase. On June 7, 2018, the artists presented their statement of intent, a written description and visual representations of the artwork, a budget, and a timeline. The Subcommittee discussed the aesthetics of the designs, the manner in which Anson Burlingame would be honored by exemplifying his actions and philosophy, the relationship of the artwork to the site location, the commitment of the artist to the project, and the 2 Agreement with Fung Collaboratives for the Public Art Project to Honor Anson Burlingame April 20, 2020 feasibility of the proposed budget. The Subcommittee subsequently decided to continue working with John Roloff to continue refining the artwork in order to help solicit funds. The Subcommittee met with John Roloff and Fung Collaboratives on August 13, 2018, to review the preliminary renderings and location and provide additional input to help refine the artist's vision for the artwork. DISCUSSION The location for the artwork is in Washington Park along the pathway from the corner of North Lane and Carolan Avenue to Burlingame High School. The final design work has yet to be completed and approved by the Subcommittee and the City Council. Since the completion of Phase 2.5, the Subcommittee has been working on soliciting donations to complete the project. The goal was to raise $210,000 in order to be able to cover the costs of the consultant team, materials, permits, artist fees, sub -contractors, engineering, and installation. FISCAL IMPACT The Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation has received donations in the amount of $210,000 to complete Phase 3. The estimated breakdown of the project costs is: Artist $42,000 Fung Collaboratives Management $33,667 Engineering $20,000 Sub -contractors $40,000 Materials, Fabrication, & Installation $74,333 Total $210,000 The above costs are preliminary until the final design has been approved and all bids have been submitted. However, the final cost will not exceed $210,000. Exhibits: Resolution • Agreement with Fung Collaboratives VA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND FUNG COLLABORATIVES, CITY PROJECT NO.86090, IN THE AMOUNT OF $210,000 WHEREAS, on July 3, 2017, the City Council approved working with Fung Collaboratives to educate the Burlingame community about public art and to help guide the commissioning of a public art piece to honor Anson Burlingame as Phases 1 and 2 of the Scope of Services for the original agreement; and WHEREAS, on January 2, 2018, the City Council approved Phase 2.5 between Phases 2 and 3, in order to advertise the Call for Artists, provide funding for preliminary renderings from two artists, and provide for web posting and promotion of the Call for Artists; and WHEREAS, Phases 1, 2, and 2.5 have been completed, and funding has been obtained through donations to the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation in the amount of $210,000 to fund Phase 3. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS: The facts in the recitals above and in the staff report are true and correct. The agreement with Fung Collaboratives for said project is accepted. The City shall enter into an agreement with Fung Collaboratives for the installation of a public art work, Project No. 86090, and the City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract 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 20th day of April, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND FUNG COLLABORATIVES THIS AGREEMENT is by and between Fung Collaboratives ("Consultant") and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California ("City"). Consultant and City agree: 1. Services. City wishes to obtain the services of Consultant to serve as a licensed curatorial firm to manage the final development and installation of a public art piece to educate the public about Anson Burlingame including the service as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum compensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform Phase 3, as described in the Scope of Services not to exceed $210,000 including all materials and other reimbursable amounts "Maximum Compensation" for the commissioned art work subject to specific Council authorization. Consultant shall submit invoices on a monthly basis. All bills submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate. Bills shall include a brief description of services performed, the date services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and the Consultant's signature. 3. Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof and terminates on December 31, 2021 unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof. Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to completion and in accordance with any schedules specified herein. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion date. 4. Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without the prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. 5. Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance and original endorsements to City. Except in the case of professional design/errors and omissions insurance, the City shall be named as a primary insured. 6. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. 7. Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time by City for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall be entitled to pro -rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior to the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the event the Consultant ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall, without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services performed up to the time of Consultant's cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment. 8. Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs, computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the property of City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but not limited to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other material referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be made available, upon request, to City at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation on their use. Upon City's request, Consultant shall execute appropriate documents to assign to the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall return all City property in Consultant's control or possession immediately upon termination. 9. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warrants that all work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws, statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a license or registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. 10. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presently has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state, PJ local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that the City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.) respecting this Agreement. 11. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both Consultant and the City Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such document shall expressly state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and conditions of this Agreement. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City Clerk is the version of the Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 12. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to the other party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. 13. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties. 14. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i) depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such notice by means of Federal Express or similar overnight commercial courier ("Courier"), postage paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by the sending facsimile machine's acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv) by personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent. 3 15. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor. Capitalized terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement. When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine, the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes the plural. The terms "shall", "will", "must" and "agree" are mandatory. The term "may" is permissive. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is made otherwise. Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees, contractors, subcontractors and employees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement. CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Lisa K. Goldman City Manager Date: Attest: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 4 CONSULTANT Name Address By: Name Title Date: Federal Employer ID Number: License Number: Expiration Date: Date: Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane City Attorney Date: Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Services Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions BiFRLINGAME AGENDA NO: 8f STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 20, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 20, 2020 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project, City Project No. 85090, in the Amount of $306,646 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project, City Project No. 85090, by Engineered Soils Repair, Inc., in the amount of $306,646. BACKGROUND On May 20, 2019, the City Council awarded the Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project to Engineered Soils Repair, Inc., in the amount of $290,723. The Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project consisted of performing repairs of three areas of the Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road, where sub -surface soil movement resulted in damage to the road. Project work included construction of three new soldier piles and lagging retaining walls consisting of steel beams embedded in cast -in -drilled -hole (CIDH) caisson foundations with treated wood lagging, installation of wall back -drains, removal of soil and replacement with new engineered fill and controlled -low -strength -material. Additionally, the project included the installation of surface drainage improvements, manhole modification, and installation of new asphaltic concrete road and dikes. DISCUSSION The project construction has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The final construction cost is $306,646, which is $15,923 above the Council awarded -contract amount, and within the authorized budget contingencies. The increase in construction costs was due to unforeseen additional repairs performed to adjust manhole grade and installation of asphalt pavement at the access road. FISCAL IMPACT The following are the estimated final project expenditures: 1 Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project Acceptance April 20, 2020 City Project No. 85090 Construction $306,646 Construction Management and Inspection $54,226 Engineering and Administration $23,406 Total $384,278 There are adequate funds available in the Capital Improvements budget to cover the estimated final costs. Exhibits: • Resolution • Final Progress Payment • Project Location Map 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS — MILLS CANYON SEWER ACCESS ROAD REPAIR PROJECT, BY ENGINEERED SOILS REPAIR, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 85090 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, which finds, orders, and determines as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by Engineered Soils Repair, Inc. under the terms of its contract with the City dated June 21, 2019, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 85090. 3. Said work is accepted. 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 201-h day of April, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk Project Name: Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project Project Number. 85090 Start of Period 08/30/19 Progress Payment: 02 End of Period 10/17/19 Period: 08130/19-10117119 Previous Calpndar nn,.c Progress Payment - Form "B" Working Days This Period: 35 Toni Working Days: 45 Extended Date of Completion: 12/02/19 Bid Item Retention Description QOuagmal ntity Change Order Quantity Total Quantity Unit Unit Cast Total Contract Value apeolal Total Quantities Previously Billed Retention: Total Quantities This Period Total Cost This Period Total Quantity Date To Total Cost To -Date Retention Percent Complete t 2 3 4 5 6 Mob'I¢ation/Demobtl¢adon Site Pie amfon Surve La out Reteinn Wall Pier Excavations Retanin Wall P'ers Reatain Wall Lagging Retaining Wall Back Drains Drop Inlet Storm: Drain P' a Chain .L nk Fence Grading Pavement - 1 7 1 665 665 550 32 1 100 145 220 1,620 55 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 66500 665.00 550.00 32 00 1.00 100 00 14500 220 00 1,62000 5500 100 100 1.00 LS LS LS LF LF.. SF LF FJ1 LF LF CY SF LF LS LS LS : $11182 $10400 :; $2,160 $126 $89 $41 $290 : $2,196 $60 50 : $120 .. $112 1 $20 $q. $180 :- $5645 = $5440: - $11,182.00 $10,400.00 $2,160.00 $81,795.00 $59,185.00 $22,550.00 $9,280.00 $2,196.00 $6,050.00 $17,400.00 $24,640.00 $32,400.00 $220.00 $160.00 $5,645.00 $5,440.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 66500 66500 050 55000' 32.00: :" 1.00 100.00 145.00 : 220.00:'. 1,620.00 ':.55+00 1.00:"" 1.00 1.00+ $5,59t.00 $22,550.00 $9,280.00 $2,196.00 $6,050.00 $17,400.00 $24,640.00 $32,400.00 $220.00 $180.00 $5,645.00 $5,440.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 665.00 665.00 550.00 32.00 1.00 100.00 145.00 220.00 1,620.00 55.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 $71,182.00 $70,400.00 $2,160.00 $81,795.00 $59,185.00 $22,550.00 $%280.00 $22196.00 $6,050.00 $17,400.00 $24,640.00 $32,400.00 $220.00 $180.00 $5,645.00 $5,440.00 $559.10 $520.00 $108.00 $4;089.75 $2,959.25 $1,127.50 $464.00 $109.80 $302.50 $870.00 $1,232.00 31,620.00 $11.00 $9.00 $282.25 $272.00 t00% 100% 700% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% t00% 100% 100% 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,13 As hal6c Concrete Dike '14 Stormwater Pollution Preventon 15 Erosion Control 16 Gate 7 1 1 CCO No.1 Atldd'onal Workto Install new concrete race dn2 615 SF of Additional Ashpah Pavement a5 directed 1.00 615.00 TOTAL CONTRACT 100 515.00 LS SF COST $3623'. $20'. 290 723.00 $3,623.00 $12,300.00 : Subtotal: 1.00' 615.00 131 592.00 $3,623.00 $12,300.00 _ 1.00 615.00 290 723.00 $3,623.00 $12,300.00 14 536.15 100% $181.15 $615+00 100% 1100/0 TOTAL CCO COST $15,923.00 Subtotal: $15,923.00 $16,923.00. $796.15 100% TOTAL CONTRACT COST 306646.00 SubtotaC 147515.00 306646.00 15332.30 �. 100% tars Period (5%): $ 7,375.75 Total to be Paid Less Retention: $140,139.25 I hereby cenify Nat all items, units, quantities antl paces of work This Payment Request ara correct that all work has been pertonnetl and materials supplied in acwrdance with the terms of the construction contract on this Payment Request. City of Burlingame Representative: Contractor's Representative' qq /,t - Date: 01-28-2020 Date: i i Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project City Project No. 85090 Project Location Map T 1,3 -ill, I IL + M LLS CANYON S BVER ACCESS ROAD REPAIR PROJECT YL IZ3 A Hillab arolu �gm QP ;or v 4-4p 7T J BURLiNGAME AGENDA NO: 8g STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 20, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 20, 2020 From: Sigalle Michael, Sustainability Coordinator — (650) 558-7261 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City of Burlingame to Prioritize Zero Emission Vehicles First When Purchasing Vehicles and Equipment RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a zero emission vehicle (ZEV) first policy for the City's municipal fleet. The resolution would require staff to consider electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and other ZEV vehicles when purchasing or leasing new vehicles and equipment that are traditionally powered by diesel or gasoline. BACKGROUND Vehicles represent the largest sources of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in California. As part of its climate action strategy, California is taking aggressive strides to transition the transportation sector toward zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). ZEVs produce no emissions from on -board sources of power and may include battery electric, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrids. They are considered a clean fuel alternative to gasoline and diesel vehicles. Electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids are the most common ZEVS. California has mandated goals to dramatically increase the number of ZEVs on the road over the next decade. To achieve its goals, the state offers effective incentives for ZEVs, supports electric vehicle charging infrastructure and capacity, and requires the Department of General Services (responsible for state fleets) to reduce the use of petroleum products and increase purchasing of ZEVs. Indeed, the number of registered ZEVs has grown significantly in California. From 2017 to 2018, the percentage rose by 30 percent, and from 2018 to 2019, it grew by 33 percent. Currently, approximately 655,000 ZEVs are registered in the state.' Burlingame has about 3,506 registered ZEVs.2 1 https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-01 /electric-vehicle-sales-in-california-on-the-rise-but-is-it-enough- to-reach-the-5-million- off. 2 DMV data, hgps://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/c24637c9-5faf-4fe2-9375- 9b5221 a2ef4a/a2ef4a/MotorVehicleFuelT�es_Cit�df?MOD=AJPERES&CVID_Cit�df?MOD=AJPERES&CVID= 1 ZEV First Policy for Municipal Fleet April 20, 2020 Following California's lead, the City of Burlingame adopted an ambitious Climate Action Plan in September 2019 that outlines 20 measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent (-50,000 MTCO2e) by 2030. Measure 6, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Initiatives, requires the City to create an Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan to identify how to best support EVs in the City, install additional public EV charging stations, and implement a strategy to electrify the City's existing municipal fleet. The measure is anticipated to reduce 53 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The number is surprisingly low because the measure only takes credit for a slight increase in EVs in Burlingame. The true number and benefit of EVs in Burlingame will be reflected in the transportation modeling for the City's future emissions inventory. The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury has also contributed to the City's interest in greening its municipal fleet. On August 12, 2019, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled "Electrical Vehicle Adoption in the Cities and County of San Mateo". The report recommended that the County and each of the cities in San Mateo County review the following: government fleet procurement policies relating to electric vehicles; an analysis of the obstacles for fleet conversion; and existing programs that could facilitate the analysis and the procurement of electric vehicles. Staff intends to complete the recommended analysis as part of the City's Electric Vehicle Strategic Plan. Currently, the City owns three Ford Fusion Energi plug-in hybrids (ZEVs), which are used by Public Works and Community Development staff. The Ford Fusion is capable of traveling up to 26 miles in electric mode, a sufficient distance for most local staff uses. The plug-in hybrids have access to the City Hall charging stations. All three ZEVS were purchased within the last year. ni-qri is_qinm The Fleet Division maintains approximately 115 vehicles and 137 pieces of equipment for various City departments and divisions including Police, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Library, Code Enforcement, and Community Development. With the recent purchase of its new ZEVs, the Fleet Division is engaged with and committed to supporting the City's climate action goals. Staff recommends that the City Council consider adopting a ZEV first policy to keep the City on track in terms of implementing the CAP, address the Grand Jury's recommendation, and take an active stance towards greening the City's municipal fleet to serve as a model for Burlingame residents and businesses. The ZEV first policy would commit staff to identify and