Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2020.05.04City of Burlingame BURLINGAME F, Meeting Agenda - Final City Council Monday, May 4, 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 Executive Order N-33-20 on march 19, 2020, and the CDC's social distancing guidelines which discourage large public gatherings, the Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the May 4, 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 May 4, 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. Online City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 413012020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 4, 2020 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://us02web.zoom.us/j/87216247285? pwd=VW51RUJSLORmU09vMDBEVIM1 SUxOQT09 Meeting ID: 872 1624 7285 Password: 212103 One tap mobile +16699006833„87216247285# US (San Jose) +13462487799„87216247285# US (Houston) Dial by your location +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 929 436 2866 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) Meeting ID: 872 1624 7285 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/khLmJHlsc 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS 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. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 413012020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 4, 2020 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 the April 20, 2020 Regular Meeting Attachments: Meeting Minutes b. Adoption of 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 Fnnri Farilitiac Attachments: Staff Report Proposed Ordinance C. Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area Project, City Project No. 85670, in the Amount of $2,289,924.51 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Final Progress Payment d. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Side Letter Agreements to the Burlingame Police Officers Association and Burlingame Police Sergeants Association Memoranda of Understanding Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Side Letter BPOA Side Letter BPSA e. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment of the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) CalPERS Health Contract Attachments: Staff Report Resolution City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 413012020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 4, 2020 f. Adoption of Resolutions Initiating Proceedings to Renew the Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project for Fiscal Year 2020-21 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Initiating Proceedings for Levy & Collections Resolution Approving Annual Report for FY 20-21 Updated Engineer's Report for FY 20-21 Resolution Declaring Intention to Levy & Collect Assessments Staff Report - April 2, 2012 Staff Report - May 21, 2012 g. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with ICF to Perform Environmental Review Services Related to the Proposed Development of a New Six -Story Office Building at 220 Park Road (Former Post Office site) in the Amount of $239,154 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Agreement for Professional Services ICF Scope of Work h. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the City of Burlingame Conflict of Interest Code to Revise the List of Designated Officials and Employees Attachments: Staff Report Resolution i. Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending March 31, 2020 Attachments: Staff Report Portfolio Holdings CERBT Statement 3-31-20 PARS Statement 3-31-20 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) a. Public Hearina and Adoption of a Resolution Aggrovina the Citv of Burlinaame Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2020-21 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Master Fee Schedule 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 413012020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 4, 2020 a. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Distribution of $250,000 in Funding, Plus Associated Fees, to Nonprofit Agencies Assisting Individuals and Families in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency and Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute any Necessary Agreements with the Nonprofit Agencies Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Community Groups Funding Fiscal Year 2019-20 b. City Council Direction Regarding a Pilot Program to Prioritize Local Streets for Neighborhood Pedestrian and Bicycle Activities During the Coronavirus Pandemic Period Attachments: Staff Report BPAC's Request for Street Closures C. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment of the City Attorney's Employment Agreement to Provide a Salary Increase, and Approving the City of Burlingame Pay Rates and Ranges (Salary Schedule) Attachments: Staff Report Resolution City Attorney Contract Amendment Salary Schedule 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 Re b. Councilmember Colson'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 City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 413012020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 4, 2020 Notice: Any attendees who require special assistance or a disability -related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet, or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, May 4, 2020 at 650.558.7203 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. IzI*Ago] III WK010111zINIgq ,l4:4 11111!W FY 2020-21 Budget Study Session on May 13, 2020 Regular City Council Meeting on May 18, 2020 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection via www.burlingame.org or by emailing the City Clerk at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the City Clerk at 650.558.7203. City of Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 413012020 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 CITY 0 BURLINGAME o oa '4�aorEo uuxE �,9 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on April 20, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date online at 7:03 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 a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9): EMPLOYEE* V. CITY OF BURLINGAME (WORKERS' COMPENSATION CASES, EMPLOYEE'S NAME AND CASE NUMBERS WITHHELD TO PROTECT THE MEDICAL PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL) b. PERSONNEL MATTER: ANNUAL EVALUATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957) City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given, but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Beach reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PROCLAMATION CELEBRATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF EARTH DAY ON APRIL 22, 2020 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that the proclamation is to recognize the 501h anniversary of Earth Day on April 22, 2020. She explained that the proclamation reaffirms the City's commitment to protecting the environment and conserving resources. Mayor Beach stated that the City's website includes a checklist of 50 things that the public can do to make things a little better for the environment. Mayor Beach read the proclamation. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Lisa Tyree asked the City to reconsider undertaking sidewalk repairs during the shelter -in -place as it makes it more difficult for individuals to outside for walks. (comment submitted via publiccommentkburlingame. org). Manito Velasco voiced his concern about speeding during the shelter -in -place. (comment submitted via publiccommentkburlingame. org). 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Beach asked the public and her colleagues if they would like to pull any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Brownrigg pulled items 8e and 8h. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8f, 8g, and 8i; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 25, 2020 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes for March 25, 2020. b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING ON APRIL 6, 2020 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meeting on April 6, 2020. c. 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 CCFD Fire Chief Barron requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1974. 2 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 d. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.07 — PERMIT EXPIRATION AND PERMIT EXEMPT STRUCTURES CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1975. e. 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 Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he appreciated that the staff includes the dollar amount of a contract in the title of the staff report. He noted that for this project, the $210,000 is entirely funded through philanthropic giving and therefore doesn't reflect a cost to the City budget. Mayor Beach thanked the subcommittee that assisted in fundraising for this project. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 039-2020; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed by roll call vote, 5-0. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE MILLS CANYON SEWER ACCESS ROAD REPAIR PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO.85090, IN THE AMOUNT OF $306,646 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 040-2020. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO PRIORITIZE ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES FIRST WHEN PURCHASING VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT Sustainability Coordinator Michael requested Council adopt Resolution Number 041-2020. h. 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 Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he believed Granicus has served as a terrific software platform for the City. He noted that it is a significant software contract and asked if the City has considered other vendors. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer replied in the negative. She added that it is a fairly small market but that she would consider other options in the future. Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Councilmember Colson asked if the new agreement included closed captions in Spanish and other languages. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer replied that the agreement is only for English closed captions but that staff would consider the need for additional languages. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 042-2020; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. i. APPROVAL OF "DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION" FOR THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 043-2020. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran recused herself from the item due to her work on the County's subcommittee that crafted the County's version of this ordinance. Environmental Regulatory Compliance Manager Jennifer Lee began by discussing the plastic pollution issue. She stated that plastic straws have been one of the top ten items collected during California's Coastal Cleanup Day. She explained that a Bay Area study found that 67% of street litter is from food and beverage take-out packaging. She added that plastic has been detected in the seafood that is sold for human consumption. Ms. Lee discussed the state of the recycling market. She explained that countries such as China have taken a lead in not accepting recycled materials from the United States. She noted that long-term solutions are currently being explored to resolve this problem. Me. Lee explained that the City can help with these issues by reducing the amount of single -use plastic that is available at food facilities. She stated that the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability drafted a disposable food service ware ordinance to reduce the amount of single -use plastics in the community. She explained that the Board of Supervisors approved the proposed ordinance on February 25, 2020. Ms. Lee reviewed the objectives of the proposed ordinance: 1. Reduce non -recyclable and non-compostable waste at the source 2. Improve the health and safety of Burlingame community members 3. Help keep litter out of the San Francisco Bay 4 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Ms. Lee noted that the proposed ordinance would assist the City in meeting Measure 18 of the City's recently adopted Climate Action Plan. Ms. Lee stated that prior to introducing the proposed ordinance to City Council, staff conducted some public outreach. Staff put a survey on the City's website that was advertised in the eNews, and on Facebook, Instagram, and NextDoor. She stated that the survey was picked up by the Daily Journal and appeared on the front page of the newspaper. Additionally, staff sent letters to the 206 food facilities that would be impacted by the proposed ordinance. She explained that the letter was available in English, Spanish, and Chinese. Lastly, emails were sent to specific stakeholders including the Business Improvement Districts, Chamber of Commerce, and the high schools. Ms. Lee stated that the survey asked two main questions: 1. Do you support the City adopting this ordinance? She noted that the City received a total of 332 unique responses to this question, with 291 individuals (87.7%) voting in support of the ordinance. She added that 32 individuals (9.6%) voted against, and nine individuals (2.7%) voted maybe. 2. Which of the following do you identify with? She stated that 89% of the individuals responded that they lived in Burlingame, 49% own property in Burlingame, 73% work in Burlingame, 30% visit Burlingame, and 4% go to school in Burlingame. Ms. Lee reviewed the feedback that staff received from the community. She noted that approximately 80% of the comments received were in favor of the proposed ordinance. However, she discussed the comments that were not in favor of the ordinance including: 1. Businesses have a high cost of rent, labor, and inventory already; adding this ordinance would impact our business a lot. 2. I support reduction of plastics; however this ordinance will put an additional burden on food service operations and may result in already low profit businesses having to pass additional costs on to consumers or closing Ms. Lee reviewed the general feedback that staff received from the survey: 1. Educate businesses and consumers about the provisions of the ordinance 2. Exemption for people with disabilities who need a plastic straw to drink 3. Delay effective date to give sufficient time for businesses to adjust their operations 4. Ensure that only healthy food service ware products are allowed in this ordinance 5. Many fiber -based takeout containers are not transparent, which makes it difficult for customers to see what is inside the container Ms. Lee noted that if the proposed ordinance is adopted, it wouldn't go into effect for a year. Therefore, staff would have time to conduct outreach and educate the public. Ms. Lee explained that the ordinance would impact food facilities and entities that provide prepared food for public consumption. She stated that this includes restaurants, farmers' markets, food trucks, delis, and 5 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 cafeterias. She noted that public schools are governed by the State, and therefore this ordinance would only affect private schools. Ms. Lee reviewed what items the proposed ordinance would impact: 1. Large Items including plates, bowls, cups, food trays, clamshells, boxes, and other containers 2. Accessories including straws, utensils, stirrers, and toothpicks Ms. Lee stated that under the proposed ordinance, the City wouldn't allow compostable plastic. She explained that compostable plastic doesn't break down into raw materials. Ms. Lee explained that under the proposed ordinance, the City would allow natural fiber -based materials (e.g. paper, sugarcane, wheat stalk, wood, bamboo, hay, etc.) and compostable plastic lining. She noted that larger items would need to be free of fluorinated chemicals and certified through the Biodegradable Products Institute. . Ms. Lee stated that if the ordinance is adopted, staff is considering piloting a program for compost bins in the downtown areas. She noted that staff is also considering requiring businesses and multi -family residential buildings to provide composting services for food waste. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if supermarkets would be under the proposed ordinance. Ms. Lee stated that the ordinance would cover all prepared food, not packaged food. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he was surprised that the proposed ordinance doesn't permit people to use recyclable plastic. He noted that in November 2020, the public would have the opportunity to vote on a statewide ban on single use plastic. He asked if he was correct that the proposed ordinance wouldn't permit plastics 1 and 2. Ms. Lee replied in the affirmative. She noted that there are some exceptions such as plastic straws for those with disabilities. Councilmember Ortiz asked how the City's ordinance compared to neighboring cities. Ms. Lee stated that the proposed ordinance was drafted by the County Office of Sustainability, and it was vetted through their stakeholders, which includes composting facilities, waste haulers, restaurants, and Chambers of Commerce. She explained that South San Francisco introduced the same ordinance in March. However, there has been a delay in other cities introducing the ordinance because of COVID-19. Mayor Beach asked if the City made any measures more stringent or relaxed from the County's model ordinance. Ms. Lee stated that the County's ordinance requires businesses to keep records of their disposable food service ware items. She explained that the City isn't requiring this. Mayor Beach stated that her understanding is that the black plastics aren't recyclable, and under this ordinance, the only plastics that would be allowed are the clear plastic covering. Ms. Lee replied in the affirmative. 6 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Mayor Beach asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the title. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 4-0-1. (Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran had recused herself). Mayor Beach opened the public hearing. Jennifer voiced her support for the ordinance. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). John Kevranian asked that the Sustainability Coordinator provide a resource list to the local food facilities. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mayor Beach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Colson stated that she supported the ordinance and was glad that the City would wait a year before making the ordinance effective. She asked that staff work with the local businesses to educate them on the ordinance and assist them on finding supplies. Councilmember Ortiz concurred with Councilmember Colson. He noted that the City shouldn't create any undue burdens on small businesses during the current pandemic. He added that the City should be flexible if they have to extend the effective date. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that like many in the community, he has been eating a lot more takeout than he used to. He noted that he has been pleasantly surprised that a lot of restaurants have already made this switch. He asked if the City permits clear plastic lids, can the City require the lids to be made out of plastic 1 or 2. Ms. Lee states that it must be compostable plastic, but she would get back to him on that. Mayor Beach agreed with her colleagues and thanked staff for their work on the proposed ordinance. Mayor Beach asked the City Clerk to publish notice of the proposed ordinance and for the proposed ordinance to be brought back for adoption. 10. STAFF REPORTS 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 NUMBER 83240, AT A COST OF $39,967,000 7 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that after eight years of thoughtful hard work by the City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission, consultants, community leaders, advisory committee, staff, and the public, staff has a contract for the construction of the new Community Center! Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad reviewed pictures of the exterior entry from Burlingame Avenue, interior rendering of the creative arts studio, interior rendering of the active lounge, and interior rendering of the fine art room. She noted that the building has large windows that embrace the park. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the contractors were pre -qualified in order to ensure quality general contractors. She noted that seven firms submitted proposals, and four were prequalified. She stated that three of the prequalified firms submitted proposals on March 24. She noted that the bid date was extended to allow for the consultants to make changes to the construction documents. The changes included additional foundation work to withstand sea level rise and a higher water table. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad reviewed the fiscal impact of the project: Construction Contract $39,967,000 Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment $559,057 Architectural Team $3,610,202 Photovoltaic Panels $1,129,156 Construction Manager $917,950 Utility and Connection Fees $92,500 Legal Ads $6,864 Temporary Facilities $430,108 Special Inspection and Testing $327,250 Environmental Fees $38,766 Planning and Building Fees $53,799 Construction Contingency $5,000,000 Architectural Contingency $125,951 TOTAL $52,258,603 She noted that the remaining estimated cost to complete the project is $49,571,800. She stated that the list of costs includes the photovoltaic panels. She explained that staff still expected to pay for these through a grant or loan, but that these funds are awarded to jurisdictions a year out from installation. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that 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 at a cost of $39,967,000. She stated that the base bid does not include the four add alternates: toekick lighting, kids town green roof, interior linear metal ceilings, and enrichment classroom operable partition. 8 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Mayor Beach asked if she was correct that none of the add alternates were time sensitive. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the Council would need to make a decision on toekick lighting within three months of the start of construction. Mayor Beach asked if she was correct that the total cost includes contingencies. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach asked if this project would be considered essential under the shelter -in -place order. City Manager Goldman stated that under the County's health order, essential public works construction projects can continue. She explained that because of the Community Center's role in a disaster, the project would be deemed essential. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the add alternates strike him as sensible and should be added. He noted that the total cost of the add alternates is $171,000. He asked what toekick lighting is. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad showed a picture of the toe -kick lighting. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he believed it was important that this project create benefits for the community and the workforce. He explained that it was important to him to make sure that the general contractor and the subcontractors pay prevailing wage. He asked if the City would be going above and beyond to ensure that this is the case. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the City decides to wait on the alternates, would the prices stay the same. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach stated that she learned at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting that staff is well under way moving out of the old Recreation Center and that the City is paying for portables. She asked when construction will start. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that she is hoping that by the middle or late May, there will be a shovel in the ground. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. There were no public comments. Mayor Beach stated that the add alternates total $171,000. She asked about the toekick lighting and whether this is one that the Director would prioritize. Councilmember Colson stated that she felt the Council should approve the toekick lighting for safety reasons and because the low-level lighting wouldn't be as harsh as overhead lighting for the neighborhood homes. Mayor Beach stated that she could see supporting this measure. She added that her gut was telling her to hold off on the green roof and the partition as those were things that the Council could decide on later. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran concurred with Councilmember Brownrigg that the add alternates were reasonable and she would rather approve of all items now. 9 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Councilmember Ortiz concurred with Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. Councilmember Colson stated that it was easier to put all four alternates in the package. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution 044-2020 to include the four add alternates; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. Councilmember Brownrigg asked that the motion be amended to include an endorsement of the enforcement of paying prevailing wage and if there is any malfeasance, the City would correct it. Councilmember Colson concurred. The motion was amended. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad confirmed with the architect that the City wants the wood ceiling instead of metal ceiling. Councilmember Colson concurred. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the wood ceiling would increase the cost. Parks and Recreation Director replied in the negative. Councilmember Colson amended her motion to adopt Resolution 044-2020 to include the four add alternates, to ensure that the general contractor and subcontractors' payroll was reviewed for prevailing wage, and if any malfeasance was detected the City would immediately correct it, and to include wood ceilings instead of metal; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 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 Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran recused herself from this item as she was recently put on a subcommittee to work on this item at the County level. City Manager Goldman stated that at the March 25 City Council meeting, the Council agreed to the formation of a subcommittee to develop programs to assist the City's small business community. Councilmember Brownrigg and Councilmember Colson volunteered to serve on this subcommittee because they are the liaisons to the Chamber of Commerce. At the April 6 meeting, the subcommittee reviewed several proposals that they crafted. City Manager Goldman stated that at the April 6 meeting, the Council approved by motion several of the programs that the subcommittee proposed. She explained that she brought them back and put them in a resolution in order to create a paper -trail of Council's decisions. City Manager Goldman stated by motion at the April 6 meeting Council approved: 10 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 1. $5,000 to SAMCEDA for advisory assistance for Burlingame businesses She stated that SAMCEDA is helping businesses get through the morass of paperwork and understand the different programs available to them. She noted that there are several federal programs that as of the date of the meeting no longer had funds. However, it seemed that additional funding would be approved by the US Senate. She added that the City's Economic Development Specialist Joe Sanfilippo will be working on getting information out to the business community. 2. Annual fees for Downtown Burlingame Business Improvement District and Broadway Business Improvement District She stated that it is approximately $90,000 for Downtown and $23,000 for Broadway. 3. Waiving parking meter fees for two weeks after the shelter -in -place order is lifted She noted that in a normal month, the City makes about $200,000 in parking meter fees. However, it is unclear what the City will be making in parking meter fees in the coming months. 4. Small Business Grant Program She stated that the Council tentatively approved $500,000 in funding for this program. 5. Kickstart Burlingame debit cards She stated that the Council tentatively approved $250,000 in funding for this program. City Manager Goldman stated that the small business grant program is now being called "Burlingame Back in Business." She noted that the staff report contains a document that discusses the details of the program. She stated that the subcommittee is continuing to work out the details but that it looks like SAMCEDA will be able to manage that program for the City. She noted that SAMCEDA is managing the SMC Strong Fund. City Manager Goldman explained that the City's criteria under Burlingame Back in Business differs slightly from the County's draft criteria. She stated that the County's criteria is for businesses with up to $2.5 million in gross revenues and/or one to ten full-time equivalent positions. She stated that a lot of the City's businesses would be eliminated from applying for this program because they have higher gross revenues. City Manager Goldman next discussed the Kickstart Burlingame debit card program. She explained that this program was designed to assist low income families and individuals and provide a boost to local businesses. She stated that the idea is to provide $250 gift cards to local families and individuals. She explained that the City would distribute the cards to those who qualify for reduced rates from Peninsula Clean Energy ("PCE") and for families who are on free or reduced school lunches through the Burlingame School District. She noted that the City is trying to limit the gift cards so that they can only be spent in the City's zip code. She stated that she received an email from Tish Busselle who is representing St. Paul's stating that they are excited about assisting the City with this program. City Manager Goldman stated that in terms of fiscal impact, the outlined programs would cost the City $755,000 from the Economic Stability Reserve this fiscal year. She added that the payment of the BID fees would come out of next year's budget, at a cost of $115,000. 11 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Councilmember Colson discussed the Burlingame Back in Business program. She explained that the subcommittee of she and Councilmember Brownrigg worked closely with SAMCEDA. She stated that the subcommittee anticipates that approximately $50,000 from the SMC Strong fund will be awarded to local businesses in Burlingame. Councilmember Colson stated that the subcommittee is suggesting that SAMCEDA first screen the applicants for SMC Strong funding, and then any Burlingame business that don't meet the SMC Strong criteria would then be reviewed for the City's program. She explained that the City would have to conduct public outreach on the process. Councilmember Colson reviewed the criteria that the subcommittee proposed for the Burlingame Back in Business program: • 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 Councilmember Colson stated that included in the program description are examples of the types of documentation that SAMCEDA and the San Mateo Credit Union are looking for when evaluating the applicants. She explained that the grant amount would be the equivalent of two months operating expenses (determined by taking an average of the last 12 months of operations as of March 1, 2020) not to exceed $10,000 and subject to the availability of funds. Councilmember Colson stated that the subcommittee was able to get the County to remove from its criteria the requirement for nothing more than $100,000 in net operating income. She explained that she and Councilmember Brownrigg spent time with SAMCEDA explaining how net operating income can be manipulated. Councilmember Colson explained that applications that are deemed complete by the San Mateo Credit Union Underwriting Committee will then be reviewed by an independent committee of SAMCEDA members for awards. She noted that 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. Councilmember Colson stated that all Burlingame small businesses would be encouraged to apply to the SMC Strong Fund regardless of whether the business meets the established screening criteria. The City of Burlingame's criteria is intended to include a broader range of businesses with gross revenue 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. 