consider vehicles and equipment with no exhaust emissions that meet cost feasibility, range, load, and applicable safety standards when purchasing or leasing vehicles or equipment. The policy supports the Fleet Division in testing out clean technologies for medium and heavy duty vehicles and investing in necessary charging infrastructure to support battery powered and plug-in vehicles and equipment. Currently, the City manages charging stations at the Burlingame Caltrain Station, City Hall, and the Police Station. More stations will be installed as part of the new Community Center project, but staff still anticipates that additional capacity may be necessary at the Corp Yard. 2 ZEV First Policy for Municipal Fleet April 20, 2020 The ZEV first policy also encourages staff to seek out incentives and grants for greening the City's fleet and installing charging infrastructure. Charging station costs range from $250 for the simplest level charger (240 volt) to $5,000 for a ChargePoint level 2 charger with payment software (similar to the one located at City Hall). Fast chargers are significantly more expensive to install (starting at $10,000 and up) due to their high power needs. Burlingame has six fast chargers near Broadway that are owned, managed, and paid for by EVgo. Power capacity for charging stations is the largest and most costly obstacle in charging infrastructure. Staff will prioritize using existing power infrastructure whenever possible. Staff will also actively pursue incentive programs, such as from Peninsula Clean Energy, and connections with EV charging installers, such as EVgo and Electrify America, to help grow and finance the City's EV charging infrastructure. The cost of EVs has grown competitive against conventional vehicles; and in the long run, EVs cost considerably less in maintenance and fuel. Electric replacements for medium and heavy duty vehicles and equipment (such as for landscaping) are still likely to cost more than conventional models, but prices are anticipated to decrease as the electric equipment markets expand and develop further. FISCAL IMPACT This policy will result in some future fiscal impact for costs associated with the installation of charging infrastructure, especially for fast charging, and added costs of ZEVs over traditional petroleum powered vehicles and equipment. The total impact is unknown at this time. Exhibit: • Resolution 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO PRIORITIZE ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES FIRST WHEN PURCHASING VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT WHEREAS, consensus exists among the world's leading climate scientists that global warming caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities is among the most significant problems facing the world today; and WHEREAS, vehicles represent the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants for the City of Burlingame and the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame adopted greenhouse gas reduction goals and a Climate Action Plan that includes strategies to support zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) and green the City's municipal fleet; and WHEREAS, the State of California issued Executive Order B-16-12 to reinforce bringing 1.5 million ZEVs to California by 2025; and WHEREAS, ZEVs are vehicles that produce no emissions from on -board sources of power and may include battery electric, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrids; and WHEREAS, ZEVs are considered a clean fuel alternative to gasoline and diesel vehicles; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame will lead as a role model in investing and supporting ZEVs in its municipal fleet. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Burlingame: 1. Establishes a Zero -Emission Vehicle (ZEV) First commitment such that battery -electric, plug-in hybrids, or other ZEV types that emit no tailpipe emissions are identified and prioritized when purchasing vehicles or equipment traditionally powered by petroleum -based fuels and fuel alternatives such as ethanol, and they meet needed cost feasibility, range, load, and all applicable safety standards and other requirements for the intended use of the vehicle or equipment; 2. Directs staff to • Evaluate the cost of ZEVs including, acquisition, operations, and maintenance; • Actively seek out grants, incentives, and funding opportunities to replace fleet vehicles and equipment with ZEVs, test new technologies, and install charging infrastructure in the city; • Commit to test and evaluate ZEVs and, where feasible, acquire ZEVs for medium and heavy duty vehicle and equipment categories; • Reduce consumption of petroleum -based fuels in vehicle and equipment operations and review and remove under-utilized vehicles and equipment; • Promote reduced idling, trip reduction, routing efficiency, and use of public transportation to operating departments within the City; and • Install sufficient charging infrastructure to meet the demand for the City's municipal electric and plug-in vehicles and equipment. 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 20th day of April, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk AGENDA NO: 8h STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 20, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 20, 2020 From: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk — (650) 558-7203 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Renew the Service Agreement with Granicus, Inc. for Agenda Management, Video Streaming Services, and Closed Captions RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to renew the service agreement with Granicus, Inc. for agenda management, video streaming services, and closed captions. BACKGROUND In 2008, the City entered into a service agreement with Granicus, Inc. to provide video streaming services for City Council and Planning Commission meetings. The video streaming service allows the City to provide residents with searchable access to all recorded meetings, making local government more accessible and transparent. In 2013, the City renewed and expanded its service agreement with Granicus, Inc. to include agenda management and distribution services. The agenda management service streamlines the meeting agenda and packet creation process, saving staff time, paper, and copying costs while ensuring timely production and distribution of the packet materials. In 2016, the City renewed its contract with Granicus for three years and began providing video streaming services for Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission meetings. Then in 2019, the City began utilizing Granicus' closed caption services to make the videoed meetings more accessible. DISCUSSION The proposed three-year service agreement will allow the City to continue providing residents with searchable video feeds of City Council, Planning Commission, and Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission meetings and streamlining the agenda process. Additionally, the agreement provides for closed caption services and e-comments. 1 Granicus Service Agreement April 20, 2020 The contract states that Granicus, Inc. will continue to provide the City with the following products: 1. Media Manager — the browser based Granicus, Inc. hosted site used to schedule and manage events/meetings and the media associated with those events/meetings. 2. Government Transparency — unlimited live webcasting with closed captioning support, unlimited cloud storage of archives, public portal to view videos, agendas, and minutes with advanced search feature. 3. Legistar — agenda item drafting, electronic approval process, agenda packet generation and publication, organize, store and retrieve documents, continuous legislative workflow, track and search legislative data. 4. eComment — providing the ability to collect and manage public input on agenda items prior to Council meetings. 5. Caption Services — live closed captioning services for both web streaming and TV viewing. Staff recommends renewing the existing agreement with Granicus, Inc. to provide agenda management, video streaming services, and closed captions at a cost of: • $44,572.71 for June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2021 • $52,726.79 for June 1, 2021 through May 31, 2022 • $56,417.66 for June 1, 2022 through May 31, 2023 If approved, the contract will be effective through May 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of the three-year agreement with Granicus, Inc. is $153,717.16. Funds for the annual cost of the service agreement have been included in the City Clerk's proposed General Fund budget. Exhibits: • Resolution • Agreement 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RENEW THE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH GRANICUS, INC. FOR AGENDA MANAGEMENT, VIDEO STREAMING SERVICES, AND CLOSED CAPTIONS WHEREAS, in 2008, the City Council approved an agreement with Granicus, Inc. for video streaming and distribution of live and archived video and audio content, which provides residents with searchable access to all electronically recorded City Council and Planning Commission meetings; and WHEREAS, in 2013, the City Council renewed and expanded its agreement with Granicus to provide agenda management and distribution services, which streamlined the meeting agenda and packet creation process, saved staff time, paper and copying costs, while ensuring timely production and distribution of the packet materials: and WHEREAS, in 2016, the City renewed its agreement with Granicus again and added Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission meetings to its streaming services; and WHEREAS, in 2019, the City began utilizing Granicus' closed caption services to make its meetings more accessible; and WHEREAS, the total cost of these services for June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2023 is $153,717.16. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City Manager is authorized to execute a three-year service agreement with Granicus, Inc. to provide agenda management, video stream services, and closed captions for a total cost of $153,717.16. 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 20th day of April, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk Granicus Proposal for Burlingame, CA Name: Maxwell Buccelli Phone: Email: maxwell.buccelli@granicus.com Quote Number: Q-100577 Prepared On: 4/9/2020 Valid Through: 5/31/2020 Payment Terms: Net 30 (Payments for subscriptions are due at the beginning of the period of performance.) Currency: USD Period of Performance: 6/1 /2020 - 5/31/2021 Contract End Date: 5/31/2023 Period of Billing Solution Quantity/Unit Annual Fee Prorated Fee Performance Frequency Recurring Captioning 8/20/2020 to Services* Annual 150 Hours* $21,668.16 $16,963.50 5/31/2021 6/1 /2020 to eComment Annual 1 Each $1,926.00 $1,926.00 5/31/2021 Legistar Add -On - Laserfiche 6/1 /2020 to Annual 1 Each $0.00 $0.00 Integration 5/31/2021 6/1 /2020 to Legistar Annual 1 Each $11,190.06 $11,190.06 5/31/2021 6/1 /2020 to Granicus Streaming Annual 1 Each $14,493.15 $14,493.15 5/31/2021 SUBTOTAL: $49,277.37 $44,572.71 *Please Note: Recurring Closed Captioning Hours will be prorated for subscription periods less than 12 months. olution(s) Recurring Captioning Services eComment Legistar Add -On - Laserfiche Integration Legistar Granicus Streaming SUBTOTAL: 6/1/2021-5/31/2022 $23,184.93 $2,060.82 $0.00 $11,973.36 $15,507.67 $52,726.79 6/1/2022-5/31/2023 $24,807.88 $2,205.08 $0.00 $12,811.50 $16,593.21 $56,417.66 Name Description Recurring Captioning Live closed captioning. Services* • All Meetings will incur one hour minimum. • Cancellations within 24 hrs. will be charged 1 hour minimum. • Caption reservations should be reserved two weeks in advance. Jobs with little notice may not be guaranteed coverage, 24 hours as an absolute minimum. • Real Time Captions are provided at an 98% accuracy readability rating • Recurring Caption hours not used in the period of performance will not carry over to the following year. • *Please Note: Recurring Closed Captioning Hours will be prorated for subscription periods less than 12 months. eComment eComment reduces staff time by providing the ability to effortlessly collect and manage citizen input on agenda items. Citizens are allowed to either/or submit comments in regards to items or sign up to speak before a scheduled meeting. Legistar Add -On - Legistar Add -On - Laserfiche Integration is for the Legistar\Laserfiche integration that allows for Laserfiche documents to be imported from Laserfiche to Legistar and for Legistar to export reports\ Integration attachments to Laserfiche Legistar Legistar is a Software -as -a -Service (SaaS) solution that enables government organizations to automate the entire legislative process of the clerk's office. Clerks can leverage Legistar to easily manage the entire legislative process from drafting files, through assignment to various departments, to final approval. Legistar includes: • Unlimited user accounts • Unlimited meeting bodies and meeting types • Unlimited data storage and retention • Up to one (1) Legistar database • Up to one (1) InSite web portal • Upon the effective date, this Agreement shall supersede and replace any previous agreement between the parties. All such prior agreements between the parties are hereby void and of no force and effect. • Link to terms: https://granicus.com/pdfs/Master_ Subscription_Agreement.pdf • This quote is exclusive of applicable state, local, and federal taxes, which, if any, will be included in the invoice. It is the responsibility of Burlingame, CA to provide applicable exemption certificate(s). • Any lapse in payment may result in suspension of service and will require the payment of a setup fee to reinstate the subscription. • If submitting a Purchase Order, please include the following language: All pricing, terms and conditions of quote Q-100577 dated 4/9/2020 are incorporated into this Purchase Order by reference. • Granicus certifies that it will not sell, retain, use, or disclose any personal information provided by Client for any purpose other than the specific purpose of performing the services outlined within this Agreement. By signing this document, the undersigned certifies they have authority to enter the agreement. The undersigned also understands the services and terms. Billing Information Name: Phone: Email: Address: Burlingame, CA Signature: Name: Title: Date: BiFRL- 1NAGENDA NO: 8i STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 20, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 20, 2020 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 Subject: Approval of "Designation of Applicant's Agent" Resolution for the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the "Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution for Non -State Agencies" (CaIOES Form 130), which is required by the California Office of Emergency Services for the City to be eligible to receive funding for certain costs incurred in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND In response to the growing and evolving threat of the COVID-19 pandemic, the following actions have been taken at the local, state, and federal level: March 3, 2020: The County of San Mateo County Manager's Office issued a Public Health Emergency Proclamation, and along with the San Mateo County Health Officer, declared a local health emergency, which was ratified by the County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors on March 10, 2020. March 4, 2020: The Governor of the State of California declared a State of Emergency. March 13, 2020: The President of the United States declared a national emergency and on March 22, 2020, approved a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration (FEMA-DR-4482-CA). March 16, 2020: The City Council of the City of Burlingame proclaimed a local emergency. DISCUSSION In accordance with Section 502 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), eligible emergency protective measures taken to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic at the direction of guidance of public health officials may be reimbursed under Category B of the Federal Emergency Management Association's (FEMA) Public Assistance Program. 1 Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution (Cal OES 103) April 20, 2020 Federal funding is available to State, tribal, and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost -sharing basis for emergency protective measures, including, but not limited to: 1. Management, control, and reduction of immediate threats to public health and safety: a. Emergency Operation Center costs; (the City of Burlingame opened a multi - agency Emergency Operations Center on March 16, 2020) b. Training specific to the declared event; c. Disinfection of eligible public facilities; d. Technical assistance on emergency management and control of immediate threats to public health and safety. 2. Emergency medical care; 3. Purchase and distribution of food, water, ice, medicine, and other consumable supplies, including personal protective equipment (PPE) and hazardous material suits; 4. Security and law enforcement 5. Communications of general health and safety information to the public; and 6. Eligible overtime costs. The City of Burlingame has incurred costs related to emergency protective measures during this period, and submission of a "Request for Public Assistance" to the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (CaIOES) is expected to occur in accordance with forthcoming guidance from CalOES. If the City of Burlingame qualifies for reimbursement of COVID-19 emergency protective measures costs incurred during the period beginning March16, 2020, then a Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution for Non -State Agencies is required of all applicants to be eligible to receive funding. Further, this resolution will be valid for three years from the date signed and would allow the City of Burlingame to seek cost recovery for eligible disaster expenses incurred by any future Declared Disasters during this three-year period. FISCAL IMPACT Though the action of approving the Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution for Non -State Agencies has no direct impact to the City's budget, reimbursement of costs incurred by the City for its efforts toward emergency protective measures from the COVID-19 pandemic will potentially provide some relief from the financial impact to the City. Exhibit: • Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution for Non -State Agencies 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Cal OES ID No: Cal OES 130 DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION FOR NON -STATE AGENCIES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council (Governing Body) OF THE City of Burlingame (Name of Applicant) THAT City Manager OR (Title of Authorized Agent) Finance Director OR (Title of Authorized Agent) (Title of Authorized Agent) is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame , a public entity (Name of Applicant) established under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file it with the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of obtaining certain federal financial assistance under Public Law 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act. THAT the City of Burlingame a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, (Name of Applicant) hereby authorizes its agent(s) to provide to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services for all matters pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and agreements required. Please check the appropriate box below: ❑■ This is a universal resolution and is effective for all open and future disasters up to three (3) years following the date of approval below. ❑This is a disaster specific resolution and is effective for only disaster number(s) Passed and approved this 20th day of April 20 20 Emily Beach, Mayor (Name and Title of Governing Body Representative) Ann O'Brien Keighran, Vice Mayor I Meaghan Hassel -Shearer (Name) City of Burlingame (Name of Applicant) (Name and Title of Governing Body Representative) (Name and Title of Governing Body Representative) CERTIFICATION duly appointed and City Clerk (Title) of do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and approved by the City Council on the 20th Cal OES 130 (Rev.9/13) day of April (Signature) of the City of Burlingame (Governing Body) , 20_ City Clerk Page 1 (Name of Applicant) (Title) STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Cal OES 130 - Instructions Cal OES Form 130 Instructions A Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution for Non -State Agencies is required of all Applicants to be eligible to receive funding. A new resolution must be submitted if a previously submitted Resolution is older than three (3) years from the last date of approval, is invalid or has not been submitted. When completing the Cal OES Form 130, Applicants should fill in the blanks on page 1. The blanks are to be filled in as follows: Resolution Section: Governing Body: This is the group responsible for appointing and approving the Authorized Agents. Examples include: Board of Directors, City Council, Board of Supervisors, Board of Education, etc. Name of Applicant: The public entity established under the laws of the State of California. Examples include: School District, Office of Education, City, County or Non-profit agency that has applied for the grant, such as: City of San Diego, Sacramento County, Burbank Unified School District, Napa County Office of Education, University Southern California. Authorized Agent: These are the individuals that are authorized by the Governing Body to engage with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Governor's Office of Emergency Services regarding grants applied for by the Applicant. There are two ways of completing this section: 1. Titles Only: If the Governing Body so chooses, the titles of the Authorized Agents would be entered here, not their names. This allows the document to remain valid (for 3 years) if an Authorized Agent leaves the position and is replaced by another individual in the same title. If "Titles Only" is the chosen method, this document must be accompanied by a cover letter naming the Authorized Agents by name and title. This cover letter can be completed by any authorized person within the agency and does not require the Governing Body's signature. 