12 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Councilmember Colson explained that within six months of the award, the City reserves the right to contact the business owner and request follow up information as to how the funds were deployed. This way the Council would be able to review the efficacy of the grant program. Mayor Beach asked if there is a possibility that Burlingame citizens could donate to the pool of funds set aside for Burlingame businesses. Councilmember Colson noted that the subcommittee asked SAMCEDA President Rosanne Foust this question, and it seemed that a portal could be created so that residents could donate directly to the Burlingame Back in Business fund. Mayor Beach asked if the criteria was weighted towards businesses that had been in Burlingame for longer. Councilmember Colson stated that they considered a shorter length of time in order to assist brand new businesses in Burlingame. However, after a long discussion they decided that the newer businesses are probably fairly well capitalized. Therefore, this program was geared towards businesses that had existed in Burlingame for at least a year. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that in the planning stages, the subcommittee conceived of a much more complex scoring criteria. However, they realized that this would lead to more subjectiveness. Therefore, they focused on two main criteria: will the business have a good chance of succeeding, and will it protect the City's diversity of business. Councilmember Brownrigg noted that the subcommittee originally conceived of a grant range of $5,000 to $20,000. However, they eventually agreed with SAMCEDA's suggestion to cap the grants at $10,000 so that the City could help more businesses. He added that he expects the program to be oversubscribed. City Manager Goldman stated that the one-year requirement mirrored SAMCEDA's requirement in order to make the process easier. Councilmember Ortiz stated that having gone through the Federal PPP program, it is important to have a transparent method of prioritizing these requests. He thanked his colleagues for their hard work on the program. Councilmember Colson stated that they learned from the Federal government concerning allowing individual storefronts to apply for grants. She noted that the City's program required that the application be filed by the business' headquarters. Mayor Beach opened the item for public comment. Marsha Begun thanked the City Council for putting together this program and asked that the program include solid metrics. (comment submitted via publiccomment@,burlin_ag me.org). Marilyn Higuera voiced her support for the City assisting small businesses. (comment submitted via publiccomment(&burlin ag me.org). 13 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Mayor Beach closed public comment. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the Kickstart Burlingame debit card program. He explained that this program was designed to assist low income families and individuals. He stated that when this was proposed at the April 6 meeting, the Council discussed utilizing PCE's screening for reduced utility rates. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the subcommittee (Councilmember Brownrigg and Councilmember Ortiz) had to ascertain whether PCE would share the account data of who received reduced utility rates or write to those members on the City's behalf. He explained that PCE agreed to write to those individuals, and the letter would explain how to collect the card. He reviewed the process by which individuals would then be able to collect their card from St. Paul's. Councilmember Ortiz stated that Boston Private had agreed to store the cards in their vault because they are the bank that St. Paul's uses. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that there are pros and cons to the different debit cards that the subcommittee reviewed. He noted that the staff report included a matrix that reviewed the capabilities of the different cards. Councilmember Brownrigg explained that their original idea was to tie the debit cards to the City's zip code. However, when they reviewed the different programs available, it became clear this might not be possible. He explained that in order to limit the debit card to the City's zip code, staff would need to recruit merchants and have them agree to participate in the program. He stated that this would create a lot of difficulty. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that while the original intent of the program was to assist local businesses, it was also designed to assist low income families. He explained that the Council has heard over and over again that employees are using up their leave but that come May, many people would be in difficult situations. Therefore, the debit card would help to assist those that are the most in need. Councilmember Ortiz stated that when he thought about what a low-income family would do with a $250 gift card, it would be to spend it on groceries. He explained that grocery stores have not been shuttered and have been busier than usual. He stated that the subcommittee couldn't come up with a way to gear the cards towards local businesses without causing additional issues. Therefore, the gift cards are going to be left open, but the letter to the individuals and families will encourage them to spend the funds at local stores. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that they were informed by Mastercard and Visa experts that 70% of the funds would be spent locally. He explained that Council can be confident that a majority of the cash will be spent in Burlingame. Therefore, they recommend the Visa or Mastercard option that does not require merchants to opt in. Councilmember Colson stated that she loved the idea. She explained that when the City reaches out to merchants about the grant program, the City should explain the gift card program as well. She suggested 14 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 encouraging business to give individuals a discount if they shop with the gift card. She noted that this would be the merchant's call. Councilmember Colson stated that the cards should go out when Burlingame reopens. If they go out too early, then small businesses might not benefit. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that this is a tricky situation because the debit cards are for low-income families, and the City does not know when the shelter -in -place order will be lifted. He added that most of the funds will be spent on basics. Mayor Beach discussed the matrix in the staff report and the pros and cons for each option. She thanked the subcommittee for including families that are on free or reduced lunches through the Burlingame School District. She asked if the subcommittee had considered utilizing Samaritan House to distribute the debit cards as they would know who needed them. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the subcommittee discussed donating any cards that aren't given out during a specified time period to Samaritan House. He explained that he was comfortable that what isn't used in this process would be utilized. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the PCE list yields approximately 869 households in Burlingame. He stated that they reached out to Superintendent MacIsaac for information about additional households. He stated that the free and reduced lunch listing would be a second mailing done through the School District, to protect privacy. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he wasn't in favor of giving the cards directly to Samaritan House for distribution because of their 12% administrative fee. He added that he believed this also would be a great community bonding experience of working across several organizations to assist members of the community. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. There were no comments. Councilmember Colson asked if the City would receive data about how the funds were spent. Councilmember Brownrigg replied in the affirmative. He explained that the Mastercard program would allow the City to get this information. He added that the Mastercard program could also set an expiration date on the cards so that if the funds aren't used by a specified time, then the funds are returned to the City. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed making a few small language tweaks to the proposed Resolution. The proposed changes were sent to the City Clerk to incorporate into the Resolution. He noted that the changes were done to ensure that the community knew that these programs were to benefit low-income families and small businesses. 15 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 045-2020 with the suggested language amendments; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 4- 0-1. (Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran was recused). c. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING POTENTIAL ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY City Manager Goldman stated that this is a continuation of the Council's March 25 discussion where they voted to provide $30,000 in funding to assist individuals who are struggling during this public health emergency. She explained that from the $30,000, $10,000 went to CALL Primrose and $20,000 went to Samaritan House. City Manager Goldman stated that individuals in need can go to the SMC Strong Fund website and file an application. She noted that the original $3 million funding from Measure K to the fund allotted $1 million towards families and individuals in need. She reviewed the requirements to obtain SMC Strong funds: • Be a San Mateo County resident • Demonstrate financial hardship resulting from COVID-19 that makes you unable to pay for basic needs, such as proof of reduction in income • Demonstrate a household income within the past 30 days at or below the income eligibility threshold • 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 • 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. City Manager Goldman stated that she reviewed what other cities have done to assist their communities: • Daly City approved $100,000 in housing funds to the Daly City Community Service Center, which is their core service agency, for rental assistance. • Menlo Park has contracted with Samaritan House since 2019 to provide tenant relocation assistance at a cost of $100,000, plus a 12% administrative fee. She explained that recently, Menlo Park approved repurposing and retitling the program to include tenant rental assistance. She noted that individuals can get 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 lost of income due to COVID-19. • Redwood City, in March, 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. Then in April, their Council allocated $393,000 in general funds for the Emergency Rental Assistance Fund that allows eligible applicants to receive up to $3,000 in rental support. 16 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 • San Carlos established a Tenant Assistance Program that authorizes their City Manager to enter into a funding agreement designating Samaritan House to administer the program, and appropriating $112,000 from their Below Market Rate Housing Fund to fund the program. She explained that 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. • San Mateo authorized spending $440,000 in Community Development Block Grant funding for rental assistance. • South San Francisco authorized $220,000 in rental assistance for approximately 60 households. City Manager Goldman explained that given the small size of the City's staff, staff is recommending that the City partner with one or more non-profit agencies to provide financial assistance to the City's residents affected by COVID-19. She stated that the staff report outlines three organizations that the Council should consider partnering with to assist the community. 1. Samaritan House She stated that the City could contract with Samaritan House to provide rental assistance to Burlingame tenants that are struggling to pay their rent during the pandemic. She explained that the City can set its own guidelines including the AMI level that the Council wants to target. She noted that San Carlos requires that households have an income at 120% AMI or below, occupy a legal unit located in incorporated San Carlos, and have a current valid lease agreement to be eligible for assistance. She added that Samaritan House charges a 12% administrative fee to manage the program. 2. HIP Housing She explained that HIP Housing is 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. She stated that the City could reach out to HIP Housing about having a Burlingame specific program. 3. CALL Primrose She stated that staff and Council have been hearing a lot on the County calls about food insecurity issues in the County. She explained that the City could choose to make an additional donation to CALL Primrose to help individuals struggling to afford food. She noted that the CALL Primrose Executive Director Terri Boesch told her that the organization cannot ensure that the funds are only used to assist Burlingame residents. She stated that she was informed that Burlingame residents typically make up roughly 16% of their base. However, between January 30 and April 13, CALL Primrose saw a 58% increase in Burlingame households availing themselves of their services. City Manager Goldman stated that the fiscal impact is unknown as it hasn't been determined how much the City will donate. She noted that on the last program, the City funded $500,000 for small businesses in this fiscal year and $250,000 for families and businesses. 17 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked why CALL Primrose can't ensure that the funds would go to Burlingame residents. City Manager Goldman stated that she was informed that this isn't the way they track the data and that they aren't capable of doing it that way. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that when he talked to CALL Primrose, he was informed that they partnered with Second Harvest Food Bank. He explained that Second Harvest Food Bank has a policy that they don't want to discriminate against families based on their location. Accordingly, they frown on participating in a program where some individuals can avail themselves of a program based on their location and others can't. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the City had started collecting housing impact fees. City Manager Goldman replied in the negative. She explained that the residential projects that have been approved have decided to build units in lieu of fees. She added that none of the commercial projects have gotten to the point where they would have to pay the fees. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the City could advance those fees (from the commercial projects) to assist individuals now. Finance Director Augustine stated that she wasn't sure and would need to review the ordinance. Councilmember Colson stated that she liked the idea of partnering with HIP Housing. She noted that she believed that the pandemic could result in individuals needing to move into shared housing become of the economic downturn. She asked how the City Manager envisioned this partnership working. City Manager Goldman stated that HIP Housing is raising funds for an emergency relief fund. She explained that the City could donate to this fund and discuss with HIP Housing whether funds could be targeted towards their Burlingame clients. Councilmember Colson stated that she liked HIP Housing's emergency relief fund because it included childcare assistance. She asked about funding the Parks and Recreation summer programs as it acts as daycare for many residents of Burlingame. City Manager Goldman stated that staff is unsure whether they will be able to have programs this summer. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran concurred with Councilmember Colson. She explained that HIP Housing had a history being a good partner to the City. She added that she liked the diversity of HIP Housing's emergency relief fund. Councilmember Ortiz asked if HIP Housing has an administrative fee. City Manager Goldman stated that she would need to check with HIP Housing. Mayor Beach asked if she was correct that the Samaritan House program provides emergency rental and utility payment assistance. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. 18 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Mayor Beach asked if Samaritan House also assisted with food insecurity. City Manager Goldman explained that Samaritan House informed her that the City could create their own program that could include food insecurity. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that in reading the description of HIP Housing's program, it wasn't clear that the funds would be targeted towards Burlingame. City Manager Goldman stated that HIP Housing's emergency relief fund is not targeted towards Burlingame but that the City could ask them to manage and target funds to Burlingame. Councilmember Colson stated that she has been working at Samaritan House. She discussed how the program works. She explained that the City could offer vouchers to Burlingame residents to pick up food at Samaritan House. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he thought the City should focus on rental and daycare assistance. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. Jenny voiced her gratitude that the City was working to assist the community during the pandemic. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mayor Beach closed public comment. Mayor Beach stated that she liked the flexibility of HIP Housing's program. She noted that clients of HIP Housing tend to be individuals and that there were also families in need. She stated that Samaritan House assists a broader spectrum of people and thought the Council should consider donating to both organizations. Mayor Beach discussed the food insecurity in the County. She explained that she was told that CALL Primrose has 346 new client families in March versus the typical 27 new clients per month. She stated that she would also be in favor of funding CALL Primrose. Mayor Beach stated that she thought the Council should consider funding these programs with a number that is commensurate with what the City is investing in the business program minus the $250,000 in the kickstart program. She explained that she believed the Council should approve between $500,000 and $600,000 in funding for families and individuals. Councilmember Ortiz discussed the need to ensure that the City is helping undocumented workers that might not qualify for other assistance programs. He noted that he believed all the organizations that the City Manager had listed would be great. He added that before the Mayor spoke, he was thinking the City should donate $300,000 but was open to more. Councilmember Colson reminded her colleagues that the $500,000 funding for small businesses creates jobs, which allows people to pay their rent and buy food. Therefore, she suggested putting $250,000 towards assisting individuals and families. She explained that this amount added with the $250,000 for the Kickstart 19 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Burlingame program would add up to $500,000 for individuals and families and therefore would match the $500,000 for small business grants. Councilmember Colson stated that she liked Councilmember Brownrigg's idea of advancing housing impact fees. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed targeting funds for renter assistance since the Kickstart Burlingame program will help residents with groceries. Mayor Beach stated that she leaned into using General Fund money instead of future housing impact fees. She explained that she believed there would be a need to use the housing impact fees for affordable housing projects in the future. She noted that Burlingame would not be the first city to utilize General Funds to assist with rental assistance. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she didn't think the Council should only use the funds for rental assistance. She discussed the older citizens that need help purchasing medicine and food. She added that she agreed that the City should set aside $250,000 to assist individuals and families. She stated that she thought the funds should be targeted towards Burlingame residents. Councilmember Ortiz stated that Samaritan House would allow geographic restriction and HIP Housing would most likely allow the same restriction. He suggested giving $100,000 to Samaritan House, $100,000 to HIP Housing, and $50,000 to CALL Primrose. Councilmember Brownrigg supported Councilmember Ortiz's suggestion. He stated that if the City puts $1 million into grants, that it is a significant gift from the City of Burlingame. He noted that he believed there would be no shortage of opportunities for the City to provide to organizations in the future. He stated that the City needed to think about its own resources. Therefore, he explained he would be more comfortable going beyond the $1 million marker after budget conversations in May. Councilmember Colson agreed with Councilmember Ortiz's suggestion. She noted that when she talks to the restaurants in Burlingame, she tells them to send their people to CALL Primrose for assistance. She stated that CALL Primrose is also assisting individuals who work in Burlingame. City Manager Goldman asked if the $100,000 to Samaritan House would include the $12,000 administrative fee or if they should be given on top. Mayor Beach stated that she would feel comfortable putting it on top. Councilmember Colson stated that if HIP Housing has a fee, she would want the City to cover that as well. She suggested that if the housing linkage fees show up, the Council could reserve the option to reimburse the General Fund for the $200,000 that was going for rental assistance. 20 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/04/2020 Councilmember Brownrigg asked if part of the $50,000 that is being allocated towards CALL Primrose should be redirected to Meals for Mills to aid healthcare workers. Mayor Beach stated that she felt that program had a lot of momentum and therefore these funds should go towards low income individuals and families. City Manager Goldman noted that for Samaritan House, the City can set its AMI level. She asked if the Council would like to copy San Carlos and set it at 120% AMI. The Council agreed. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. MAYOR BEACH'S COMMITTEE REPORT b. COUNCILMEMBER COLSON'S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Beach suggested considering having certain streets limited to through traffic in order to allow for more pedestrian and bicycle room during the shelter. The Council agreed to agendize this item. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Beach adjourned the meeting at 10:46 p.m. in memory of Martha May. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 21 Burlingame City Council April 20, 2020 Unapproved Minutes BURL- IN4d GAME AGENDA NO: 8b STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 4, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 4, 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: Adoption of 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 RECOMMENDATION By motion, the City Council should adopt the following ordinance: 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 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. 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. F1 Adoption of an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 8.10 of the May 4, 2020 BMC and Adopting a New Chapter 8.10 Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and discussed the proposed amendments at its regular meeting of April 20, 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 May 4, 2020. 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). Exhibit: • Proposed Ordinance 2 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 underlininq 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 by 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. DIVISION 4: 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 20' 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 BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 4, 2020 AGENDA NO: 8c MEETING DATE: May 4, 2020 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director — (650) 558-7307 Karen Hager, Management Analyst — (650) 558-7307 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Sports Court, and Picnic Amount of $2,289,925 RECOMMENDATION Accepting the Washington Park Playground, Area Project, City Project No. 85670, in the Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area Project, City Project No. 85670, in the amount of $2,289,925. BACKGROUND On May 20, 2019, the City Council awarded the construction contract, in the amount of $1,364,120, to Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc. The procurement and installation of the playground equipment and surfacing, at a cost of $498,263, was purchased through CMAS, a purchasing cooperative under the California Department of General Services Procurement Division. The TotTurf playground surfacing procurement and installation was purchased through the national purchasing cooperative National IPA at a cost of $158,000. DISCUSSION The project construction has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The final construction cost was $1,568,793. This includes several change orders totaling $204,673. The changes included additional fencing around the playground; disposing of unknown Petromat; installation of Tensa Fabric on the sports court area due to subgrade moisture; purchase and planting of two additional 24" box trees near the sports court; modifications to the sports court pathway, drainage, and landscaping; and other minor project changes due to unforeseen conditions. FISCAL IMPACT The following are the estimated final project construction expenditures: 1 Acceptance of Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, & Picnic Area Project, No. 85670 May 4, 2020 Suarez & Munoz Construction $1,568,793 Ross Recreation Playground Equipment & Installation $498,263 Robertson TotTurf Surfacing $158,000 Geotechnical Consultant $15,917 Site Amenities/Trees $43,505 Ads/Signs/Plans $3,745 -Legal Playground Safety Inspection $1,400 Portable Restrooms $301 TOTAL $2,289,925 There are adequate funds available in the Capital Improvement budget to cover the final costs. Exhibits: • Resolution • Final Progress Payment 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS — WASHINGTON PARK PLAYGROUND, SPORTS COURT, AND PICNIC AREA PROJECT BY SUAREZ & MUNOZ CONSTRUCTION, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 85670 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, which finds, orders and determines as follows: 1. The Director of Parks and Recreation of the City of Burlingame has certified the work done by Suarez and Munoz Construction, Inc. under the terms of their contract with the City dated May 20, 2019, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 85670 3. Said work is accepted. Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of May, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk TO (OWNER): City of Burlingame 420 Carolan Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 FROM (CONTRACTOR): Suarez & Munoz Construction 2490 American Ave. Hayward, CA 94545 CONTRACT FOR: P.O 15187 AIA Type Document Application and Certification for Payment PROJECT. Washington Park Playground 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 VIA (ARCHITECT): Group 4 Architecture 211 Linden Avenue So. San Francisco, CA 94080 CONTRACTOR'S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT Application is made for Payment, as shown below, in connection with the Contract. Continuation Sheet, AIA Type Document is attached. 1. ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM .................... $ 2. Net Change by Change Orders ................ $ 3. CONTRACT SUM TO DATE (Line 1 + 2)........... $ 4. TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED TO DATE ...... $ 5. RETAINAGE: a. 0.00 % of Completed Work $ b. 0.00 % of Stored Material $ Total retainage (Line 5a + 5b) .................... $ 6. TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE .............. $ (Line 4 less Line 5 Total) 7. LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT (Line 6 from prior Certificate) ..................... $ 8. CURRENT PAYMENT DUE ..... ................ $ 9. BALANCE TO FINISH, INCLUDING RETAINAGE (Line 3 less Line 6) $ 1,364,120.00 204,672.52 1,568,792.52 1,568,792.52 0.00 0.00 APPLICATION NO: 8 PERIOD TO:3/31/2020 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 12421-04 CONTRACT DATE: 5/29/2019 Page 1 of 3 DISTRIBUTION TO: _ OWNER _ ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR The Undersigned Contractor certifies that to the best of the Contractor's knowledge, information and belief the work covered by this application for Payment has been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents, that all amounts have been paid by the Contractor for Work for which previous Certificates for Payment were issued and payments received from the owner, and that current payment shown herein is now due. CONTRACTOR: Suarez & Munoz Construction 2490 American Ave. Hayward, CA 94545 By: State of: County of: Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 0.00 Notary Public: 1,568,792.52 1,490, 352.90 78,439.62 n nn CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY ADDITIONS DEDUCTIONS Total changes approved in previous months by Owner 176,312.64 0.00 Total approved this Month 28,359.88 0.00 TOTALS 204,672.52 0.00 NET CHANGES by Change Order 204,672.52 My Commission Expires: Date: Day of 20 ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT In Accordance with the Contract Documents, based on on -site observations and the data com- prising the above application, the Architect certifies to owner that to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief the Work has progressed as indicated,the quality of the work is in accordance with the Contract Documents, and the Contractor is entitled to payment of the AMOUNT CERTIFIED. AMOUNT CERTIFIED ............................... $ (Attach explanation if amount certified differs from the amount applied. Initial all figures on this Application and on the Continuation Sheet that are changed to conform to the amount certified.) ARCHITECT: By: Date: This Certificate is not negotiable. The AMOUNT CERTIFIED is payable only to the Contractor named herein. Issuance, Payment and acceptance of payment are without prejudice to any rights of the Owner or Contractor under this Contract. TO (OWNER): City of Burlingame 420 Carolan Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 FROM (CONTRACTOR): Suarez & Munoz Construction 2490 American Ave. Hayward, CA 94545 CONTRACT FOR: P.O 15187 ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 General Requirements 2 Base Course per Details 5&6/L4.0 3 Basic Electrical Requirements 4 Testing 5 Basic Electrical Materials & Methods 6 Site Lighting 7 Site Clearing 8 Plant Protection 9 Pavement Course 10 Earth Moving 11 Utility Trenching and Backfill 12 Asphalt Paving 13 Site Concrete 14 Concrete Pavement 15 Cement & Concrete Exterior Imp. 16 Stabilized DG Paving 17 Parking Bumper 18 Synthetic Turf Safety Surfacing 19 Recreational Court Surfacing 20 Decorative Fence & Gates 21 Vinyl Coated Chainlink Fence AIA Type Document Application and Certification for Payment Page 2 of 3 PROJECT: Washington Park Playground APPLICATION NO: 8 DISTRIBUTION 850 Burlingame Avenue TO: Burlingame, CA 94010 PERIOD TO: 3/31/2020 _ OWNER _ ARCHITECT -CONTRACTOR VIA (ARCHITECT): Group 4 Architecture ARCHITECT'S 211 Linden Avenue PROJECT NO: 12421-04 So. San Francisco, CA 94080 CONTRACT DATE: 5/29/2019 SCHEDULE PREVIOUS COMPLETED STORED COMPLETED VALUE APPLICATIONS THIS PERIOD MATERIAL STORED % BALANCE RETAINAGE 54,000.00 54,000.00 0.00 0.00 54,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 46,000.00 46,000.00 0.00 0.00 46,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 31,000.00 31,000.00 0.00 0.00 31,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 21,000.00 21,000.00 0.00 0.00 21,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 98,000.00 98,000.00 0.00 0.00 98,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 70,000.00 70,000.00 0.00 0.00 70,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 0.00 0.00 35,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 110,000.00 110,000.00 0.00 0.00 110,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 0.00 0.00 55,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 68,000.00 68,000.00 0.00 0.00 68,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 70,000.00 70,000.00 0.00 0.00 70,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 0.00 0.00 60,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 16,000.00 16,000.00 0.00 0.00 16,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 0.00 0.00 12,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 120.00 120.00 0.00 0.00 120.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 18,500.00 18,500.00 0.00 0.00 18,500.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 44,000.00 44,000.00 0.00 0.00 44,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 8,500.00 8,500.00 0.00 0.00 8,500.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 TO (OWNER): City of Burlingame 420 Carolan Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 FROM (CONTRACTOR): Suarez & Munoz Construction 2490 American Ave. Hayward, CA 94545 CONTRACT FOR: P.O 15187 AIA Type Document Application and Certification for Payment PROJECT. Washington Park Playground 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 VIA (ARCHITECT): Group 4 Architecture 211 Linden Avenue So. San Francisco, CA 94080 APPLICATION NO: 8 PERIOD TO:3/31/2020 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 12421-04 CONTRACT DATE: 5/29/2019 Page 3 of 3 DISTRIBUTION TO: _ OWNER _ ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR ITEM DESCRIPTION SCHEDULE VALUE PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS COMPLETED THIS PERIOD STORED MATERIAL COMPLETED STORED % BALANCE RETAINAGE 22 Site Furnishing 46,000.00 46,000.00 0.00 0.00 46,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 23 Irrigation 235,000.00 235,000.00 0.00 0.00 235,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 24 Planting 150,000.00 150,000.00 0.00 0.00 150,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 25 Water System 7,000.00 7,000.00 0.00 0.00 7,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 26 Storm Utility Drainage Piping 50,000.00 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 27 Subdrainage 50,000.00 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 1 Change Orders 176,312.64 176,312.64 0.00 0.00 176,312.64 100.00 0.00 0.00 2 Change Orders 28,359.88 28,359.88 0.00 0.00 28,359.88 100.00 0.00 0.00 REPORT TOTALS $1,568,792.52 $1,568,792.52 $0.00 $0.00 $1,568,792.52 100.00 $0.00 $0.00 BURL- INGAME AGENDA NO: 8d STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 4, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 4, 2020 From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director — (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Side Letter Agreements to the Burlingame Police Officers Association and Burlingame Police Sergeants Association Memoranda of Understanding RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute side letter agreements to the Burlingame Police Officers Association (BPOA) and Burlingame Police Sergeants Association (BPSA) Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). BACKGROUND The Burlingame Police Officers Association (BPOA) and Burlingame Police Sergeants Association (BPSA) Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) are set to expire on December 31, 2021, and include terms and conditions of employment for the employees of the Police Officers and Police Sergeants Units. Representatives for the City and the BPOA and BPSA met and conferred, as required by law, on the issue of the rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime and have reached agreement. DISCUSSION The hours eligible for overtime, work period, and the rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime hours for both the BPOA and the BPSA is governed by both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the MOUs for the Units. This results in two separate rates of pay when calculating hours eligible for overtime under the FLSA and hours eligible for overtime under the MOUs (commonly referred to as "FLSA overtime" and WOU overtime"). The rate of pay for FLSA overtime is higher than for MOU overtime, although hours eligible for FLSA overtime are far fewer than hours eligible for MOU overtime. The current practice requires a dual calculation of overtime hours, which is a complex, time-consuming, manual process for Payroll staff every work period. On December 16, 2019, the Department of Labor issued a Final Rule clarifying the FLSA regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime may exclude Holiday -in -lieu pay. This Final Rule became effective January 15, 2020. Removing Holiday -in -lieu pay from the rate of pay used for calculating FLSA overtime means FLSA and MOU rates of pay become the same for the BPOA and the BPSA. On December 30, 2019, the City notified the BPOA and BPSA that it would no longer include Holiday -in -lieu pay in the calculation of FLSA overtime. The parties met and 1 Side Letter Agreements May 4, 2020 conferred, as required by law, on this decision. As there is no fiscal impact, the City agreed to clarify the language of both MOUs to state the MOU overtime rate is the same as the FLSA overtime rate. Any future changes in the FLSA regarding the regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime will automatically change the MOU overtime rate. The City is required to have amendments to existing MOUs approved by the governing board. The side letters, once approved by the City Council, will be made available to the public via the City of Burlingame website, attached to the existing MOUs. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. Exhibits: • Resolution • Side Letter to the Burlingame Police Officers Association Memorandum of Understanding • Side Letter to the Burlingame Police Sergeants Association Memorandum of Understanding 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SIDE LETTER AGREEMENTS TO THE BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND BURLINGAME POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, the Burlingame Police Officers Association (BPOA) and Burlingame Police Sergeants Association (BPSA) Memoranda of Understanding ("MOUs") are set to expire on December 31, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City and the BPOA and BPSA have met and conferred on the issue of the rate of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime and reached agreement; and WHEREAS, the amendments are related to language changes to Article 7.2 Overtime Definition of the BPOA MOU and Article 6.2 Overtime Definition of the BPSA MOU; and WHEREAS, the changes increase the efficiency of payroll practices and have no fiscal impact to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. The amendment to the BPOA and BPSA MOUs, set forth in the Side Letters attached are approved. 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 4th day of May 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk DocuSign Envelope ID: F41829BF-3A7D-4F2A-8085-892CD2FEAC26 SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASOCIATION Overtime and the Regular Rate of Pay 7.2 Overtime Definition: Overtime is authorized time worked in excess of an employee's normal daily work schedule. 7 .2.1 Effective April 15, 2002 the Department will implement an Alternative Work Schedule Program. Once implemented; Officers who are assigned to 12-hour shifts will be authorized overtime for time worked in excess of 12 hours in a day. Overtime shall be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular rate of pay for every hour of overtime worked. "Regular rate of pay" as used in this provision shall mean the same as that phrase is defined under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This does not include Holiday Pay unless the 9t" Circuit rules that it must be included in the "regular rate of pay". Payment for overtime shall not be made unless such overtime has been authorized by the City prior to such overtime being worked. If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding, please indicate your approval and acceptance in the space provided below. Approved and Accepted: For Burlingame oPpj.icVd�g�fficers Association 1-W % St, Todd Chase PDA President Date: 4/24/2020 For City of Burlingame DocuSigned by: �b a h6m,s6vu F886F69EBOF1482... Sonya Morrison Human Resources Director Date: 4/24/2020 DocuSign Envelope ID: 35C19602-B6AB-4860-8D39-F27D2E2ACE16 SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND BURLINGAME POLICE SERGEANTS ASOCIATION Overtime and the Regular Rate of Pay 6.2 Overtime Definition: Overtime is authorized time worked in excess of an employee's normal daily work schedule. 6.2.1 Effective April 15, 2002 the Department will implement an Alternative Work Schedule Program. Once implemented, Sergeants who are assigned to 12-hour shifts will be authorized overtime for time worked in excess of 12 hours in a day. Overtime shall be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular rate of pay for every hour of overtime worked. "Regular rate of pay" as used in this provision shall mean the same as that phrase is defined under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This does not include Holiday Pay unless the 9tn Circuit rules that it must be included in the "regular rate of pay". Payment for overtime shall not be made unless such overtime has been authorized by the City prior to such overtime being worked. If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding, please indicate your approval and acceptance in the space provided below. Approved and Accepted: For Burlinga pgj&&Wt&geants Association Todd Chase PDA President For City of Burlipame IuSig Td by: b a AI m,sftl F886F69EBOF1482... Sonya Morrison Human Resources Director Date: 4/24/2020 Date: 4/24/2020 BURL- iNAGENDA NO: 8e STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 4, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 4, 2020 From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director — (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment of the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMCHA) CalPERS Health Contract RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City to make administrative changes to the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) CalPERS Health Contract to include the newly created Burlingame Police Sergeants Association and to rename medical groups to align with updates to the bargaining unit names. BACKGROUND The City contracts with CalPERS to provide medical insurance to employees. Health insurance may differ over bargaining units as a result of contract negotiations, so CalPERS categorizes employees into health groups based on their bargaining unit in the Health Contract. Over time the names of the bargaining units have changed, and the Police Sergeants became an independent bargaining unit. These changes were not communicated to CalPERS at the time of the change. DISCUSSION Changes to the name of a bargaining unit necessitate a change to the name of the associated health group. Newly formed bargaining units must be added as a new health group in the Health Contract. Changes to the names or numbers of health groups are administrative only, there is no fiscal or other substantive impact from these changes. CalPERS requires a very specific resolution, called a change resolution, be approved by the governing board to rename or add or delete health groups. This resolution must be adopted at a public meeting and filed with CalPERS, and the changes will be effective the first of the following month. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact resulting from this action. Exhibit: 1 CaIPERS Health Contract Change Resolution May 4, 2020 Resolution RESOLUTION NO. Number FIXING THE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT AT AN EQUAL AMOUNT FOR EMPLOYEES AND ANNUITANTS WHEREAS, (1) City of Burlingame is a contracting agency under Government Code Section 22920 and subject to the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, (2) Government Code Section 22892(a) provides that a contracting agency subject to Act shall fix the amount of the employer contribution by resolution; and WHEREAS, (3) Government Code Section 22892(b) provides that the employer contribution shall be an equal amount for both employees and annuitants, but may not be less than the amount prescribed by Section 22892(b) of the Act; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, RESOLVED, (a) That the employer contribution for each employee or annuitant shall be the amount necessary to pay the full cost of his/her enrollment, including the enrollment of family members, in a health benefits plan up to a maximum of: Is Medical Group Monthly Employer Health Contribution 001 POLICE OFFICERS ASSOC. PEMHCA Minimum 002 Local 2400, I.A.F.F. PEMHCA Minimum 003 AFSCME LOCAL 829 ADM IN PEMHCA Minimum 004 AFSCME LOCAL 829 MAINTENANCE PEMHCA Minimum 005 POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOC. PEMHCA Minimum 006 TEAMSTERS PEMHCA Minimum 007 DEPART HEADS/UNREP PEMHCA Minimum 008 POLICE ADMINISTRATORS PEMHCA Minimum 009 AFSCME LOCAL 829 BAMM PEMHCA Minimum 010 FIRE ADMINISTRATORS PEMHCA Minimum plus administrative fees and Contingency Reserve Fund assessments; and be it further City of Burlingame has fully complied with any and all applicable provisions of Government Code Section 7507 in electing the benefits set forth above; and be it further CaIPERS Health Resolution (Change), Revised November 2019 RESOLVED, (c) That the participation of the employees and annuitants of City of Burlingame shall be subject to determination of its status as an "agency or instrumentality of the state or political subdivision of a State" that is eligible to participate in a governmental plan within the meaning of Section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, upon publication of final Regulations pursuant to such Section. If it is determined that City of Burlingame would not qualify as an agency or instrumentality of the state or political subdivision of a State under such final Regulations, CalPERS may be obligated, and reserves the right to terminate the health coverage of all participants of the employer; and be it further RESOLVED, (d) That the executive body appoint and direct, and it does hereby appoint and direct, the Human Resources Director to file with the Board a verified copy of this resolution, and to perform on behalf of City of Burlingame all functions required of it under the Act; and be it further RESOLVED, (e) That coverage under the Act be effective on June 1, 2020. Adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council at City Hall, 501 Primrose Rd, Burlingame, this 4th day of May, 2020. Signed: Attest: Emily Beach, Mayor Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk CalPERS Health Resolution (Change), Revised November 2019 6URLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8f MEETING DATE: May 4, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 4, 2020 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of Resolutions Initiating Proceedings to Renew the Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project for Fiscal Year 2020-21 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions to initiate proceedings to renew the levy and collection of assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1 for fiscal year 2020-21 as follows: a. Initiate proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments for fiscal year 2020-21; b. Approve the Annual Engineer's Report for fiscal year 2020-21; and c. Declare the intention to levy and collect assessments for fiscal year 2020-21. BACKGROUND At its April 2, 2012 meeting, the City Council initiated the proceedings to form the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1. The proceedings were conducted under the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (Act). Weighted ballots were sent via certified mail to the property owners on April 5, 2012. At the May 21, 2012 meeting, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to tabulate ballots for the Assessment District. The results of the ballot showed no "majority protest", thereby allowing the City Council to order improvements, form the Assessment District, and levy assessments totaling $335,787 annually for 30 years to the downtown Burlingame Avenue property owners. Property owners were given the option to pre -pay their assessments to avoid paying annually. Five property owners have exercised this option. DISCUSSION The Engineer's Report is updated annually to reflect any changes that may have occurred to property configuration in the Assessment District. The Act requires an annual Public Hearing to confirm and levy the assessment. The Public Hearing will be held on May 18, 2020. 