2. Names and Titles: If the Governing Body so chooses, the names and titles of the Authorized Agents would be listed. A new Cal OES Form 130 will be required if any of the Authorized Agents are replaced, leave the position listed on the document or their title changes. Governing Body Representative: These are the names and titles of the approving Board Members. Examples include: Chairman of the Board, Director, Superintendent, etc. The names and titles cannot be one of the designated Authorized Agents, and a minimum of two or more approving board members need to be listed. Certification Section: Name and Title: This is the individual that was in attendance and recorded the Resolution creation and approval. Examples include: City Clerk, Secretary to the Board of Directors, County Clerk, etc. This person cannot be one of the designated Authorized Agents or Approving Board Member (if a person holds two positions such as City Manager and Secretary to the Board and the City Manager is to be listed as an Authorized Agent, then the same person holding the Secretary position would sign the document as Secretary to the Board (not City Manager) to eliminate "Self Certification." Cal OES 130 (Rev.9/13) Page 2 BiFRL- 1NAGENDA NO: 9a STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 20, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 20, 2020 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Jennifer Lee, Environmental Regulatory Compliance Manager — (650) 558- 7381 Sigalle Michael, Sustainability Coordinator — (650) 558-7261 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 8.10 of the Burlingame Municipal Code and Adopting a New Chapter 8.10 to Regulate the Use of Disoosable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a Public Hearing to introduce an Ordinance repealing Chapter 8.10 of the Burlingame Municipal Code and adopting a new Chapter 8.10 to regulate the use of disposable food service ware by food facilities by: 1. Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the attached Ordinance. 2. By motion, waiving further reading and introducing the proposed Ordinance. 3. Conducting a Public Hearing on the proposed Ordinance. 4. Discussing the proposed Ordinance and determining whether to bring it back for second reading and adoption. 5. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the Ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND In May 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1861 to prohibit the use of polystyrene - based disposable food service ware from food vendors ("Polystyrene Ban Ordinance"). Polystyrene is a petroleum -based, lightweight plastic material commonly used as food service ware by retail food vendors. Polystyrene, often referred to by the trademark Styrofoam, has become a problematic environmental pollutant given its non -biodegradable, and nearly non - reusable nature. Since the adoption of the Polystyrene Ban Ordinance, there has been increasing concern in the community over the impact of single -use plastic food ware items. Disposable food service ware, including cups, utensils, and straws, is a major contributor to street litter, water pollution, wildlife endangerment, and climate change. A San Francisco Bay Area study conducted by the Clean Water Fund found 67% of all litter collected was food or beverage take-out packaging. Many plastic disposable food service ware items are used for just a few minutes before becoming waste, which takes hundreds or even thousands of years to degrade. 1 Ordinance Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities April 20, 2020 DISCUSSION The San Mateo County Office of Sustainability (OOS) has conducted extensive research and worked closely with the County's Environmental Health Services to develop a Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance (Ordinance) that would reduce the amount of single -use disposable food service ware in the community. OOS completed a widespread community engagement and outreach process within unincorporated San Mateo County last summer and fall to gather feedback from different stakeholders on the draft Ordinance. OOS staff also communicated directly with a number of different entities to gather input, including county solid waste haulers, nearby industrial composting facilities, waste and stormwater-related joint powers authorities, restaurant and business associations, community advisory councils and committees, non-profit organizations, and educational institutions. OOS also solicited and received feedback from incorporated cities within the county (including the City of Burlingame) that are interested in adopting a similar ordinance for their jurisdiction. Before bringing this Ordinance to the City Council for adoption, City staff launched a public outreach effort and collected feedback through an online survey from August through September 30, 2019. This survey was publicized through a combination of digital media, traditional media, and direct outreach to stakeholders. Digital media platforms utilized included the City's eNews and Facebook, Nextdoor, and Instagram accounts. The Daily Journal featured an article about this outreach effort on the front page of their paper published on August 19, 2019. Furthermore, the City sent mailers to 206 food facilities in Burlingame, and emails to three local business associations, a local non-profit organization, and two high schools. As a result of this outreach effort, the City received 332 unique survey responses. Some of the questions and responses follow: 1. Do you support the City adopting this ordinance? • Yes: 291 respondents (87.7%) • No: 32 respondents (9.6%) • Other: 9 (not sure, undecided, and conditional) 2. Which of the following do you identify with? (select one or more options) • 1 live in Burlingame 297 respondents (89.5%) • 1 own property in Burlingame 163 respondents (49.1 %) • 1 work in Burlingame 73 respondents (22%) • 1 visit Burlingame 29 respondents (8.7%) • 1 go to school in Burlingame 13 respondents (3.9%) The last question, which was optional, provided an opportunity for survey respondents to elaborate on their position regarding the Ordinance. The feedback received from this survey was shared with OOS staff as input for the final version of the County's Ordinance. In addition, the questions received from this survey have been consolidated into a Frequently Asked Questions document attached to this staff report. 2 Ordinance Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities April 20, 2020 The purpose of the proposed Ordinance is three -fold: 1. Eliminate the unnecessary distribution and use of disposable food service ware that is not reusable or compostable. 2. Improve the health and safety of Burlingame community members by eliminating disposable food service ware that is harmful. 3. Help the City meet its regional stormwater permit requirements by reducing litter in stormwater discharges. The provisions of the proposed Ordinance are summarized below: 1. Accessories such as straws, stirrers, cup spill plugs, condiment packets, utensils, napkins, etc. shall be provided only: (1) when requested by the customer, (2) upon acceptance by the consumer after being offered by the food facility, or (3) at a self -serve area and/or a dispenser. Accessories will be distributed unbundled as separate individual units. Take- out food delivery services that utilize digital ordering platforms shall provide clear options for customers to affirmatively request accessories. 2. Polystyrene (#6 plastics, Styrofoam) disposable food service ware is prohibited. This is a provision that will be carried over from the Polystyrene Ban Ordinance. 3. Food facilities shall use disposable straws, stirrers, utensils, and cocktail/toothpicks (and the packaging that these individual items are wrapped in, if any) made from non -plastic, compostable materials. Non -plastic, compostable is defined as, but not limited to, natural fiber -based materials such as paper, sugarcane, wheat stalk/stem, bamboo, wood, etc. Traditional plastics (petroleum -based) and compostable plastics (a.k.a. bioplastics or polylactic acid [PLA]) shall not be allowed for the abovementioned items. 4. Food facilities shall use non -plastic, compostable plates, bowls, cups, food trays, clamshells, boxes, deli containers, and other containers. These items may be lined with, but not made entirely of, compostable plastic. Additionally, these items shall be certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) or by another third party approved by the OOS to ensure that the items break down in an industrial composting facility and are free of/have minimal traces of harmful fluorinated chemicals. 5. Some notable exemptions that will be allowed are summarized below: a. Prepackaged food is exempt from this Ordinance. b. Disposable plastic straws may be provided only upon request to consumers with medical needs. c. Healthcare facilities may distribute disposable plastic straws without a request from the patient. d. Drive -through areas of food facilities may distribute straws and cup sleeves without a request from the consumer. e. OOS will consider requests for a hardship exemption on a case -by -case basis. f. OOS will maintain a list of approved Disposable Food Service Ware sources and/or references to organizations that maintain regularly updated lists of products that meet the requirements of the Ordinance. The City received several comments from the online survey. Many of these comments have been addressed in the final version of the Ordinance. A summary of the questions received and the City's responses can be found in the attached Frequently Asked Questions document. Two major topics brought up from the survey warrant further discussion by the City Council: 3 Ordinance Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities April 20, 2020 1. Piloting public compost bins in downtown commercial districts to complement the Ordinance: currently, there are trash and recycling bins along Burlingame Avenue and Broadway. Additionally, City Hall and the Main Library have a three bin system (i.e., landfill, recycle, and compost). City staff request guidance from the City Council as to whether to pursue this pilot program. 2. Requiring businesses and multi -family residential buildings to provide composting services for food waste: existing regulations under the Commercial Organic Waste Recycling Law (AB 1826) require businesses and multi -family complexes that generate specified amounts of organic waste (e.g. yard waste and landscape materials) to arrange for organics collection services. However, composting food waste is not part of this State law. If adopted, the effective date will be 30 days after adoption, but the ordinance will not be enforced for one year. This is to provide food facilities sufficient time to use up their existing non- conforming inventory of disposable food service ware. Furthermore, OOS staff will use this one- year delay time to develop an education and enforcement program.1 1The County's original ordinance provided for a one-year lag before application of the substantive requirements and enforcement. However, it carved out a mandate to keep records of all disposable food service ware purchases for the year prior to actual operation of the rest of the ordinance. The failure to keep these records during the year before restaurants are required to exclusively use approved service ware can be prosecuted as its own violation. Given the current state of emergency and considerable distress it has caused to the restaurant industry, staff suggests that the record keeping requirement come online at the same time as the substantive requirements of the ordinance. Prosecuting Burlingame restaurants for failure to track their purchases of service ware during the current state of emergency does not appear to be consistent with Council's efforts to support local economic recovery. E OOS staff will take the lead in conducting an education and enforcement program for food facilities within incorporated cities that adopt the Ordinance. To date, staff in Belmont, Colma, Daly City, Millbrae, and South San Francisco have expressed interest in adopting this ordinance and will be bringing it for consideration by their respective City Councils. Working with the County to enforce a City ordinance is an arrangement already in use for the Polystyrene Ban Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 8.10) and the single -use carry -out bag ban (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 8.12). Enforcement will primarily be on a complaint basis. To help businesses comply with this ordinance, the County is piloting a new program called Rethink Disposables aimed at helping restaurants switch from disposable to reusable food service ware. This program also includes free technical assistance, recommendations, and potentially $500 to make the switch to reusable food ware. City staff have provided food facility recommendations to the County for this program. In addition, food facilities can choose to recover the costs of complying with the Ordinance by charging a small fee for straws, takeout boxes, cups, etc. for customers that want them. Similarly, food facilities can provide small incentives or discounts to encourage customers to bring a reusable container. City staff is also working on updating a Green Purchasing Policy to eliminate the use of non-compostable food service ware for internal City operations. Adopting this Ordinance would help meet Measure 18 (Zero Waste) from the City's newly adopted Climate Action Plan Update. As stated in the Climate Action Plan, the vision for this measure is to "attain zero waste in everyday life where most consumables are either recyclable, reusable, or compostable." Measure 18 is one of the top five highest greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies, and implementing this Ordinance could contribute to significant reductions. FISCAL IMPACT If the City Council adopts the County of San Mateo Ordinance by reference with no changes, there will be no fiscal impact to the City as the County's Office of Sustainability will lead the education and enforcement activities for the Ordinance. If changes to the Ordinance are desired to tailor it to the City of Burlingame, then this may lead to sole enforcement by the City, and further study would be required to determine the cost for preparation and staff resources (if warranted). Exhibits: • Proposed Ordinance • San Mateo County Ordinance • Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance Frequently Asked Questions 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REPEALING CHAPTER 8.10 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 8.10 REGULATING THE USE OF DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD FACILITIES The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: Division 1. Factual Background WHEREAS, the production, management, and consumption associated with disposable food service ware, typically used for only a few minutes before being discarded, have significant environmental impacts, including environmental contamination; consumption of precious resources such as energy and water; emissions of greenhouse gases; air and water pollution; litter on streets; and plastic pollution in waterways and oceans; and WHEREAS, disposable food service ware constitutes a portion of the litter found within the City of Burlingame and these types of food service ware are commonly littered or blown out of trash receptacles and migrate through the storm drain system where they eventually end up in local creeks and the San Francisco Bay; and WHEREAS, a San Francisco Bay Area study conducted by the Clean Water Fund found that 67% of all litter collected was food or beverage take-out packaging; and WHEREAS, polystyrene is a petroleum -based, lightweight plastic material which has become a problematic environmental pollutant given its non-compostable and nearly non -reusable nature; and WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo first adopted an ordinance prohibiting food vendors from using polystyrene based disposable food service ware in 2011; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame adopted the San Mateo County ordinance by reference in City Ordinance Number 1861 (2011); and WHEREAS, since that time, the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability (OOS) has conducted extensive research and worked closely with the County's Environmental Health Services Department to develop a new Disposable Food Service Ware ordinance that would reduce the amount of single -use disposable food service ware in our community; and WHEREAS, effective ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of disposable food service ware include, in order of priority, using reusable food service ware; using natural fiber -based compostable materials, many made from renewable resources such as bamboo, wheat stalk/stem, and sugarcane that do not contain toxic chemicals; and recycling food service ware; and WHEREAS, when products are reused and recycled, there is less demand for virgin materials; and when compostable products are turned into compost, they can reduce water use and lessen the need for fertilizer at the site where the compost is applied (e.g., gardens, yards, farm land, etc.); and WHEREAS, compostable food service ware such as cups, plates, clamshell containers, and utensils are now made from paper, sugarcane stalk, bamboo, wheat stalk/straw, and other blends of natural plant fibers which pose less of a danger compared to plastic as they degrade; and WHEREAS, even with the emergence of compostable plastics, which are derived from renewable biomass sources such as plants and microorganisms, there are limited certified types of compostable plastic that biodegrade in a marine environment; and WHEREAS, certain disposable food service ware, including compostable paperboard containers, may contain fluorinated chemicals, also known as per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), which are synthetic chemicals commonly used in disposable food service ware to repel water and grease. Fluorinated chemicals pose a public health risk as they have been linked to serious health effects including kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disruption, delayed puberty, and obesity; and WHEREAS, plastics in waterways and oceans break down into smaller pieces, called microplastics, that do not biodegrade and are present in most of the world's oceans. Microplastics consumed by marine organisms make their way into animals' tissues and are beginning to show up in the fish that humans consume. Plastic debris also attracts and concentrates ambient pollutants in seawater and freshwater, which can transfer to fish and other seafood that is eventually sold for human consumption; and WHEREAS, reduction of disposable food service in the environment will advance compliance with federal, state, and county clean water mandates, including the City's Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements, by helping to reduce trash and litter in stormwater discharges; and WHEREAS, understanding the importance of and need for reducing plastic litter, San Mateo County adopted a plastic bag ban ordinance in 2012 and the City of Burlingame adopted this model ordinance by reference which went into effect on April 22, 2013; and WHEREAS, the County Office of Sustainability coordinated with a number of different entities, including local cities, county solid waste haulers, nearby industrial composting facilities, waste and stormwater-related joint powers authorities, and restaurant and business associations, community advisory councils and committees, non-profit organizations, and educational institutions before drafting their ordinance; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2020, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors repealed the 2011 polystyrene ban ordinance, and replaced it with a new Disposable Food Service Ware ordinance which would restrict the use by food facilities of polystyrene -based disposable food service ware and require the replacement of non- compostable or non -recyclable disposable food service ware with compostable alternatives that are non -plastic, natural fiber -based, and free of all intentionally added fluorinated chemicals when and where possible; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has conducted a public outreach campaign in August and September of 2019 to determine whether or not the Burlingame residential and business communities supported adopting such an ordinance; and WHEREAS, response to the outreach campaign showed that over 85% of respondents supported such an ordinance; and WHEREAS, implementing the Disposable Food Service Ware ordinance would help meet Measure 18 (Zero Waste) from the City's newly adopted Climate Action Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to follow the County of San Mateo and adopt an ordinance reducing single -use plastic food -ware by food facilities within the City. 