1 Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue May 4, 2020 Streetscape Improvement Project for Fiscal Year 2020-21 FISCAL IMPACT The total assessment for fiscal year 2020-21 is $310,156, which reflects pre -payments by property owners. There are no changes to the annual assessment from the last year. Funds collected through assessments will be used as part of the debt payment for Burlingame Avenue Streetscape bonds. Exhibits: • Resolution Initiating Proceedings for Levy & Collections • Resolution Approving Annual Report for FY 2020-21 • Updated Engineer's Report for FY 2020-21 • Resolution Declaring Intention to Levy & Collect Assessments • Staff Report — April 2, 2012 • Staff Report — May 21, 2012 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 The City Council (the "Council") of the City of Burlingame (the "City") resolves as follows: WHEREAS, the Council previously completed its proceedings in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the "Act") to establish the City's Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project (the "Assessment District"); and WHEREAS, the Engineer's Report is updated annually ("Annual Report") to reflect any changes that may have occurred to property configuration in the Assessment District. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Annual Report: The Council orders staff to prepare and file with the Clerk the Annual Report concerning the levy and collection of assessments within the Assessment District for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021. 2. New Improvements or Changes to Existing Improvements: There are no changes to existing improvements nor are there any items being added to the list of improvements previously approved at the formation of the Assessment District. 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 4t" day of May, 2020 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 The City Council (the "Council") of the City of Burlingame (the "City") finds as follows: WHEREAS, the Council previously completed its proceedings in accordance with and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the "Act") to establish the City's Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project (the "Assessment District"); and WHEREAS, the Council has, by previous resolution, ordered staff to prepare and file the Annual Report concerning the levy and collection of assessments within the Assessment District; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared and filed such Annual Report with the Clerk; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Annual Report. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Approval of Report: The Council approves the Annual Report concerning the levy of assessments as submitted for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021. 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 4t" day of May, 2020 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk City of Burlingame Assessment District No. 2012-1, Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project Engineer's Report City of Burlingame Fiscal Year 2020/21 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1 2. INTRODUCTION 2-1 2.1. Background of District...................................................................................2-1 2.2. Reason for the Assessment..........................................................................2-1 2.3. Establishment of the Assessment.................................................................2-1 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 3-1 3.1. Description of the Boundaries of the District.................................................3-1 3.2. Description of the District Improvement Project............................................3-1 3.3. Map of District Improvement Project.............................................................3-1 4. ESTIMATE OF COSTS 4-1 4.1. District Improvement Project Costs..............................................................4-1 5. SPECIAL AND GENERAL BENEFIT 5-1 5.1. Introduction................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2. Identification of Benefit..................................................................................5-1 5.3. Separation of General Benefit......................................................................5-3 5.4. Quantification of General Benefit..................................................................5-4 5.5. Apportioning of Special Benefit.....................................................................5-5 6. METHOD ASSESSMENT 6-1 6.1. Assessment Budget.......................................................................................6-1 6.2. Method of Assessment Spread ................ ............ .........................................6-2 6.3. District Improvement Project Debt Financing.................................................6-2 6.4. Assessment Prepayment Formula.................................................................6-3 7. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 7-1 8. ASSESSMENT ROLL 8-1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Council of the City of Burlingame ("City Council"), pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California ("1972 Act"), previously formed the assessment district known and designated as "Assessment District No. 2012-1, Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project", (hereafter referred to as the "District'). The City Council has initiated proceedings directing the preparation and filing of a report for Fiscal Year 2020/21 presenting the improvements, an estimated cost, including debt financing, of the improvements, annual administrative costs, and a diagram showing the area and properties to be assessed. The following assessment is authorized in order to pay the estimated costs, including debt financing of the improvements and annual administrative costs to be paid by the assessable real property within the boundaries of the District in proportion to the special benefit received. The following table summarizes the assessment: Description Amount District Improvement Project Costs $11,227,015 Less: Allocation to General Benefit(1) (3,238,994) Subtotal: Allocation to Special Benefit $7,988,021 Less: Sewer and Water Enterprise Fund Contribution(2) ($922,000) Less: TLC Grant (301,000) Less: Additional Contribution from Parking Enterprise Fund (782,432) Less: Additional City Contribution (20,195) Total Amount to be Specially Assessed $5,962,394 Total Amount Pre -Paid During 30 Day Collection Period $341,582 Annual Assessable Budget: Average Annual Debt Service Payment(3) $310,156 Total Annual Assessable Budget $310,156 (1) See Section 5.4. (2) Contemporaneously with the District Improvement Project, the City, using sewer and water enterprise funds, replaced the sewer and water lines under Burlingame Avenue (the overall total cost for all projects is $15,443,660). A portion of the money for that project was allocated for patching the streets and sidewalks. Since the District Improvement Project eliminates the need for patching, the $922,000 is being contributed to the District Improvement Project. (3) See Section 6.3. This annual report represents no changes to the Fiscal Year 2019/20 annual report. /! A, v62� Art Morimoto Assistant Public Works Director City of Burlingame Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 3-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1. Background of District The City of Burlingame ("City") has completed, in coordination with planned utility improvements, the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project ("District Improvement Project"). The District Improvement Project provided an opportunity for community stakeholders to plan and implement streetscaping and sidewalk improvements that complement the evolving vision and needs of the Burlingame Avenue property owners, merchants and community. The District Improvement Project improves the public infrastructure that fronts property along Burlingame Avenue (and portions of certain side streets at intersections with Burlingame Avenue) between El Camino Real and California Drive. Further, the District Improvement Project enhances the overall experience of merchants and visitors by creating a memorable Burlingame Avenue for shopping, dining, and strolling. 2.2. Reason for the Assessment The assessment covered by this Engineer's Report will generate the assessment revenue necessary to provide for a portion of the public improvements provided by the District Improvement Project and further described in Section 3.2 of this Engineer's Report. The District improvements may include but are not limited to, all of the following: streetscape improvements, sidewalk improvements, District financing costs, and administrative costs associated with the ongoing annual administration of the District. 2.3. Establishment of the Assessment The City formed the District and established assessments by complying with the procedures specified in Article MID and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act ("Proposition 218"). In November 1996, the voters in the State of California added Article MID to the California Constitution imposing, among other requirements, the necessity for the City to conduct an assessment ballot procedure to enable the owners of each property on which assessments are proposed to be enacted, the opportunity to express their support for, or opposition to the proposed assessment. The basic steps of the assessment ballot procedure are outlined below. The City prepared a Notice of Public Hearing ("Notice"), which describes, along with other mandated information, the reason for the proposed assessments and provided a date, time, and location of a public hearing to be held on the matter. The City prepared an assessment ballot, which clearly gave the property owner the ability to sign and execute their assessment ballot either in favor of, or in opposition to, the assessment. The Notice and assessment ballots were mailed to each affected property owner within the District a minimum of 45 days prior to the public hearing date as shown in the Notice. The City held community meetings with the property owners to discuss the issues facing the District and to answer property owner questions directly. After the Notice and assessment ballots were mailed, property owners were given until the close of the public hearing, as stated in the Notice, to return their signed and executed assessment ballot. During the public hearing, property owners were given the opportunity to address the City Council and ask questions or voice their concerns. After the public hearing, the returned assessment ballots received prior to the close of the public hearing were tabulated, weighted by the proposed assessment amount on each property and the results were announced by the City Council. Article MID provides that if, as a result of the assessment ballot proceeding, a majority protest is found to exist, the City Council shall not have the authority to enact the assessments as proposed. A majority protest Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 4-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 exists if the assessments represented by ballots submitted in opposition exceed those submitted in favor of the assessment. All returned ballots were tabulated and weighted according to the financial obligation of each particular parcel. There wasn't a majority protest as described above and the City Council approved the District formation and assessments. The City Council will annually declare its intention to levy and collect the assessments within the District and hold a public hearing concerning such levy of assessments. At such time all interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 2-2 Fiscal Year 2020/21 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS The District provides for various Burlingame Avenue streetscape and sidewalk improvements located within the public right-of-way and dedicated easements within the boundaries of the District. 3.1. Description of the Boundaries of the District The boundaries of the District include properties located along Burlingame Avenue within the City. The District runs along Burlingame Avenue and is bounded on the east by California Drive and on the west by El Camino Real. The City will not provide public improvements from the District Improvement Project to any area located outside of the District boundaries. Section 7 of this Engineer's Report provides an assessment diagram that more fully provides a description of the District's boundaries and the parcels within those boundaries. 3.2. Description of the District Improvement Project The District Improvement Project includes streetscape items such as sidewalk, street and pedestrian lighting, trees and landscaping, seating, signage, kiosks, gateway treatments, site furnishings, and other parking improvements, appurtenant facilities, and soft costs. The District Improvement Project provides for public improvements to be distributed throughout the entire District, and as such, are of direct and special benefit to the parcels within the District. The District Improvement Project consists of a classic design style with touches of traditional and contemporary design. This desired design style creates a structured, timeless design with patterned, elegant materials consistent throughout the Burlingame Avenue area. Not only does the District Improvement Project provide necessary street improvements, but it allows for an increase in pedestrian space along Burlingame Avenue. To allow for this additional pedestrian space, parallel parking replaced the existing angled parking. The change from angled parking to parallel parking will allow for an expanded 16 foot width of sidewalk area on both sides of Burlingame Avenue. This additional sidewalk area can provide sufficient space for seating, art features, landscaping, and lighting. Burlingame Avenue will be maintained with two-way traffic and 10 foot wide travel lanes. The parallel parking stalls, with a parking assist zone, will have a width of nine feet. The parking assist zone allows for car door openings and limited bike through lanes along Burlingame Avenue. At the intersection corners along Burlingame Avenue bulb -outs are proposed to allow for additional pedestrian areas. In addition to providing an enhanced pedestrian area, the corner intersection bulb -outs will reduce pedestrian crossing distances. As an additional safety feature, the crosswalks will be of a different construction material than the street surface to provide a warning for traffic to slow down. The District Improvement Project includes asphalt paving in the roadway and colored concrete for the parking and parking assist zones. The sidewalks, corner intersection bulb -outs and cross walks will be constructed of concrete pavers. Trees, street lights with limited features, and other public furnishings are also included throughout the District. 3.3. Map of District Improvement Project The following map provides the approximate location (for reference only — may not include all) of the improvements provided by the District Improvement Project throughout the District. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 3-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Burlingame Ave Streetscape Improvements Project - Draft Concept Plan i IIJ lilt' 1ili'il41its . i711 �yT+ 1i7!7a]i��s73 •r � :;4 Burlingame Ave Streetscape Improvements February 28,2012 z 0 O CALTRAIN i 7= ;��iALR 4. ESTIMATE OF COSTS The estimated cost of the District Improvement Project as more fully described in Section 3 of this Engineer's Report is outlined below. 