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 Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 8.10 is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety by a new Chapter 8.10 to be numbered and entitled and to read as follows: Chapter 8.10 REGULATING THE USE OF DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE 8.10.010 Adoption of San Mateo County ordinance bV reference. Chapter 4.107 of Title 4 of the San Mateo County Code of Ordinances, entitled "Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware," and any amendment thereto, are hereby adopted by this reference and made part of the Burlingame Municipal Code and are, accordingly, effective in this City. Certified copies of Chapter 4.107 of Title 4, as adopted hereby, and any subsequent amendment, shall be deposited with the City Clerk, and shall be at all times maintained by the Clerk for use and examination by the public. 8.10.020 Authorization of enforcement by San Mateo County personnel. The County Manager of the County of San Mateo or their designee is hereby authorized to enforce, on behalf of the City, Chapter 4.107 "Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware" of Title 4 of the San Mateo County Code of Ordinances, and any amendments thereto, within the City's jurisdiction. Such enforcement authority includes, but is not limited to, the authority to hold hearings, issue citations, and assess administrative fines on behalf of the City. DIVISION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. nnii.qinNv a - This Ordinance is exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the provisions contained herein may have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the Ordinance is also exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as actions taken by regulatory agencies to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement of natural resources, or protection of the environment. DIVISION 5: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. However, the mandatory provisions of Chapter 4.107 of the San Mateo County Code of Ordinances, including Section 4.107.050 (a)(1), shall only become operative and subject to enforcement one year (365 days) after the effective date of this ordinance. 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 20t" 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 ORDINANCE NO.. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTERS 4.106 AND 4.107 OF THE SAN MATEO COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 4.107 REGULATING THE USE OF DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD FACILITIES The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, State of California, ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Board of Supervisors finds and determines that: (a) The production, management, and consumption associated with disposable food service ware, typically used for only a few minutes before being discarded, have significant environmental impacts, including environmental contamination; consumption of precious resources such as energy and water; emissions of greenhouse gases; air and water pollution; litter on streets; and plastic pollution in waterways and oceans. (b) Disposable food service ware constitutes a substantial portion of the litter found within San Mateo County and the rest of the Bay Area. These types of food service ware are commonly littered or blown out of trash receptacles and migrate through the storm drain system where they eventually end up in the ocean and the county's beaches and creeks. (c) Polystyrene is a petroleum -based, lightweight plastic material commonly used as food service ware by retail food vendors. Polystyrene, often referred to by the trademark, Styrofoam, has also become a problematic environmental pollutant given its non-compostable and nearly non -reusable nature. (d) The most effective ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of disposable food service ware include, in order of priority, using reusable food service ware; using natural -fiber based compostable materials, many made from renewable resources such as bamboo, wheat stalk/stem, and sugarcane that do not contain toxic chemicals; and recycling food service ware. When products are reused and recycled, natural resources are spared, less energy is used for the production of new products, and premium landfill space is preserved. When compostable products are turned into compost, they can reduce water use and lessen the need for fertilizer at the site where the compost is applied (e.g., gardens, yards, farm land, etc.), which can also lead to cost savings since less/no fertilizers need to be purchased. (e) Compostable food service ware such as cups, plates, clamshell containers, and utensils are now made from paper, sugarcane stalk, bamboo, wheat stalk/straw, and other blends of natural plant fibers. As these products degrade, they pose less of a danger to the environment. (f) Even with the emergence of compostable plastics, which are derived from renewable biomass sources such as plants and microorganisms, there are limited certified types of compostable plastic that biodegrade in a marine environment. (g) Certain disposable food service ware, including compostable paperboard containers, may contain fluorinated chemicals, also known as per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), which are synthetic chemicals commonly used in disposable food service ware to repel water and grease. Fluorinated chemicals pose a public health risk as they have been linked to serious health effects including kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disruption, delayed puberty, and obesity. (h) Plastics in waterways and oceans break down into smaller pieces, called microplastics, that do not biodegrade and are present in most of the world's oceans. Microplastics consumed by marine organisms make their way into animals' tissues and are beginning to show up in the fish that humans consume. Plastic debris also attracts and concentrates ambient pollutants in seawater and freshwater, which can transfer to fish and other seafood that is eventually sold for human consumption. (i) Reduction of disposable food service ware in the environment will advance compliance with federal, state, and county clean water mandates, including the County's Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirement, by helping to reduce trash and litter in stormwater discharges. (j) Understanding the importance of and need for reducing plastic litter, the County adopted a plastic bag ban ordinance in 2012. Adopting this Ordinance will help further reduce the amount of litter entering the county's storm drains, creeks, the bay, and the ocean. (k) This Board does, accordingly, find and declare that it should restrict the use by food facilities of polystyrene -based disposable food service ware and require the replacement of non-compostable or non -recyclable disposable food service ware with compostable alternatives that are non -plastic, natural fiber -based, and free of all intentionally added fluorinated chemicals, when and where possible. SECTION 2. Chapters 4.016 and 4.107 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code are hereby repealed and replaced in their entirety by a new Chapter 4.107 to be numbered and entitled and to read as follows: CHAPTER 4.107 REGULATING THE USE OF DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE 4.107.010 —Application of Chapter. (a) The provisions of this chapter shall apply only within the unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. (b) Food Facilities at the San Francisco International Airport and the San Francisco County Jail located in the unincorporated San Mateo County area of San Bruno are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. 4.107.020 — Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Aluminum Foil -based" means any Disposable Food Service Ware composed entirely of aluminum, including but not limited to aluminum tray liners, aluminum foil, and aluminum foil baskets. (b) "Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI)" refers to a certification program that ensures that products and packaging displaying the BPI logo have been independently tested and verified accordingly to scientifically based standards to successfully break down in professionally managed industrial composting facilities. BPI -certified products meet the standards of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) D6400 or D6868 for compostability. Starting on January 1, 2020, all BPI -certified products will also be required to have (1) a limit of 100 parts per million (ppm) total Fluorinated Chemicals as the upper threshold for acceptance and (2) no intentionally added Fluorinated Chemicals. (c) "Compostable" means that an item or material (1) will break down, or otherwise become part of usable compost in a safe and timely manner and (2) is Natural Fiber -based or made from other materials approved by the County Manager or designee. Compostable items may include those that are made entirely of Natural Fiber or Natural Fiber -based items that are coated or lined with biologically based polymer, such as corn or other plant sources (e.g., compostable plastics), if certified by BPI or by another independent third party approved by the County Manager or designee. (d) "Disposable" means designed to be discarded after a single or limited number of uses and not designed or manufactured for long-term multiple reuse. (e) "Food Service Ware" means food contact products used for serving, distributing, holding, packaging, and/or transporting Prepared Food including, but not limited to plates, cups, bowls, trays, clamshell containers, boxes, utensils, straws, lids, and food contact paper (e.g., wraps, bags, tray liners, etc.). The term "Food Service Ware" includes Food Service Ware Accessories. (f) "Food Service Ware Accessories" include Food Service Ware such as straws, stirrers, cup spill plugs, cup sleeves, condiment packets, utensils (including chopsticks), cocktail sticks/picks, toothpicks, napkins, and other similar accessory or accompanying Food Service Ware used as part of food or beverage service or packaging. Detachable lids for beverage cups and food containers are not considered a Food Service Ware Accessory. (g) "Fluorinated Chemicals" means perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS chemicals) or fluorinated chemicals, which are a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. (h) "Food Facility" means an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food to the public for human consumption, as defined by the California Health and Safety Code Section 113789 or successor. It includes both permanent and temporary food facilities. Public schools are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. (i) "Food Scrap Composting Method" means (1) self -hauling of food scraps to a permitted composting facility or a transfer station that accepts food scraps that will be transferred to a permitted composting facility for on -site compost processing, (2) food scrap compost collection service provided by a curbside hauler, or (3) on -site food scrap composting. (j) "Healthcare Facilities" mean places that provide healthcare to the public. Healthcare Facilities includes, but is not limited to hospitals, clinics, outpatient care centers, nursing homes, psychiatric care centers, medical offices, hospice homes, mental health and addiction treatment centers, orthopedic and other rehabilitation centers, urgent care, birth centers, etc. (k) "Natural Fiber/Natural Fiber -based" means a plant or animal -based, non - synthetic fiber, including but not limited to products made from paper, sugarcane, bamboo, wheat stems/stalk, hay, wood, etc. (1) "Non-Compostable" means not meeting the definition of Compostable set forth in this Chapter. (m) "Polystyrene -based" means and includes expanded polystyrene, which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, form molding, and extrusion -blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). The term "polystyrene" also includes polystyrene that has been expanded or blown using a gaseous blowing agent into a solid foam (expanded polystyrene [EPS]) and clear or solid polystyrene known as oriented polystyrene. (n) "Prepackaged Food" means any properly labeled processed food, prepackaged to prevent any direct human contact with the food product upon distribution from the manufacturer and prepared at an approved source. (o) "Prepared Food" means food or beverages that undergo a cooking or food preparation technique on the Food Facility's premises for consumption by the public. Cooking or food preparation technique includes, but is not limited to the following: Cooking methods, utilizing the application of heat, such as steaming, microwaving, simmering, boiling, broiling, grilling, frying, or roasting. 2. Beverage preparation, such as blending, brewing, steeping, juicing, diluting, or pouring. 3. Food preparation techniques, such as defrosting, rinsing, washing, diluting, cutting, portioning, mixing, blending, assembling, coating, dipping, garnishing, decorating, or icing. Prepared Food does not include raw eggs or raw, butchered meats, fish, and/or poultry sold from a butcher case, a refrigerator case, or similar retail appliance. (p) "Takeout Food" means Prepared Food requiring no further preparation, which is purchased to be consumed off a Prepared Food Facility's premises. Takeout Food includes Prepared Food delivered by a Food Facility or by a third -party Takeout Food Delivery Service. (q) "Takeout Food Delivery Service" is a service that delivers Takeout Food from a Food Facility to a customer for consumption off the premises. This service can be provided directly by the Food Facility or by a third -party. 4.107.030 — Distribution of Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories. (a) No Food Facility shall provide any Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories except (1) upon request by the consumer, (2) upon acceptance by the consumer after being offered by the Food Facility, or (3) at a self -serve area and/or a dispenser. (b) Food Facilities shall only distribute Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories unbundled, as separate individual units. (c) Takeout Food Delivery Services that utilize digital ordering/point of sale platforms, including but not limited to the internet and smart -phone, shall only offer Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories by providing clear options for customers to affirmatively request these items separate from orders for food and beverages. The default option on the digital ordering/point of sale platforms shall be that no Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories are requested. Each individual Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory (e.g., each fork, knife, condiment packet, napkin, etc.) provided with Prepared Food must be specifically requested by the customer in order for a Food Facility to provide it. 4.107.040 — Standards and Required Use of Disposable Food Service Ware. (a) No Food Facility shall use Polystyrene -based Disposable Food Service Ware when providing Prepared Food. (b) Food Facilities shall only provide Disposable straws, stirrers, utensils, and cocktail/toothpicks (and the packaging that these individual items are wrapped in, if any) that are Compostable. (c) Nothing in this Chapter shall conflict or be construed to conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act or any other applicable law concerning the rights of individuals with disabilities. In particular, nothing in this Chapter shall restrict, or be construed to restrict, the provision by Food Facilities of Disposable Non- Compostable straws to individuals who may request the use of Disposable Non- Compostable straws to accommodate medical needs or disabilities. Healthcare Facilities may distribute Disposable Non-Compostable straws with or without request by a patient at the discretion of the Healthcare Facility staff based on the physical or medical needs of the patient. (d) Food Facilities shall use Compostable items for the below Disposable Food Service Ware: 1. Plates 2. Bowls (of all sizes including, but not limited to soup and salad bowls and accessory bowls for condiments) 3. Cups (of all sizes including, but not limited to beverage cups) 4. Food trays 5. Clamshells, boxes, deli containers, and other containers used for the sale and/or distribution of Prepared Food (e.g., Takeout Food, leftover "doggie containers", etc.) (e) Compostable items for the Disposable Food Service Ware listed in Subsection (d) used by Food Facilities must have been tested to breakdown into compost in an industrial composting facility in a timely manner and shall be free of all intentionally added Fluorinated Chemicals. To verify, these items shall be certified by Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) or another independent third party approved by the County Manager or designee, in collaboration with local waste processors and haulers. (f) For all other Disposable Food Service Ware not listed in Subsections (b) and (d), Food Facilities shall use only Disposable Food Service Ware that can be composted by the Food Scrap Composting method utilized by the Food Facility and/or accepted for recycling by the Food Facility's recycling collection service. (g) The County shall maintain a list of approved Disposable Food Service Ware sources and/or references to organizations that maintain regularly updated lists of products that meet the requirements detailed in Subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this Section. This information shall be made available on the Office of Sustainability website and in the Office. If a product is not included on the approved lists, the Food Facility wishing to use a product as Disposable Food Service Ware shall establish to the County Manager or designee's satisfaction that the product complies with the requirements detailed in Subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e). 