4.1. District Improvement Project Costs The following table provides the costs for the District Improvement Project. Refer to Section 6 for more detail on the financing plan and the annual assessment budget. Description Amount District Improvement Project Costs Construction $9,709,355 Construction Management 825,660 Construction Engineering 332,000 Engineering Administration 360,000 Total District Improvement Project Costs $11,227,015 Contemporaneously with the District Improvement Project, the City, using sewer and water enterprise funds, replaced the sewer and water lines under Burlingame Avenue (the overall total cost for all projects was $15,443,660). By completing the District Improvement Project in coordination with the utility improvements, it saved significant project costs and minimize the construction impacts to property and businesses along Burlingame Avenue. A portion of the planned utility improvement budget, $922,000, was allocated for patching the streets and sidewalks. Since the District Improvement Project eliminates that need for patching, the $922,000 is being contributed to the streetscape project from the sewer and water enterprise funds and thus will not be specially assessed. Thus, overall, the District Improvement Project was funded by state gas tax, Measure A funds, grant funds, sewer and water enterprise funds, the parking enterprise fund, and revenues from District special assessments. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 4-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 5. SPECIAL AND GENERAL BENEFIT 5.1. Introduction Pursuant to Article MID, all parcels that receive a special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the improvements shall be identified, and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entire costs of the improvements. Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment districts by local agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements necessary or convenient for providing certain public services. Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that assessments must be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This Section states: "The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements. " Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution limits the amount of any assessment to the proportional special benefit conferred on the property. Article MID also provides that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment. Examples of parcels exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and rights -of -ways, public greenbelts, and public parkways. Furthermore, Proposition 218 requires that the City separate the general benefit from special benefit, so only special benefit may be assessed. 5.2. Identification of Benefit The District Improvement Project will provide benefits to both those properties within the District boundaries and to the community as a whole. The benefit conferred to property within the District can be grouped into three primary benefit categories; aesthetic benefit, safety benefit, and economic activity benefit. The three District benefit categories are further expanded upon in each section below. Aesthetic Benefit The aesthetic benefit relates to the increase in the overall aesthetics as a result of the District Improvement Project. The District Improvement Project will provide public street and sidewalk infrastructure beautification throughout the District, that will enhance the overall image and desirability of the properties within the District. Burlingame Avenue streetscape improvements within the District were last completed back in the early 1960s. Since that time, the public facilities have deteriorated. The following aesthetic benefits will be provided as a result of the District Improvement Project: • The District Improvement Project enhances the community identity of the Burlingame Avenue area, which will lead to a stronger and healthier street corridor. The image of the Burlingame Avenue area will be increased by correcting the visual clutter such as trash containers and news racks that currently encroach on the pedestrian area. • Uniform and up to date streetscape and sidewalk improvements creates cohesion throughout the District from El Camino Real to California Drive. This District cohesion enhances the retail experience as well as encourage maximum use of space. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 5-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Upgraded streetscaping and sidewalk amenities provided by the District Improvement Project enhances the appearance, desirability, and "livability" of the property directly fronting the improvements provided throughout the District. As a result of the District Improvement Project, the overall "livability" of the District increases. "Livability" encompasses several qualities and characteristics that are unique to a specific area. The Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) expands on the concept of "livability" and the various benefits associated with that designation: "The livability of an area increases property desirability and business activity. Livability is largely affected by conditions in the public realm, places where people naturally interact with each other and their community, including streets, parks, transportation terminals and other public facilities. Livability also refers to the environmental and social quality of an area as perceived by employees, customers and visitors. This includes local environmental conditions, the quality of social interactions, opportunities for recreation and entertainment, aesthetics, and existence of unique cultural and environmental resources." Safety Benefit The District Improvement Project provides an increased level of safety to the property, businesses, and visitors to the District. Additionally, the District Improvement Project help mitigate potential criminal activity throughout the District area. The following safety benefits are provided as a result of the District Improvement Project: • The District Improvement Project repaired uneven and deteriorating sidewalks within the District. Improvements to the existing sidewalk infrastructure will reduce the number of future trip and fall occurrences potentially occurring in front of District property. • The District Improvement Project provides better lighting throughout the Burlingame Avenue area. The improved lighting ensures that sidewalks, streets, and property fronts are more visible. This increased level of visibility reduces the opportunities for vandalism to property within the District. • Wider sidewalks provide additional space between vehicle and property as well as vehicle and pedestrian, which provides a safety benefit for both property and pedestrian. • Traffic calming improvements can reduce automobile traffic and speeds, which in turn, increases the safety for vehicular passengers, pedestrians, and other non -motorized travels. The streetscaping strategies utilized in the development of the District Improvement Project provide numerous safety benefits to property and people throughout the District. Again, the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) notes the safety benefit attributable to streetscaping improvements: "Several studies indicate that common streetscaping strategies, such as landscaping and narrowing traffic lanes, tend to increase traffic safety. Streetscaping that reduces traffic speeds and improves pedestrian crossing conditions can significantly reduce collisions. Research by the U.S. Highway Safety Research System concludes that road diets (arterial street traffic calming) typically reduce crash rates by 47% on major highways through small urban areas, by 19% on corridors in larger city suburban areas, and 29% overall." Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 5-2 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Economic Activity Benefit The economic activity benefit relates to the increase in the District's economic activity and further potential as a result of the District Improvement Project. The economic activity for property within the District can best be described as the ability for the property within the District to develop and operate at the property's highest and best use. Properties within the District receive the following economic activity benefits as a result of the District Improvement Project: • The District Improvement Project revitalizes the Burlingame Avenue area. This revitalization will encourage new business development and existing business expansion which will reduce vacancy rates and increase lease rates for property within the District. • The streetscaping improvements encourages an increase in commerce throughout the District. The Burlingame Avenue area will become more pedestrian friendly, thus improving customer activity for stores and restaurants. The streetscaping improvements not only add economic value to property adjacent to the improvements, but the improvements make the property appear more stable and prosperous. The National Complete Streets Coalition (www.completestreets.org) notes that: "Street design that is inclusive of all modes of transportation, where appropriate, not only improves conditions for existing businesses, but also is a proven method for revitalizing an area and attracting new development. Washington, DC's Barracks Row was experiencing a steady decline of commercial activity due to uninviting sidewalks, lack of streetlights, and speeding traffic. After many design improvements, which included new patterned sidewalks, more efficient public parking, and new traffic signals, Barrack's Row attracted 44 new businesses and 200 new jobs. Economic activity on this three-quarter mile strip (measured by sales, employees, and number of pedestrians) has more than tripled since the inception of the project." 5.3. Separation of General Benefit Section 4 of Article MID of the California Constitution provides that once a local agency which proposes to impose assessments on property has identified those parcels that will have special benefits conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed, the local agency must next "separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred," and only the special benefits can be included in the amount of the assessments imposed. General benefit is an overall and similar benefit to the public at large resulting from the improvements to be provided by the assessments levied. The District improvements, which are more fully presented in Section 3.2 of this Engineer's Report, will be constructed and provided within the District boundaries only. There will be no improvements from the District Improvement Project constructed outside of the District boundaries. The District Improvement Project provide aesthetic, safety, and economic benefits to the property within the District, but it is recognized that the District Improvement Project also provides a level of benefit to some property and businesses within proximity to the District, as well as visitors and individuals passing through the District. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic from property within and outside of the District as well as individual passing through the downtown Burlingame Avenue area are able to utilize the improvements to not only access property and businesses located within a close proximity to the District, but also roadways located outside of the District. Therefore, the general benefit created as a result of the District Improvement Project has been considered. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 5-3 Fiscal Year 2020/21 5.4. Quantification of General Benefit In order for property within the District to be assessed only for that portion of special benefit received from the District Improvement Project, the general benefit provided by the District Improvement Project needs to be quantified. The amount of general benefit provided from the District Improvement Project can not be assessed to the benefitting properties within the District. To quantify the general benefit provided to the variety of traffic that passes through the District for the general benefit of enjoying the surrounding atmosphere, observing the level of economic activity, or accessing adjacent property or arterial streets in a more efficient and safe manner, both vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows have been incorporated in the quantification of general benefit. Vehicular Traffic Activity Access to the Burlingame Avenue commercial core area is provided by major north -south arterials. Those major arterials are El Camino Real to the west of the District and California Drive to the east of the District. Collector streets feed traffic to these and other arterials throughout the City. As such, Burlingame Avenue is considered a collector street within the City. In 2010, the City adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan included a Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Memorandum ("Traffic Analysis") prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates. This Traffic Analysis evaluated existing traffic conditions at various points throughout the project area. One point evaluated by the consultants was existing travel conditions at the intersection of Burlingame Avenue and Park Road. The Traffic Analysis evaluated, among other characteristics, traffic counts, turning movement data, vehicle delay, and level of service for each intersection. Existing conditions for the project area intersections, including the Burlingame Avenue intersection, were evaluated during a weekday, evening peak hour timeframe. There were 664 observed traffic counts at the intersection of Burlingame Avenue and Park Road. Park Road terminates at Burlingame Avenue requiring traffic to either turn left or right onto Burlingame Avenue. In addition to the Traffic Analysis, information related to vehicle trips by purpose was used from the Summary of Travel Trends 2009 National Household Travel Survey ("2009 NHTS") sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Of the observed 2,171 vehicle trips in the 2009 NHTS survey, 643 trips represented social, recreational and other travel purposes; the remaining 1,425 vehicle trips represented work, shopping and other errands. Applying this vehicle trip breakdown to the observed traffic counts at the intersection of Burlingame Avenue and Park Road, 207 of the traffic counts represent social, recreational, and other travel purposes not directly related to District activities but more likely utilizing Burlingame Avenue as a collector street to feed to one of the adjacent arterial streets. This non -District related traffic count represents approximately 31.20% of the total observed traffic counts and is considered to be general benefit from the District Improvement Project. Pedestrian Traffic Activity As result of the sidewalk improvements and beautification provided by the District Improvement Project, there is a level of benefit to those pedestrians not involved with any of the shopping, dining, or other commerce activities provided by the District properties. People walk for a variety of reasons; work, errands, shopping, recreation, health, and many others. Further, pedestrians will seek out and utilize sidewalk facilities that provide a safe place to walk as well as an environmentthat provides a certain amount of visual interest. Again, the 2009 NHTS analyzed the annual numberof walking trips and the purpose of the walking trips made by individuals surveyed. Of the annual total 40,962 (in millions) walking trips, 30,129 of those walking trips were for travel, work, shopping, errands, business obligations, and meals; the remaining 10,833 walking trips were for social, recreational, and other purposes. The social, recreational, and other purpose walking trips represented 26.5% of the total walking trips reported. Therefore, to account for that portion of the Burlingame Avenue pedestrian activity utilizing the improvements provided by the District Improvement Project for non -District related activities, 26.50% of pedestrian traffic activity is considered to be of general benefit. Since the District Improvement Project provides a blend of both vehicular and pedestrian activity the two categories must be addressed in a collective form rather than independently. Therefore, to appropriately quantify the overall level of general benefit provided by the District Improvement Project the arithmetic mean Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 5-4 Fiscal Year 2020/21 of the general benefit percentages from the vehicular traffic activity and the pedestrian traffic activity has been calculated. This general benefit result is provided in the table below. Description Percentage General Benefit 28.85% Accordingly, 71.15% of the benefits from the District Improvement Project are considered to provide special benefits to the properties within the District and thus could be subject to assessment therein. 