4.107.050 — Recordkeeping and Inspection. (a) Food Facilities shall keep complete and accurate record or documents of the below items. 1. Commencing on the effective date of this Ordinance and ending 365 days from the Ordinance effective date, the purchase of all Disposable Food Service Ware, including Non-Compostable and Compostable items. 2. The purchase of the acceptable Disposable Food Service Ware evidencing compliance with this Chapter for a minimum period of three years from the date of purchase. (b) The record shall be made available for inspection at no cost to the County during regular business hours by County employee or County -designated staff authorized to enforce this Chapter. Unless an alternative location or method of review is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be made available at the Food Facility address. (c) The provision of false or incomplete information, records, or documents to the County shall be a violation of this Chapter. 4.107.060 — Automatic Exemptions. (a) Prepackaged Food is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. (b) Polystyrene coolers and ice chests intended for reuse are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. (c) Disposable Food Service Ware that is entirely Aluminum Foil -based is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. (d) If the County determines that a reasonably feasible Disposable Food Service Ware that complies with Section 4.107.040 (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this Chapter does not exist, these items will be exempt from the abovementioned provisions of this Chapter until the County determines that a reasonably feasible alternative is available on the market for purchase. The County will have a current list of these exempted Disposable Food Service Ware posted on the Office of Sustainability website with hard copies available in the Office. (e) Certain Disposable Food Service Ware Accessories for beverage orders, specifically, straws and cup sleeves, shall be exempt from Section 4.107.030 (a) and may be distributed for safety reasons without the need for a request by the consumer or an offer by the Food Facility, specifically at drive -through areas of Food Facilities. Detachable lids are not considered a Disposable Food Service Ware Accessory, so Section 4.107.030 (a) does not apply to detachable lids. (f) Temporary exemptions due to an emergency are automatic without the submission of a request for an exemption. An emergency is defined as a sudden, unexpected occurrence posing a clear and imminent danger that requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services. Examples of an emergency include, but are not limited to natural disasters, emergencies due to the release of hazardous materials, emergencies associated with loss of power and/or water, or emergency medical response. 4.107.070 — Case -by -Case Consideration of Requests for Hardship Exemption. (a) Grounds for an exemption. An exemption from any of the provisions of this Chapter may be granted by the County Manager or designee upon demonstration by a Food Facility to the satisfaction of the County that strict application of the requirements would cause undue hardship. An "undue hardship" includes, but is not limited to the following: A situation unique to the Food Facility where a suitable alternative that conforms with the requirements detailed in Section 4.107.040 (a), (b), (d), and (e) does not exist for a specific application. 2. Imposing the provisions of this Chapter would cause significant economic hardship. "Significant economic hardship" may be based on, but not limited to, demonstrating that suitable Disposable Food Service Ware is not available at a commercially reasonable price and the additional cost associated with providing the Disposable Food Service Ware is particularly burdensome to the Food Facility based on the type of operation(s) affected, the overall size of the business/operation, the number, type and location of its facilities, the impact on the overall financial resources of the Food Facility, and other factors. Reasonable added cost for a suitable item as compared to a similar item that the Food Facility can no longer use shall not by itself constitute adequate grounds to support an exemption for such item. In determining whether a significant economic hardship has been established, the County Manager or designee shall consider the following information: ability of the Food Facility to recover the additional expense by increasing its prices; the availability of tax credits and deductions; outside funding; and other options. (b) Request for an exemption. A request for an exemption from the requirements of this Chapter shall include all information deemed necessary by the County to render a decision, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the requested exemption. A request for an exemption may be approved by the County Manager or designee, in whole or in part, with or without conditions. The duration of the exemption, if granted, shall also be determined by the County Manager or designee. Information about the application process for requesting an exemption will be available on the Office of Sustainability's website and in the Office. 4.107.080 — Enforcement. (a) The County Manager or designee may enforce this Chapter. (b) A violation of this Chapter is an infraction and is also punishable by administrative fines as set forth in Chapter 1.40. (c) Violation of this Chapter is a public nuisance subject to all applicable civil, administrative, and criminal remedies and penalties according to the provisions and procedures contained in this ordinance code and state law including, but not limited to, an action for abatement or injunctive relief. (d) This Section shall not be interpreted to limit any otherwise available civil or administrative remedies under law. 4.107.090 — Enforcement within Incorporated Areas of County of San Mateo. (a) The County Manager or designee is hereby authorized to and may enforce Chapter 4.107 within an incorporated city within the County of San Mateo, if the governing body of that city does each of the following: 1. Adopts and makes part of its municipal code: i. Chapter 4.107 in its entirety by reference; or ii. An ordinance that contains each of the provisions of Chapter 4.107. 2. Authorizes, by ordinance, the County Manager or designee to enforce the municipal code adopted pursuant to Subsection (a)(1), such authorization to include, without limitation, the authority to hold hearings, issue citations, or assess administrative fines on behalf of the city. 3. Enters into a Memorandum of Understanding with the County for enforcement within the city. (b) The County Manager or designee shall only provide enforcement within an incorporated city if it has determined that it has adequate resources to do so. SECTION 3. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Finding. This Ordinance is exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the provisions contained herein may have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the Ordinance is also exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as actions taken by regulatory agencies to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement of natural resources, or protection of the environment. SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Chapter 4.107, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of the Chapter. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have passed this Chapter, and each provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Chapter or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after adoption. However, the mandatory provisions of this Ordinance, except for Section 4.107.050 (a)(1), shall only become operative and subject to enforcement one year (365 days) after the effective date. Proposed Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance Frequently Asked Questions 1. Is the Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance coordinated with San Mateo County and other cities in the county? Yes, this Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance (ordinance) was proposed and drafted by the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors adopted this ordinance at their February 25, 2020 meeting. Interested cities that want to follow the County's lead may bring it to their respective City/Town Councils for consideration and adoption. 2. If this ordinance gets passed, will the City of Burlingame consider adding three waste management boxes (landfill, recycle, and compost) throughout the city? Many compostable items end up in the landfill instead of the compost since there are no convenient compost bins in public spaces. Currently, the City does not provide compost bins in public areas and this potential ordinance is a good opportunity to look into this further. The City is actively working with Recology to explore options for putting compost bins in public parks and downtown areas. 3. Why are compostable plastics not allowed in this ordinance? One of the main goals of this ordinance is to reduce the production, management, and consumption associated with disposable food service ware since they are typically used for only a few minutes before being discarded and have significant environmental impacts by contributing to plastic pollution in waterways and oceans. Plastics in waterways and oceans break down into smaller pieces called microplastics that do not biodegrade and are present in most of the world's oceans. Microplastics consumed by marine organisms make their way into animals' tissues and are beginning to show up in the fish that humans consume. Given this information, compostable plastics are not allowed because when littered, they do not easily biodegrade in the San Francisco Bay compared to fiber -based products. 4. Does Recology San Mateo accept fiber -based materials in their composting program? Yes, Recology does accept fiber -based food service ware that are compliant with this ordinance in the green compost bin. If this ordinance is adopted, both the City of Burlingame and the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability will conduct education and outreach as part of implementation. 5. How will consumers be informed as to which of the new food service wares are landfill vs. recyclable vs. compostable? Is there an educational outreach program for residents as well as business owners? Education and outreach to both food facilities and the community at large will be part of the implementation of this ordinance. The San Mateo County Office of Sustainability will take the lead in conducting outreach for this ordinance. 6. Is there an exemption for people with disabilities who require a plastic straw to drink? Yes, this is already included in the ordinance. Individuals may request a disposable straw (i.e. plastic straws) to accommodate medical needs or disabilities. In addition, healthcare facilities may distribute plastic straws with or without request by a patient at the discretion of the healthcare facility staff. 1 of 5 Updated 212612020 Proposed Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance - Frequently Asked Questions 7. Does the City also require businesses and multi family housing units to provide composting services? 1 live in an apartment and would love to compost but do not have the facilities to do so. The mandatory Commercial Organic Waste Recycling Law (AB 1826) became effective on January 1, 2016 and requires businesses and multi -family complexes (with 5 or more units) that generate specified amounts of organic waste (e.g. yard waste and landscape materials) to arrange for organics collection services. This includes schools, hospitals, stores, restaurants, for -profit, or nonprofit organizations, as well as residential dwellings with 5+ units. Starting January 1, 2020 this law will apply to businesses and multi -family dwellings that generate 2 cubic yards (54 cubic feet) or more per week of garbage. Note that multi -family dwellings are not required by AB 1826 to compost food waste, but they are required to ensure that yard waste and landscape materials generated on -site are composted. If you would like to subscribe to a compost program at your property for food waste, please contact Recology's Waste Zero Team at GreenYourBiz@Recology.com or (650) 595-3900. If you live in an apartment that does not currently subscribe to Recology's composting service, you can still compost at home. A worm composting bin is an inexpensive and easy system to maintain that will allow you to turn your food scraps into compost, which you can use for indoor and outdoor plants. If you would like to learn how to compost at home but don't know where to start, sign up for a free composting workshop. Here are some organizations that host composting workshops: • San Mateo County Office of Sustainability - www.smcsustainability.org/events • Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency - http://bawsca.org/conserve/programs/classes • UC Master Gardeners - http://smsf-mastergardeners.ucanr.edu/classes 8. Is there a program available to provide businesses with resources about how to obtain substitutes for single -use products (i.e. plastic silverware, plastic water cups, etc.)? I am concerned that this ordinance will create an unintended hardship for small businesses to comply. There will be a mix of both cost savings and spending. This ordinance will require that food service ware accessories (e.g., straws, stirrers, cup spill plugs, etc.) are only provided upon request by the consumer, upon acceptance by the consumer, or at a self -serve area which can yield a cost savings for food facilities as they will be distributing fewer accessories to those who want it. However, non -plastic compostable items tend to cost more than the traditional plastics so some food facilities will incur an increase in cost of operations. This ordinance will be a good opportunity to help catalyze some of the food facilities to critically evaluate their use of disposables and look into switching to reusable food service ware for their long-term operations. In the long-term, switching to reusable items will save food facilities more money than continuing to supply single -use disposable plastic food ware. The County is piloting a program called Rethink Disposable where they provide free technical assistance and up to $500 to help restaurants switch from disposable to reusable food service ware. If successful, this program will become available to all restaurants throughout the county on an on -going basis. In addition, most of the trash generated in San Mateo County goes to Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill (including Burlingame's). In the future, when this landfill is full, we may see a substantial increase in our garbage rates if our trash needs to be hauled to another landfill outside of the county that has a higher capacity. The more we can do to prolong the life expectancy of Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, the more food facilities and customers will be able to save money in the long run. 2 of 5 Updated 212612020 Proposed Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance - Frequently Asked Questions 9. Would this ordinance apply to delis in grocery stores or the use of plastic in other parts of a grocery store? This ordinance will impact delis in grocery stores, specifically food service ware that is used to distribute prepared food. Most grocery stores however sell prepackaged food, which is outside the scope of this ordinance. Those prepackaged food items will not be required to meet the requirements of the ordinance. 10. Are restaurants able to charge a small fee for straws, takeout boxes, cups, etc. for customers that want them (similar to paper bags at the grocery store)? Yes, this will be up to the food facility on how they want to recover their costs of complying with this ordinance. 11. Are customers allowed to bring their own reusable food ware containers to restaurants? 1 would also like to see publicity to encourage the public to bring their own cups, bags and containers. Transitioning to reusable containers is the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability's long-term goal for the county and would also support the City of Burlingame's zero waste goal. In the meantime, this ordinance will help meet that goal by focusing on reducing disposable food service ware. There are some incentives already to encourage customers to bring a reusable container. For example, some cafes accept their customers' reusable mug and even offer discounts (e.g., 10 cents) off the price of their drink. Another way to reduce single -use items is to bring your own container when dining at restaurants. AB 619 is a recent legislation that was signed into law and provides more guidance for food facilities to accept reusable containers from customers. It also ends the requirement that temporary food facilities at community events provide single -use food ware by allowing (not mandating) that vendors at street festivals, county fairs, outdoor concerns, and other community events to serve food and beverages in washable cups, dishes, and utensils. 12. If this ordinance is adopted, does it go into effect immediately? No, the ordinance states that there is a one year (365 days) delay time after the effective date until the ordinance is operative and subject to enforcement. 13. Does this ordinance apply to schools? Private schools (not public schools) will be required to comply with this ordinance. Because public school districts are managed directly by the State, they will not be required to comply. However, the City strongly encourages voluntary compliance and the County may be able to provide assistance to schools. 14. Will this ordinance include eliminating black plastic from takeout containers since they cannot be recycled at Recology? Yes, this ordinance will require fiber -based compostable plates, bowls, cups, food trays, clamshells, boxes, deli containers, and other containers to be used for the sale and/or distribution of prepared food. Note that this does not include prepackaged food which is exempt from this ordinance. 3 of 5 Updated 212612020 Proposed Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance - Frequently Asked Questions 15. Does this ordinance also include eliminating plastic bags? No, this ordinance is intended to reduce disposable plastic food service ware (such as plates, cups, bowls, trays, straws). Plastic bags are not considered as a food service ware or accessory. Furthermore, the Burlingame City Council adopted the County of San Mateo's program restricting the use of single -use carry -out bags which went into effect on April 22, 2013. Additional restrictions on plastic bags outside of the 2013 ordinance is not part of the scope of this ordinance. If you have plastic bags and are looking for a place to recycle them since they are not recyclable in the blue recycling bin, there is a plastic bag recycling bin available at Mollie Stone's and Safeway in downtown Burlingame. 16. Given that people may have allergies to some materials that are used in the manufacturing of these fiber -based containers, specifically wheat and hay, the ordinance should include language that discloses from what material the fiber -based containers are made from. The San Mateo County Office of Sustainability (OOS) did a combination of emailing and online research around this concern, including reaching out to a few of the main manufacturers such as World Centric and Eco Products. From this outreach effort, OOS discovered that the disposable food ware made from wheat are made specifically from the stalk/stem of the wheat and not the grain itself. This is an important distinction because the stalks/stems of wheat plants do not store protein, gluten, or allergens. Those are stored in the grains of wheat, which are harvested for consumption. OOS confirmed with World Centric, Eco Products, and a few other manufacturers that make wheat disposable food ware that this is indeed the case for their products. Based on the information provided from these companies, community members with wheat/gluten allergies should be able to eat food from food ware made from wheat stalk/stem. OOS will be integrating this information into their outreach with food facilities and the public if the ordinance is adopted. 17. I've been reading that some of these compostable takeout containers may contain chemicals that are not good for humans or the environment. Is there a way to make sure that we are only allowing healthy food service ware products in this ordinance? Yes, the ordinance will only allow compostable food service ware products that are free of all intentionally added fluorinated chemicals (i.e., per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substance or PFAS will not be allowed in this ordinance) and must be certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI). For more information about products that are BPI certified compostable, please visit www.bpiworld.org. 18. Many fiber -based takeout containers do not have a transparent lid, which makes it difficult for our customers to see what's inside the container. Also, fiber -based containers can be more susceptible to leaks than plastic containers. Is there a way to accommodate for these types of conditions? Thank you for your feedback. To cater to grab -and -go food facilities, the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability has updated the final ordinance which now states that detachable lids are not considered a disposable food service ware accessory. This will allow lids for food ware to be clear and be made from any plastic. The body of the food ware will still need to be fiber -based. Allowing lids to be plastic but the rest of the food ware container be fiber -based may be a good compromise to some of the concerns from other grab -and -go food facilities. 4 of 5 Updated 212612020 Proposed Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance - Frequently Asked Questions 19. Some grab -and -go businesses rely exclusively on plastic cups and plastic straws. How can these businesses comply when most of the products they currently use will be noncompliant? Although this ordinance will impact grab -and -go businesses the most, there are similar businesses in the Bay Area that are starting to adapt to similar laws that are being passed. San Francisco recently banned plastic straws and we are seeing an increase in the number of options for purchasing non -plastic straws. In addition, food facilities could consider selling branded reusable cups and straws to encourage customers to reuse them and perhaps offer a discount to those that bring their own cup. 5 of 5 Updated 212612020 BiJRL- iN�aME AGENDA NO: 10a STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 20, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 20, 2020 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director — (650) 558-7307 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with BHM Construction, Inc. for the Construction of the New Community Center, City Project #83240, at a Cost of $39,967,000 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an Agreement with BHM Construction, Inc. for the construction of the new Community Center, City Project #83240, at a cost of $39,967,000. BACKGROUND Since 2012, City staff, in collaboration with Group 4 Architecture, the Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC), and community members, has been working on developing plans for a new Community Center in Washington Park. The work included the development of a Master Plan for the active areas of the park and identified the site locations of the park amenities (Community Center Master Plan) and conceptual designs of the proposed building within the Master Plan. The City Council approved the Community Center Master Plan on July 7, 2014. Since that time, the City Council has held study sessions, and the City has gathered input through an Advisory Committee, at Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission meetings, as well as at community meetings and public events. Information about the process and public outreach plan can be found at httr)s://www.burlinaame.ora/r)arksandrec/facilities/r)roiects/communitv center conceatual nFTiw'a 0 At the July 2, 2018 Council meeting, the City Council chose to move forward with the pavilions style building, a 35,700 square foot Community Center with parking under and adjacent to the new center. The project also includes a new relocated playground, picnic area, and basketball court, and an indoor and outdoor stage. The tennis courts, Lions Club building, ballfields, and Parking Lot X will remain unchanged. The July meeting was followed by a City Council study session on September 17, 2018 where staff and Group 4 presented a Schematic Design progress update and received input and direction on the project scope and budget, including add alternates, selection of the underground parking option, approval of the early site package, and approval of the exterior material palette. 1 Agreement with BHM Construction, Inc. for the Construction of the Community Center Project April 20, 2020 At the September 20, 2018 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting and the September 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, City staff and Group 4 presented a schematic design progress update, including relaying to the Commissioners the input that the Council provided at its study session. On November 5, 2018, the City Council unanimously approved the schematic design and phasing for the new Community Center. Since the November 5, 2018 City Council meeting, staff and Group 4 have worked collaboratively to refine the floor plans, building systems, and design, including holding a series of technical meetings and Integrated Design Workshops to allow for direct dialogue between City staff from multiple departments and the design team. Environmental Review An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, including the evaluation of the removal of protected sized trees in Washington Park. The draft IS/MND determined that there would be no environmental impacts identified that could not be mitigated to less than significant levels. As mandated by State law, the minimum public review comment period for this document was 20 days. The community was notified of the draft document through a mailing to the CEQA Document Notification List and properties within 300 feet of the Recreation Center, posting in the newspaper and on the City website, posting 24"x36" signage in three locations in Washington Park, and placing hard copies at the Recreation Center, City Hall, and the Library. During this public review period for the IS/MND (September 13, 2018 to October 3, 2018), the City received no public comments. The City Council adopted the IS/MND and the Mitigated Monitoring Report Program (MMRP) at the December 3, 2018 City Council meeting. Contractor Pre -Qualification Process In order to ensure an efficient, cost effective, and competitive bidding process for the construction of the new Community Center, staff determined that a pre -qualification process was prudent. The purpose of this pre -qualification process is to ensure that only contractors with the proper experience and qualifications are identified and pre -qualified in advance of the public bidding. The process also allows the City to more fully determine the qualifications and responsiveness of potential bidders in advance, thereby reducing the likelihood of a bidder challenging the low bid. Moreover, pre -qualification potentially reduces project costs and project -related construction delays and promotes the proper and safe completion of the project in conformance with the contract requirements. It helps the City obtain the highest quality bid for the lowest price. The notice to prospective bidders advertising the pre -qualification process was issued on September 9, 2019, and closed on October 16, 2019. The City received submittals from seven construction firms. City staff and the City's construction management firm reviewed the submittals for completeness and rated them based on a uniform system of rating. Based on the pre -qualification criteria, the following construction firms were determined to be qualified to submit construction bids for the Community Center Project: 1. Alten Construction 2. BHM Construction, Inc. 2 Agreement with BHM Construction, Inc. for the Construction of the Community Center Project April 20, 2020 3. Amoroso Construction 4. Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc. At the November 18, 2019 City Council Meeting, the Council adopted a resolution approving the list of pre -qualified bidders for the construction of the Community Center Project. ni-qri is_qinhi The project was advertised for construction bids on January 16, 2020, with a submittal deadline of February 27, 2020. The submittal deadline was extended to March 24, 2020 due to the need for additional structural design to the foundation based on the geotechnical reports that raised concern about sea level rise and the ability of the underground parking garage to withstand a higher water table. The engineer's fee to revise the construction specification was $59,230. The engineer's estimate for the additional work related to the foundation of the parking garage during construction is $905,000. These costs have been incorporated into the project bid amount below. Bidders were instructed to bid a lump sum proposal for all labor and materials required to complete the project. In addition, four add -alternates costs were included as individual items: 1. Exterior Seatwall Toekick Lighting 2. Kids Town Green Roof 3. Interior Linear Metal Ceilings 4. Enrichment Classroom Operable Partition The City received three bids as shown in the below table: Company Name Base Bid Add. Alt. 1 Add. Alt. 2 Add. Alt 3 Add. Alt 4 1. BHM Construction, Inc $39,967,000 $19,000 $112,000 0 $40,000 2. Alten Construction $41,586,000 $45,000 $122,000 -$91,000 $15,000 3. Amoroso Construction $42,777,000 $30,000 $160,000 -$50,000 $40,000 BHM Construction, Inc. is the lowest responsive bidder with its base bid amount of $39,967,000, which is 2.5% below the engineer's estimate of $41,030,829. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated Project Expenditures: The following are the estimated total project expenditures without the add -alternates: Construction Contract $39,967,000 Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment $559,057 Architectural Team $3,610,202 Photovoltaic Panels $1,129,156 Construction Manager $917,950 3 Agreement with BHM Construction, Inc. for the Construction of the Community Center Project April 20, 2020 Utility and Connection Fees $92,500 Legal Ads $6,864 Temporary Facilities $430,108 Special Inspection & Testing $327,250 Environmental Fees $38,766 Planning & Building Fees $53,799 Construction Contingency $5,000,000 Architectural Contingency $125,951 Total $52,258,603 Due to the current economic climate, staff did not include the add -alternates in the project budget. If the Council would like to include any of the add -alternates, which total $171,000, they can be added to the project scope now. Or, the Council can choose to use any remaining contingency funds to pay for the add -alternates. When approving the Resolution, the Council should indicate which add -alternates, if any, should be included as part of the construction contract. For work completed through February 2020, the City has expended approximately $2,686,803 on architectural/engineering, construction manager services, temporary facilities installation, legal ads, and other testing fees since the Design Development phase. These costs are included in the project expenditures above. In addition, staff will research options to secure the photovoltaic panels through partial grant funding and/or a no -to -low interest loan. The remaining estimated cost to complete the project is $49,571,800, including the photovoltaic panels. Funding Availability: In November 2017, the voters of Burlingame approved Measure I, a '/4 cent sales tax measure that, at the time, was anticipated to generate an estimated $1.75 million to $2 million annually. At the January 27, 2018 goal -setting session, the City Council discussed the City Manager's recommended expenditure plan for the Measure I funds, which included an annual pledge of $1 million toward debt service on the issuance of lease revenue bonds. The City Council approved the recommendation on February 20, 2018. The City Council approved an additional $1 million annual General Fund transfer in the 2018-19 fiscal year budget, also intended to fund the debt service. In December 2019, issuance of the Burlingame Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2019 yielded $38,928,561 specifically for construction and equipping of the Burlingame Community Center project. The remaining $10.6 million will be covered from the Capital Investment Reserve, which currently totals $35.3 million. Exhibits: • Resolution • Agreement with BHM Construction, Inc. E RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AWARDING THE BID FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT TO BHM CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,967,000 AND UP TO $171,000 IN ADD -ALTERNATES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT, CITY PROJECT NO.85400 WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Capital Improvement Program includes the construction of a new Community Center; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements provided for in the attached Contract; and WHEREAS, a notice was duly published on September 9, 2019 to pre -qualify bidders for the New Community Center Project, and the City Council pre -qualified four construction companies on November 18, 2019; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2020, the bid period opened, and on March 24, 2020 three bids were received and opened before the City Clerk's office; and WHEREAS, BHM Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the project in the amount of $39,967,000, and WHEREAS, there are four add -alternates, totaling $171,000, which can be approved by the City Council either in total or individually. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The facts in the recitals above and in the staff report are true and correct. 2. The Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted. 3. The bid from BHM Construction, Inc. in the amount of $39,967,000 is the lowest responsive and responsible bid for said project and is accepted. 4. The bid includes four add -alternates totaling $171,000, each of which must be approved by the City Council. 5. The City shall enter into a contact with the successful bidder, BHM Construction, Inc., for the performance of the New Community Center, Project No. 83240, and the City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. 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 20th day of April, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NEW COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 83240 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on , 2020 by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and BHM Construction, Inc, a [State of incorporation] [Corporation or other form of business], hereinafter called "Contractor." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2020, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the construction of said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scoae of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Contract Documents entitled: -NEW COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 83240. 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following documents: this Agreement; Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A; the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions, addenda, complete plans, profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid documents titled NEW COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT, City Project No. 83240 AGREEMENT-1 attached as Exhibit C; the State of California Standard Specifications 2010, as promulgated by the California Department of Transportation; prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law; and all bonds; which are collectively hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents, which are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of Thirty nine million, nine hundred sixty seven thousand dollars ($39,967,000.00), called the "Contract Price". This price is determined by the lump sum and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Termination At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any portion of the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice in writing to Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor will be granted an adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for Completion, or both, directly attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a claim therefor was provided in the Contract Documents. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justify termination of the contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractor's persistent failure to perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor's disregard of Laws or Regulations of any public body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor's disregard of the authority of the Engineer; or (4) Contractor's violation in any substantial way of any provision of the Contract Documents. In the case of any one or more of these events, the City, after giving Contractor and Contractor's sureties seven calendar days written notice of the intent to terminate Contractor's services, may initiate termination procedures. Such termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against AGREEMENT-2 Contractor then existing or that accrue thereafter. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor will not release Contractor from liability. At the City's sole discretion, Contractor's services may not be terminated if Contractor begins, within seven calendar days of receipt of such notice of intent to terminate, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within no more than 30 calendar days of such notice. Upon seven calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may, without cause and without prejudice to any other right or remedy of City, terminate the Contract for City's convenience. In such case, Contractor will be paid for (1) work satisfactorily completed prior the effective date of such termination, (2) furnishing of labor, equipment, and materials in accordance with the Contract Documents in connection with uncompleted work, (3) reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination, and (4) fair and reasonable compensation for associated overhead and profit. No payment will be made on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue or other economic loss arising out of or resulting from such termination. 5. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 6. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: Margaret Glomstad Parks and Recreation Director City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: Jeffery D. Mazet, President BHM Construction, Inc. 221 Gateway Road West, Suite 405 Napa, CA 94558 7. Interpretation AGREEMENT-3 As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 8. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more waivers of any term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. 9. Controlling Law. This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10. Successors and Assignees. This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written consent of the other party. 11. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable by any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect. 12. Indemnification. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City AGREEMENT-4 shall be limited to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation By Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager "CONTRACTOR" Approved as to form: By Kathleen Kane, City Attorney Print Name: Company Name: ATTEST: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk AGREEMENT-5 BiFRL- 1NAGENDA NO: 10b STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 20, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 20, 2020 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving Small Business Support Programs and Criteria for "Burlingame Back in Business" Grant Program in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving several small business support programs, as well as the criteria for the "Burlingame Back in Business" grant program in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency and provide direction. BACKGROUND At the March 25 special City Council meeting, the Council 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. At the April 6 Council meeting, Councilmembers Brownrigg and Colson presented the attached memo outlining a variety of support programs. The Council approved the following programs and financial support: $5,000 to SAMCEDA to assist with advisory assistance to Burlingame businesses; payment of the Downtown Business Improvement District and Broadway Area Business Improvement District fees for FY 2020-21 (approximately $90,000 and approximately $23,000, respectively); and waiving parking meter fees for two weeks after the shelter -in -place order is lifted (unknown cost, but likely less than $100,000). The Council also tentatively approved a small business grant program in the amount of $500,000 and a Kickstart Burlingame Debit Card program in the amount of $250,000. Both of these programs required further research and development, and Councilmembers Brownrigg and Ortiz were tasked with pursuing the Kickstart Burlingame program. DISCUSSION Small Business Grant Program: The small business grant program, which has now been titled the "Burlingame Back in Business" grant program, is described in the attached document. The subcommittee is continuing to work out the details of this program. Initially the hope was to have 1 Business Support Programs Resolution April 20, 2020 SAMCEDA, which is managing the SMC Strong Fund business grants, and its partner the San Mateo Credit Union administer the program. However, Burlingame's attached criteria differ from the County's draft criteria for the SMC Strong Fund business support program. (The County, for example, is considering businesses with up to $2.5 million in gross revenues and/or 1-10 FTEs, which will eliminate many Burlingame businesses, particularly restaurants, from eligibility for this program.) At this point, the subcommittee is continuing to pursue having the San Mateo Credit Union process all Burlingame applications, even though the criteria are different from the SAMCEDA/SMC Strong Fund criteria. Alternatively, the San Mateo Credit Union may be willing to screen the initial Burlingame applications and accept those that qualify for the SMC Strong Fund. The other applications (for example, from slightly larger businesses), would be turned over to SAMCEDA staff for a final review and recommendation. Finally, there is also a possibility of partnering with Facebook, which is running its own Small Business Grants Program. The subcommittee will continue to work through these issues as expeditiously as possible but would like the full Council to approve the attached criteria as well as confirm the $500,000 funding for this program. Kickstart Burlingame Debit Card Program: The Kickstart Burlingame Debit Card Program would help support Burlingame's neediest families while also providing a boost to local businesses. Under the program, which is described in more detail in the attached document, the City would distribute either plastic pre -paid cards or virtual cards to qualifying individuals. The cards would provide recipients with $250 to spend, ideally in Burlingame. (Two of the options allow the City to limit expenditures to Burlingame; one does not.) There are still some details to work out with this program, but, as with the small business grant program, the idea is to implement it as quickly as possible while ensuring that proper controls are in place. FISCAL IMPACT The General Fund expenditures, which will be drawn from the Economic Stability Reserve, include: SAMCEDA advisory assistance $5,000 Small business grant program $500,000 Kickstart Burlingame Debit Card $250,000 Total FY 2019-20 $755,000 Payment of BID fees $115,000 Total FY 2020-21 $115,000 Grand Total $870,000 In addition, there is an unknown impact to the Parking Fund this fiscal year for the two -week waiver of parking fees after the order is lifted. In normal times, the parking meters bring in 2 Business Support Programs Resolution April 20, 2020 approximately $200,000 per month. However, it is likely that the impact will be less than half of this amount. Exhibits: • Resolution • Original Subcommittee Proposal • "Burlingame Back in Business" Grant Fund Description • Kickstart Burlingame Program 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT PROGRAMS AS WELL AS THE CRITERIA FOR THE "BURLINGAME BACK IN BUSINESS" GRANT PROGRAM IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID- 19 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY WHEREAS, at the March 25 special City Council meeting, the Council agreed to the formation of a subcommittee to develop programs to assist Burlingame's small business community; and WHEREAS, at the April 6 Council meeting, the members of the subcommittee presented the City Council with a variety of potential business support programs; and WHEREAS, the Council agreed to provide funding to SAMCEDA to assist with advisory assistance to Burlingame businesses; pay the Downtown Business Improvement District and Broadway Area Business Improvement District fees for FY 2020-21; and waive parking meter fees for two weeks after the shelter -in -place order is lifted; and WHEREAS, the Council also tentatively approved a small business grant program in the amount of $500,000 and a Kickstart Burlingame Debit Card program in the amount of $250,000 and asked that further research and development of the programs take place; and WHEREAS, the small business grant program, which has now been titled the "Burlingame Back in Business" grant program, would assist Burlingame's businesses via direct grant payments using the criteria developed by the subcommittee; and WHEREAS, the mechanics of the program, including which entity will administer the program, are still being worked out; and WHEREAS, work continues on the development of the Kickstart Burlingame Debit Card program, which is intended to provide $250 stored value cards to low income residents in Burlingame to use in Burlingame businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES RESOLVE THAT: 1. The City Council approves the following expenditures and programs in FY 2019-20: SAMCEDA advisory assistance $5,000 Small business grant program $500,000 Kickstart Burlingame Debit Card $250,000 Total $755,000 2. The City Council approves the payment of approximately $115,000 in FY 2020-21 to cover the foregone assessments for the two Business Improvement Districts. 3. The City Council approves waiving parking meter fees throughout the remainder of the shelter -in -place order and for two weeks after the order is lifted. 4. The City Council approves the "Burlingame Back in Business" grant program criteria. Emily Beach, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of April, 2020 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk City of Burlingame Small Business Support Options in Response to 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 "Burlingame Back in Business" Grant Fund, administered by San Mateo Credit Union in Partnership with the San Mateo County Strong Fund and the San Mateo County Economic Development Association Program The California Shelter in Place order implemented to curtail the spread of Summary COVID-19 has impacted many throughout the state, including local small businesses that have been forced to reduce staff or services as a result of lower demand and strained resources. Burlingame City Council has created the "Burlingame Back in Business" (BBIB) grant fund to provide up to $500,000 in City funds to assist local Burlingame businesses weather the COVID storm and be ready to rebound with strength when the shelter orders are lifted. The BBIB Fund will be administered independently by the San Mateo Credit Union (SMCU) in conjunction with the San Mateo Economic Development Committee (SAMCEDA) and the SMC Strong Fund. Grant Purpose To provide $5,000-$10,000 bridge funding grants to Burlingame retail businesses that serve the community and contribute to our economic stability, with a focus on those businesses that have strong continuity plans and a demonstrated ability to successfully re -open after the Shelter in Place order is lifted. Eligibility . Have a valid Burlingame business license • Have been open for business at least one year as of April 1, 2020 • Have no more than $5 million in gross annual revenue • Have a retail storefront that is open to the public that provides products and/or personal services (excluding professional services) • Have been impacted by the Covid-19 shelter in place order • Located within the Burlingame city limits Documentation . Supporting letter to substantiate other program applications including federal, state or additional grants/loans, rent adjustments, relevant information that supports the likelihood of on -going long-term business viability, and expected use of funds • Business applicants must provide evidence of eligibility requirements as well as 12 months of income/expense documentation (fewer if the business is a recently opened as an essential service provider) • Examples of suitable documents include: Bank statements or current financial statements IRS or FTB tax returns Proof of payroll processing including healthcare premiums Proof of utility, mortgage or rent payments Grant Amount Equivalent of two months operating expenses (determined by taking 1 an average of the last 12 months of operations as of 3/1/2020), not to exceed $10,000 and subject to availability of funds Priority . Applications will be accepted from to • Applications deemed complete by the San Mateo Credit Union Underwriting Committee will then be reviewed by and independent committee of SAMCEDA members for awards. In the event of oversubscription, applications will be prioritized based on the probability of successful business continuity after the shelter -in -place order is lifted and to maintain the diversity of Burlingame businesses. • Applicants may apply to both the County and the City programs but will only be eligible for a single grant. • Businesses will be notified of the decision within 10 days of the application close date. Compliance . Within six months of the award, the City of Burlingame reserves the right to contact the business owner and request follow up information as to how the funds were deployed to report back to Council as to the efficacy of the grant program Application . Burlingame small businesses are encouraged to apply to the SMC Process Strong Fund regardless of the business meeting the established screening criteria. The City of Burlingame criteria is intended to include a broader range of businesses with gross revenues of up to $5 million and no cap on employees or net income. Those small businesses that do not receive an SMC grant will be moved into the Burlingame applicant pool for further consideration. April 16, 2020 UPDATE MEMORANDUM TO BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL FROM: Michael Brownrigg and Ricardo Ortiz Working Group on Consumer Program ("Kickstart Burlingame") stimulus plan Colleagues: Since receiving a "green light" to proceed with a plan to support Burlingame's neediest families in the COVID era with prepaid cards that could be spent in Burlingame -- what we called "Kickstart Burlingame" -- Councilmen Ortiz and Brownrigg have had numerous conversations with relevant service providers and vendors to flesh out a workable program. We focused on how the program recipients would be identified/screened; how the cards would be distributed and accounted for; and what kind of card to use. While this is a somewhat complex program to design, we are optimistic that a workable program can be executed and will provide significant benefits to families and merchants. The memo lays out the current thinking and options. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are several sets of admin issues to work through: the criteria by which to identify individuals and families that is transparent, fair and simple to administer; how we deliver the card to the pre -approved user; a third admin step for Card Options 2&3 is to recruit local merchants into the program; finally, we must develop a process by which to assign or reclaim unused cards/balances. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: our proposal is to use PCE/PG&E guidelines, which are based on verified household income, coupled with the Burlingame School District list of families on free and reduced school lunches. . uy'. ,,,i, j, 1-11 . f 1-11 111jr-1uoueyruei The chart to the left shows the cA71W 11111W income criteria set by PG&E. According to most recent PCE $33,820 or less Not eligible customer data, there are 874 Burlingame families who have $42.660 or less $42,661—$53,325 qualified for CARE. (Several people have pointed out that $51,500 or less $51,501—$64,375 we will not reach people who do not have utility bills in their $60,340 or less $60,341—$75,425 own names; that issue is discussed below under $69,180orless $69,181—$86,475 "Residuals.") PCE staff have assured us that they would be $78,020orless $78,021—$97,525 willing to work with us on our $86,860 or less $86,861—$108,575 Kickstart Program. Separately, we discussed the program and its intentions with Maggie Maclsaac to determine whether, as a second means of targeting needy families, we could use the BSD Free and Reduced School Lunch program users. That program today covers 171 families (around 400 kids) and Dr Maclsaac was enthusiastic to see if she could work with the city to help these BSD families. Obviously we need to find a way to weed out duplicates between the two lists, but using these two lists would yield approximately 1000 families/households. OUTREACH PROCESS: PCE (and we assume BSD) cannot share personal or utility account data with the city, so we cannot reach out to the households directly. But PCE is willing to mail notices to the 874 families, create a unique code for each, share the codes (and hopefully family names) with the city, and would direct families to our fulfillment site to collect their Kickstart cards. We hope that BSD would do the same, optimally after screening the addresses against the PCE/PG&E list so as to avoid sending duplicate notices. FULFILLMENT: The delivery of cards depends in part on what kind of card is chosen (physical prepaid card or virtual card — see matrix below). That said, whether we issue physical or virtual cards, we require responsible adults to be available to families to get their cards and then be checked off a list, to ensure we do not duplicate cards to a household. If the decision is to issue physical cards, then it is also important to make sure the families feel safe coming to the location for card delivery, that the cards are secured and accounted for, and that they are stored safely at night. There probably needs to be a "help line" for individuals who get the letters from PCE/BSD and have questions (query: could Library staff take this on?). These are all details that have to be solved but we are confident there are solutions. In terms of who would help us administer the distribution of cards, we checked first with CALL Primrose, but they are unable to assist. Subsequently we have discussed the program with St Paul's, who could potentially be a distribution center from the church parking lot (in light of COVID restrictions). We had a lengthy meeting to talk about logistics and the church is considering whether they are willing to take on this responsibility. They did note that they would want to be indemnified if they took this on, which is a sensible request. RESIDUALS — UNCLAIMED CARDS AND UNSPENT BALANCES UNCLAIMED/UNASSIGNED CARDS: There will be some number of unclaimed or unassigned cards. We propose to report back to the Council after the first outreach has been performed and cards have been distributed, at which point we would have an accounting of how many cards are unclaimed/unassigned. At that time the Council can decide whether to reclaim the balances to the General Fund or to expand the list of families/individuals to whom to make this offer for the remaining cards. We can also work with the County, which has a number of income tested programs, for help with identification of disadvantaged households. UNSPENT BALANCES: Depending on which card program is selected, it may be possible for the city to reclaim unspent balances. In reality, we expect a card assigned to and collected by a needy family to be fully deployed; this is not like a $20 iTunes gift card given to a well-off person which then sits in a sock drawer. That said, there may be unspent balances on our cards. Our recommendation, if it is feasible with the program, is to deactivate the cards after 6 months and recoup any unspent balances to the city for redeployment elsewhere. OPTIONS FOR CARDS AND PROS/CONS OF EACH. Comparison of Solutions for Kickstart Burlingame program; assumes a $250,000 commitment for 1000 cards @$250 per card. Visa Virtual Gift Card MasterCard Pre -Paid Card Pre -Paid Card Programmatic Cost Cards would cost $500 set up cost and $7,000 ($6,000 set $3.75/card or $3,750 3% admin fee, total up and $1000 for would be $8,000. cards) Vendor/Partner Vendor to Visa (n/a) Yiftee EML, vendor to MC Administration and/or See below See below See below Partner agency Time to Delivery One week for cards Virtual so basically 6-8 weeks for cards immediate delivery Ability to limit No. Could message Yes Yes purchases to 94010 users our hope to spend in B'game. Useable everywhere Yes, acceptable Opt in by merchants. Opt in by or need for merchants everywhere, no Need to recruit merchants. Need to to opt -in recruitment needed merchants up front. recruit merchants. Ability for users to buy Yes No No things online Ability to claw back No -- advocates say no No -- but given Yes unspent funds worry, needy families mobile interface, will spend cards outbound messaging can encourage use Ability to set No. Once distributed, no. Yes expiration date and recover money Ease of use Easy, just like any Somewhat Easy, just like any stored value card. cumbersome; cashier stored value cards. Balance can be must enter 16 digit Balance can be checked online or by "card number" into checked online or calling 800 number. register at POS. calling vendor Balance avail on web. customer service. Type of card Typical plastic prepaid Virtual e-card; Typical plastic card physical card can be prepaid card printed on paper if desired Ability to Personalize Limited to putting a Yes Yes with Burlingame logo sticker on cards Ability to track Not easily, privacy Yes Yes spending (aggregate, issues. not by individual) Physical Security Like cash, can be Linked to specific Client can call stolen and used easily person, although like vendor and lock a credit card, the # the funds, have a can be stolen and new card issued. used BiFRL- 1NAGENDA NO: 10c STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 20, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 20, 2020 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Subject: Discussion and Direction Regarding Potential Assistance for Individuals and Families in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emeraencv RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the provision of assistance for individuals and families during 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 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, which can be made via www.smcstrong.org/. DISCUSSION SMC Strong Individual Assistance The SMC Strong website contains information about how individuals can access a variety of support programs. The attached document from the website, entitled "Resources for San Mateo County Residents Impacted by the COVID-19 Response," provides information on accessing grocery and meal programs, public assistance programs such as Medi-Cal and CalFresh, and the Emergency Finance Assistance provided through SMC Strong. The funds to assist individuals and families adversely affected by COVID-19 will be distributed, based on eligibility and funding availability, through the Emergency Financial Assistance program managed by Samaritan House in coordination with the eight Core Service Agencies located 1 Potential Assistance for Individuals and Families April 20, 2020 throughout the county. Samaritan House is the Core Service Agency serving Burlingame and other nearby cities. Burlingame residents can apply for assistance by calling Samaritan House's main number, 650-347-3648. According to the SMC Strong website and the attached document, COVID-19 Emergency Financial Assistance can be used to pay for the following emergency needs: • Housing assistance such as deposits, rent or mortgage payments • Utility arrears or deposits • Transportation assistance such as car repairs, vehicle registration or other transportation needs • Other essential needs, such as medical expenses, as determined on a case by case basis Potential City Individual Assistance Several cities in San Mateo County have approved or are considering assistance programs for their residents, with a number focusing on rental assistance. Daly City: The City of Daly City approved providing $100,000 in housing funds to the Daly City Community Service Center (Core Service Agency), for rental assistance. Menlo Park: Since May 2019, Menlo Park has contracted with Samaritan House to provide tenant relocation assistance at a cost of $100,000 for direct assistance and $12,000 for program administration expenses. In March 2020, the City Council approved repurposing and retitling the program to include tenant rental assistance. The modified program now provides up to $5,000 in financial assistance to help bridge temporary financial gaps to prevent lower -income households from becoming homeless and to provide temporary relief to households that have suffered a loss of income due to COVID-19. It may also be used for tenant relocation assistance under certain circumstances. No additional funds have been appropriated for the program. Redwood City: In March, the City Council allocated $150,000 of transient occupancy tax from short-term rentals to establish a COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance Fund to be administered by the Fair Oaks Community Center, the Core Service Agency serving Redwood City. In April, the City Council approved a new, unspecified General Fund allocation of $393,000 for the Emergency Rental Assistance Fund. Eligible applicants can receive up to $3,000 in rental support. San Carlos: On April 13, 2020, the San Carlos City Council adopted a resolution establishing a Tenant Assistance Program, authorizing the City Manager to enter into a funding agreement designating Samaritan House to administer the program, and appropriating $112,000 from the City's Below Market Rate Housing Fund to fund the program ($100,000 for the tenant assistance, and $12,000 for program administration). Under this program, individuals and families can receive up to $5,000, and the grants can only be used for rent payments. San Carlos is also providing $30,500 in funds to assist residents with food insecurity issues. These funds are being distributed to different nonprofit agencies. 2 Potential Assistance for Individuals and Families April 20, 2020 San Mateo: On April 13, the San Mateo City Council approved spending $440,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding on rental assistance. (CDBG funding is available to jurisdictions with populations of 50,000 and above.) San Mateo will be working with Samaritan House on this program. South San Francisco: On April 8, the City Council approved $220,000 in rental assistance to help lower income residents pay their rent if they have lost income due to COVID-19. The City anticipates assisting approximately 60 households through this funding. The YMCA Community Resource Center, which is located in South San Francisco and is the Core Service Agency for residents in that part of the county, is administering the rental assistance at a cost of $22,000. The City appropriated the funding from its Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, which contains the housing assets of the former South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Burlingame: Given the small size of the City's staff, staff recommends that the City partner with one or more non-profit agencies to provide financial assistance to Burlingame individuals and families affected by COVID-19: Samaritan House: As described above, the City provided an initial donation of $20,000 to assist Samaritan House in serving its clients. The City can also contract with Samaritan House to provide rental assistance to Burlingame tenants struggling to pay their rent during this pandemic. The City will be able to set its own guidelines with respect to eligibility requirements and can include assistance with utility payments as well. The City of San Carlos, for example, requires that households have an income at 120% AMI or below; households must occupy a legal unit located in incorporated San Carlos; and households must have a current, valid lease agreement with the landlord. Samaritan House will charge a 12% administrative fee to manage this program on Burlingame's behalf. HIP Housing: The City provides funding to HIP Housing each year through its community funding program. HIP Housing is now trying to raise $150,000 for its Emergency Relief Fund to provide its low-income clients and tenants who have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic with rental assistance, childcare assistance, and/or funding to pay for basic necessities like food or medicine. If the City Council was interested in providing supplemental funding to HIP Housing, staff could work with the agency to ensure that the funds are dedicated to Burlingame residents. CALL Primrose: The City provided $10,000 to CALL Primrose in March to help address food insecurity issues. The City could choose to make an additional donation to CALL Primrose to help individuals struggling to afford food for themselves and their families. According to CALL Primrose Executive Director Terri Boesch, the organization would not be able to ensure that funds are only used to assist Burlingame residents. However, they could tell the City how many additional Burlingame residents they have served at any given time before, during, and after the shelter -in -place order is lifted. Burlingame residents typically make up roughly 16% of CALL Primrose's base. Between January 30 and April 13, however, they have seen a 58% increase in Burlingame households availing themselves of CALL Primrose's services. 3 Potential Assistance for Individuals and Families April 20, 2020 Should the City Council choose to support any of these programs, staff will return at future Council meeting with a resolution memorializing the decision as well as the amount of the contribution(s). FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact is unknown at this time and will depend on how much the City decides to dedicate to one or more of these programs. For comparison, tonight's City Council meeting includes a report on business assistance programs that will cost the General Fund $755,000 this fiscal year, and approximately $115,000 next fiscal year. Funds for these small business programs will be drawn from the Economic Stability Reserve. There is also an unknown cost for waiving parking meter fees. Staff recommends using unassigned fund balance for any individual and family assistance programs that the Council chooses to support. Exhibit: • Resources for San Mateo County Residents Impacted by the COVID-19 Response E COMMUNITY RESOURCES There are numerous resources available to assist San Mateo County residents who have been impacted by the COVID-19 response: • Second Harvest Food Bank - For information about grocery and meal programs throughout the County, contact the Food Connection Hotline at: 800-984-3663 or visit https://www.shfb.org/. • Public Assistance Programs - For connections to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, CalWORKs, and General Assistance, visit www.mvbenefitscalwin.org or email hsa ess questions@smcgov.org or call 800-223-8383. • General Information - For information and referral for health and human services or for non -medical questions about COVID-19, contact 211 at: 2-1-1 (or 800-273-6222) or text your zip code to: 898211. • Core Service Agencies - For assistance with basic emergency needs, contact the local Core Service Agency serving your area (see table below). Core Service Agencies provide a wide variety of services including serving as access points for shelter and homeless services; providing referrals and resources for material goods, transportation programs, and food; and for eligible residents, the Core Service Agency may be able to provide emergency financial assistance to maintain their housing or meet other essential needs. Note: Emergency financial assistance funds are limited, and applicants must meet the eligibility criteria and complete the application process to be considered. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATION PROCESS WHAT TYPE OF ASSISTANCE CAN I APPLY FOR? Emergency Financial Assistance can be requested to help pay for the following emergency needs, based on eligibility criteria and funding availability: • Housing assistance such as deposits, rent or mortgage • Transportation assistance such as car repairs vehicle payments registration or other transportation needs, if the • Utility arrears or deposits transportation assistance is linked to critical needs • Other essential needs, such as medical expenses, as determined on a case by case basis Funds are limited and will be distributed based on eligibility and funding availability, through the Emergency Financial Assistance programs at the Core Service Agencies, including a new COVID-19 Emergency Financial Assistance program. For applicants who are eligible, whether or not they receive assistance and if they do, what amount of assistance they receive, is dependent on factors such as their household's income, resources, and need, and on the availability of funding, as funding is limited. Note: Payments are not given directly to applicants and instead will be made to third parties, such as a landlord, on behalf of approved applicants. WHAT ARE THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEW COVID-19 EMERGENCY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE? To be eligible to be considered for emergency financial assistance, an individual or household must meet all the following criteria and provide the requested documentation about their household's financial and housing situation in order to support their application and be considered for funding: • Be a San Mateo County resident; and • Demonstrate financial hardship resulting from COVID-19 that makes it unable for your household to pay for basic needs, such as proof of reduction in income; and • Demonstrate a household income within the past 30 days at or below the income eligibility threshold (see table on next page); and • Demonstrate financial need such as a letter for past due rent from a landlord, past due utility or medical bills, emergency car repair or vehicle registration which if not addressed would create hardship for the household; and • Ability to maintain housing/have a plan in place to maintain housing which will be determined on a case by case basis. • Note: All residents who meet the eligibility requirements, regardless of citizenship or documentation, status may apply. REVISED04/03/20 COUNTYOFSAN MATEO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY Size of Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (# of people) Income Limit for COVID $67,740 $77,400 $87,060 $96,720 $104 460 $112,200 $119,940 $127 680 Emergency Financial Assistance WHAT IS THE APPLICATION PROCESS? Call or go to the website for the Core Service Agency that serves your area of the County (see table below) and they will provide you with an overview of the process for you to submit an application and provide information about your household and current situation, for that information to be reviewed, and for you to receive a response about your application. Coatside HopDaly MF City Community Fair Oaks Community Center Pacifica Resource Center d& 99 Avenue Alhambra Service Center 350 — 90th St., 1st Floor 2600 Middlefield Road 1809 Palmetto Avenue El Granada, CA 94018 Daly City, CA 94014 Redwood City, CA 94063 Pacifica, CA 94044 650.726.9071 650.991.8007 650.780.7500 650.738.7470 https://coastsidehope.org/ http://www.dcpartnership. https://www.redwoodcity.org/a https://www.pacresourcecenter. org/daly-city-community- bout-the-city/covid-19-housing- or service -center/ resources Area Served: El Granada, Area Served: Broadmoor, Area Served: Atherton, North Fair Area Served: Pacifica Half Moon Bay, Montara, Colma, Daly City Oaks, Redwood City, Portola Moss Beach Valley, Redwood Shores, Woodside 620 North Street 4031 Pacific Boulevard 1852 Bay Road 1486 Huntington Avenue, Suite Pescadero, CA 94060 San Mateo, CA 94403 East Palo Alto, CA 94303 100 650.879.1691 650.347.3648 650.294.4312 South San Francisco, CA 94080 https://mypuente.org/ https://samaritanhousesan https://samaritanhousesanmat� 650.276.4101 https://www.ymcasf.org/commu mateo.org/ otord nits-resource-center-ymca Area Served: La Honda, Area Served: Belmont, Area Served: East Palo Alto, Area Served: Brisbane, San Bruno, Loma Mar, Pescadero, San Burlingame, Foster City, Menlo Park South San Francisco Gregorio Hillsborough, Millbrae, San Carlos, San Mateo WHO CAN I CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION? Contact the Core Service Agency that serves your area for more information. Contacting by phone is the preferred method at this time, if possible. REVISED04/03/20 COUNTYOFSAN MATEO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY 11a SURLfNWAS- Memorandum fto To: City Council Date: April 20, 2020 From: Mayor Emily Beach Subject: Committee Report Thursday, 4/2-present Significant constituent email communications, Zoom meetings, calls, and Q&A related to COVID-19 resident and business impacts, shelter in place order, and other City matters. Thursday, 4/2 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Meeting • Measure A Program Semi -Annual Update • Approved contract for TA reps to examine tax records at State level • Reviewed Shuttle Program draft funding recommendations • Reviewed legislative program developments o Faster Bay Area likely tabled o Seamless Bay Area, evolving legislation (spot bill) with less unfunded mandates more collaborative study of fare integration o Caltrain 1/8 Sales Tax for 2020 ballot: under discussion with all governing bodies in three counties (Board of Supervisors and JPB) • Received update on 25th Ave Grade Separation o Hillsdale San Mateo Station Closure starting 5/16 up to 6 months; new station closer to 28t' Ave o Hillsdale stops transferred to Belmont with free SamTrans transfers Friday, 4/3 • Burlingame Neighborhood Network Coordination Meeting o Brainstormed outreach to isolated residents who are not connected via internet, computers, or neighbors; developed Community Assistance Line phone number at City, messages relayed to BNN volunteers • San Mateo County Elected Official COVID-19 Virtual Meeting & Coordination updates o Provided daily written summaries to City Manager for roll -up and distribution among City Council and staff leaders • League of California Cities Environmental Quality (EQ) Policy Committee Meeting • Communicated info about CPUC/PG&E Rule 20A undergrounding funds hearing and 4/21 deadline so our City can respond: CPUC staff s recommendation: sunset Rule 20A (undergrounding) funds within next 10 years. • EQ Policy Committee and League opposes this (position letter underway) recommends continue formulaic funding vs. competitive process, while advocating for broader uses Beach Committee Report April 20, 2020 of Rule 20 funds which would include wildfire mitigation as an eligible use -- so that cities have more flexibility to use the funds. Sunday, 4/5 El Camino Real Renewal Constituent Zoom Meeting • Primary concern among these residents was Caltran's artistic/sketch representation of size and variety of trees during January 2020 open house at the Recreation Center. When required to replant, citizens want to ensure tall trees used to restore canopy. This will require undergrounding of utilities. Monday, 4/6 — 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 Project Sentinel's Online Q&A San Mateo County Moratorium on Residential Evictions • Many questions from property owners and residents City Council Meeting • Special thanks to Small Business Task Force Subcommittee (Brownrigg/Colson) for their hard work preparing for and leading our small business support discussion Tuesday, 4/7 • Tracked down Yiftee Community Gift Card lead from Burlingame resident. Phone meeting with CEO in Menlo Park; provided summary of potential offerings to City Manager to forward along to subcommittee. • Outreach to Planning Commission applicants Wednesday, 4/8 • Follow-up's related to BNN coordination meeting / Community Assistance Line, 211 glitches at County IT, PPE collection point here in Burlingame • Congresswoman Speier's Town Hall Friday, 4/10 San Mateo County Express Lane Joint Powers Authority Board Meeting • Approved contract to begin Equity Study for Express Lane Project that will inform policy decisions • Express Lane work initially halted during early shelter in place; resumed once deemed essential infrastructure; sound wall reconstruction taking place in San Mateo now. • Discussed finance subcommittee committee work (Beach/Papan) regarding JPA's $100 million loan agreement with the Transportation Authority for construction of US 101 Express Lanes. Monday, 4/13 League of California Cities Peninsula Division Executive Board Meeting • Committee will teleconference quarterly Division meetings/speaker series • Postponed (indefinitely) CitiPAC Bocce fundraiser 2 Beach Committee Report April 20, 2020 California Office of Emergency Services Call with Mayors from Region II Department of Social Services • Governor's announcement $42 million directed to support at risk youth during COVID-19 (hotlines, support groups, foster youth funding) • Project Room Key: $100m allocated; 50% for emergency shelter for sick and medically vulnerable across state; 10,000 hotel rooms secured plus trailers • CalFresh — working on Federal waiver so recipients can use EBT for online groceries and delivered to home -- will be available later this month • Benefits to low income workers who are not eligible and undocumented: department identifying what opportunities exist; recognize urgent need for some level of support Health and Medical • Task force on COVID-19 testing established last weekend; includes CEO of Blue Shield. Developing Public/Private partnership to ramp up testing; and address issues in supply chain to find solutions for testing (lab testing and swabs) • CA has already ramped up testing 5x since early April • Exploring what labs in California could ramp -up testing • Exploring specimen collection sites; assessing where they are and where need to be added • Analyzing new laboratory science tests; assessing which ones are scale -able and have good science behind them Operations Update • State-wide effort to increase hospital bed capacity • Naval ship Mercy helping in SoCal • Project Room Key effort: 2700+ rooms occupied • PPE inventory — significant gear delivered; still need more • Nearly 6 million meals processed by National Guard partners • Governor announced CA, OR, WA shared approach to re -opening economies; how care for most disadvantaged and vulnerable communities; and protect general public with systems to test, track, and isolate COVID-19 cases CA State Labor & Workforce Agency • New claims: 2.7 million (as of 4/13) for unemployment insurance • Apx. 21-day window from application to pay -out • Over $lb paid out • 8-5 call center hours Tuesday, 4/14 • Meeting with Labor Representatives • Mayor's / Staff City Council Agenda Review Meeting • Attended virtual Community Resiliency Coordination Meeting with BNN, CERT, Emergency Services Coordinator, BSD Rep o Provided City update, listened to feedback o Franklin School site childcare has significant capacity for essential worker childcare for residents and workforce here in Burlingame • Conducted Virtual Constituent Coffee & Conversation (Q&A) Weekly Event 3 Beach Committee Report April 20, 2020 Wednesday, 4/15 • Joint Planning Commission/Council Agenda Preparation Meeting with City staff