5.5. Apportioning of Special Benefit As outlined above, each of the parcels within the District is deemed to receive special benefit from the District Improvement Project. Each parcel that has a special benefit conferred upon it as a result of the District Improvement Project is identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire cost of the District Improvement Project. Benefit Point Assignment Aesthetic Benefit Points Aesthetic benefit points are assigned based upon not only the property's location to the District Improvement Project, but also the property's zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, which has a commercial zoning designation. Additionally, since the District Improvement Project is provided uniformly throughout the District all properties within the District are within the same proximity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Improvement Project. Therefore, the aesthetic benefit to each parcel in the District is deemed to be the same. Each property within the District is assigned one (1.00) benefit point for the aesthetic benefits received from the District Improvement Project. Safety Benefit Points The safety benefit points are assigned based upon not only the property's location to the District Improvement Project, but also the property's zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, which has a commercial zoning designation. Additionally, since the District Improvement Project is provided uniformly throughout the District all properties within the District are within the same proximity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Improvement Project. Therefore, the safety benefit to each parcel in the District is deemed to be the same. Each property within the District is assigned one (1.00) benefit point for the safety benefits received from the District Improvement Project. Economic Activity Benefit Points The economic activity benefit points are assigned based upon not only the property's location to the District Improvement Project, but also the property's zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, which has a commercial zoning designation. Additionally, since the District Improvement Project is provided uniformly throughout the District all properties within the District are within the same proximity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Improvement Project. Therefore, the economic activity benefit to each parcel in the District is deemed to be the same. The Burlingame Avenue Commercial District is already a well -established commercial district with a strong economic activity presence. The Burlingame Avenue area features a mixture of restaurants, national retail stores, and many locally based retailers. Marketing and promotional efforts to increase the economic presence of an expanded area that includes the District boundaries is currently being funded by the Burlingame Avenue Downtown Business Improvement District ("DBID"). In an effort to increase the economic presence, business owners within the DBID pay an annual assessment to fund various activities that aid in the promotion, advertising and image building of the businesses within the DBID boundaries. Existing marketing and promotional activities throughout the District area have resulted in higher tenant lease rates. According to Loopnet.com on March 23, 2012, the average lease rate along Burlingame Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 5-5 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Avenue was approximately 45% higher than the average lease rate along the City's Broadway Avenue, another commercial area. Retail sales are also strong within the District, according to City Economic Development data, with sales per square foot generally ranging from $300 to $800+ per square foot. Further, there were a few new buildings constructed in the downtown around the time of formation of the District and several major remodels of existing buildings to accommodate new retail uses generally limited to tenant improvements. Given this already existing strong economic activity presence throughout the District, as well as the potential for property to further develop and enhance their economic presence, each property within the District is assigned one-half (0.50) benefit point for the economic activity benefits received from the District Improvement Project. The following table provides a summary of the special benefit points assigned to each parcel within the District. Aesthetic Safety Economic Parcel Land Use Benefit Point Benefit Point Activity Benefit Classification Assignment Assignment Point Assignment All District Parcels 1.00 1.00 0.50 Parcel Factors The method of apportioning the benefit to the parcels within the District reflects the proportional special benefit assigned to each property from the District Improvement Project based upon the various property characteristics for each parcel as compared to other properties within the District. As part of the special benefit analysis, various property characteristics were analyzed including parcel size, street frontage, building size, land use, trip generation etc. Given that the special benefits provided by the District Improvement Project focuses on aesthetic benefit, safety benefit, and economic activity benefits it was determined that linear frontage and lot square footage are the most appropriate parcel factors. Each parcel's linear frontage and lot square footage have been used as the primary assessment variables for the calculation and assignment of parcel factors. By adjusting the assigned special benefit points set forth above by parcel factors, a more complete picture of the proportional special benefits received by each parcel from the District Improvement Project is presented. Therefore, linear and lot parcel factors were calculated for each parcel in the District according to the formulas below: Linear Factor Pursuant to Section 25.32.050 of the City's Zoning Code for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, each lot shall have a street frontage of at least 50 feet. Utilizing the prescribed street frontage as set forth in the City's Zoning code, a linear factor is calculated for each parcel based upon the assigned linear frontage for the parcel divided by 50.00: Linear Factor - Parcel's Assigned / 50.00 Linear Street Frontage There are several parcels located at street intersections within the District. The District Improvement Project partially extends along the side streets at these intersections with Burlingame Avenue. To account for the partial extension of the District Improvement Project at each street intersection, the side street linear frontage of the improvement has been added to each corner parcel to account for this increased linear frontage adjacent to the District Improvement Project. Assessment District No. 2012-1 - City of Burlingame 5-6 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Lot Factor Pursuant to Section 25.32.050 of the City's Zoning Code for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, each lot shall have an area of at least 5,000 square feet. Utilizing the prescribed lot square footage as set forth in the City's Zoning code, a lot factor is calculated for each parcel based upon the assigned lot square footage for the parcel divided by 5,000: Lot Factor = Parcel's Assigned / 5,000 Lot Square Footage Total Special Benefit Point Calculation Parcel's Total Parcel's Total Parcel's Total Parcel's Total Economic Special Benefit - Aesthetics Points + Safety Points + Activity Points Points Parcel's Total Aesthetic Points The District Improvement Project, as well as the store and property fronts that are adjacent to those linear improvements provide an enhanced level of interest and "curb appeal" that add to the overall experience along Burlingame Avenue. Since the improvements and furnishings are uniform throughout the District, the "curb appeal" is consistent for the front of each parcel located within the District. Additionally, the uniform landscaping aids in softening the surrounding edges of each parcel's front exposure to the District Improvement Project by adding life, color, and texture to the property's appearance, and overall pedestrian experience. Given the linear nature of the aesthetic benefits provided by the District Improvement Project, the aesthetic benefit that each property receives is also perceived on a linear basis. To appropriately quantify and assign the aesthetic benefit received by each parcel within the District, the aesthetic benefit point is further adjusted according to the formula below: Parcel's Total _ Aesthetic Benefit x Linear Factor Aesthetic Points Points Assigned Parcel's Total Safety Points The District Improvement Project provides enhanced lines of travel and sight along Burlingame Avenue, which increases the level of safety by mitigating potential accidents and crime by having the additional exposure to property and traffic. The lighting improvements also increase the visual sight line by providing additional exposure to property fronts, especially during the evening hours. This additional exposure reduces the potential for crime and vandalism to the front of property throughout the District. Further, the sidewalk and parking zone along Burlingame Avenue provides a buffer for traffic and the property frontage. Again, given the linear nature of the safety benefits provided by the District Improvement Project, the safety benefit that each property receives is also perceived on a linear basis. To appropriately quantify and assign the safety benefit received by each parcel within the District, the safety benefit point is further adjusted according to the formula below: Parcel's Total _ Safety Benefit x Linear Factor Safety Points Points Assigned Parcel's Total Economic Activity Points The District Improvement Project creates a more pedestrian friendly and inviting Burlingame Avenue environment that supports and encourages additional commerce activity throughout the District. The improvements allow parcels within the District to develop and redevelop to their highest and best use in accordance with City zoning and development regulations. However, the one limiting property characteristic that constrains a parcel from developing to the highest and best use is the size of the parcel itself. The size of a parcel limits the amount of development and redevelopment that may occur on the footprint of the parcel. Larger parcels allow for greater area to develop and redevelop than do smaller Assessment District No. 2012-1 - City of Burlingame 5-7 Fiscal Year 2020/21 parcels, which corresponds to larger parcels receiving proportionally greater economic activity benefit when compared to smaller parcels within the District. Therefore, the economic activity benefit for parcels in the District is in direct proportion to the size of the parcel. Since the economic activity benefits are in direct relation to the size of a parcel, then the economic activity benefits provided by the District Improvement Project is also perceived on a parcel size basis. To appropriately quantify and assign the economic activity benefit received by each parcel within the District, the economic activity benefit point is further adjusted according to the formula below: Parcel's Total Economic _ Economic Activity x Lot Factor Activity Points Benefit Points Assigned Data Considerations and Parcel Changes The use of the latest San Mateo County Assessor's Secured Roll information served as the basis in determining each parcel's linear frontage and lot square footage, unless better data was available to the City. In addition, if any parcel within the District is identified by the San Mateo County Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel number, the linear frontage and lot square footage of the subsequent valid parcel shall be the basis for assigning the future total special benefit points. If a single parcel subdivides into multiple parcels, the total special benefit points shall be apportioned based on the linear frontage and lot square footage of the newly created parcels. Total Special Benefit Points The total special benefit points assigned to the parcels at formation of the District were 183.28. The following table provides a breakdown of the total special benefit point assignment for each parcel in the District: Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 5-8 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Assessor's Parcel Number ID Aesthetic Benefit Points Safety Benefit Points Economic Activity Benefit Points Linear Frontage Linear Factor Lot Square Footage Lot Factor Total Aesthetic Benefit Points Total Safety Benefit Points Total Economic Activity Benefit Points Total Special Benefit Points 029-122-190 1* 1.00 1.00 0.50 70.00 1.40 2,123 0.42 1.40 1.40 0.21 3.01 029-122-220 2 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.50 1.01 10,776 2.16 1.01 1.01 1.08 3.10 029-122-230 3 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 10,286 2.06 1.00 1.00 1.03 3.03 029-122-240 4 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 9,791 1.96 1.00 1.00 0.98 2.98 029-122-250 5 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 9,971 1.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 029-122-260 6 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.10 1.00 6,195 1.24 1.00 1.00 0.62 2.62 029-122-270 7 1.00 1.00 0.50 49.90 1.00 13,897 2.78 1.00 1.00 1.39 3.39 029-122-280 8 1.00 1.00 0.50 55.00 1.10 10,879 2.18 1.10 1.10 1.09 3.29 029-122-330 9 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 6,829 1.37 1.00 1.00 0.69 2.69 029-122-360 10 1.00 1.00 0.50 116.00 2.32 16,786 3.36 2.32 2.32 1.68 6.32 029-122-999 11 1.00 1.00 0.50 147.00 2.94 28,296 5.66 2.94 2.94 2.83 8.71 029-152-110 12 1.00 1.00 0.50 80.00 1.60 5,748 1.15 1.60 1.60 0.58 3.78 029-152-120 13 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,853 0.57 0.50 0.50 0.29 1.29 029-152-160 14 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 9,596 1.92 1.20 1.20 0.96 3.36 029-152-190 15* 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.00 1.30 8,134 1.63 1.30 1.30 0.82 3.42 029-152-200 16 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.82 1.32 8,237 1.65 1.32 1.32 0.83 3.47 029-152-210 17 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 7,200 1.44 1.20 1.20 0.72 3.12 029-152-220 18 1.00 1.00 0.50 41.57 0.83 4,988 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.50 2.16 029-152-230 19 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.00 1.30 6,000 1.20 1.30 1.30 0.60 3.20 029-152-270 20 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 7,508 1.50 1.20 1.20 0.75 3.15 029-152-310 21* 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 8,322 1.66 1.20 1.20 0.83 3.23 029-152-320 22 1.00 1.00 0.50 104.58 2.09 27,590 5.52 2.09 2.09 2.76 6.94 029-152-330 23 1.00 1.00 0.50 75.00 1.50 8,572 1.71 1.50 1.50 0.86 3.86 029-153-090 24 1.00 1.00 0.50 91.50 1.83 3,726 0.75 1.83 1.83 0.38 4.04 029-153-120 25 1.00 1.00 0.50 88.33 1.77 3,781 0.76 1.77 1.77 0.38 3.92 029-153-150 26 1.00 1.00 0.50 95.50 1.91 10,347 2.07 1.91 1.91 1.04 4.86 029-201-030 27 1.00 1.00 0.50 40.00 0.80 5,000 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.50 2.10 029-201-040 28 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 6,250 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.63 2.63 029-201-060 29 1.00 1.00 0.50 108.08 2.16 14,823 2.96 2.16 2.16 1.48 5.80 029-201-070 30* 1.00 1.00 0.50 54.00 1.08 9,069 1.81 1.08 1.08 0.91 3.67 029-201-080 31 1.00 1.00 0.50 54.08 1.08 9,643 1.93 1.08 1.08 0.97 3.13 029-201-100 32 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 3,750 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.38 2.38 029-201-110 33 1.00 1.00 0.50 86.00 1.72 3,750 0.75 1.72 1.72 0.38 3.82 029-201-320 34 1.00 1.00 0.50 159.39 3.19 13,316 2.66 3.19 3.19 1.33 7.71 029-201-360 35 1.00 1.00 0.50 100.00 2.00 18,000 3.60 2.00 2.00 1.80 5.80 029-201-370 36 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 3,125 0.63 0.50 0.50 0.32 1.32 029-201-380 37 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 3,125 0.63 0.50 0.50 0.32 1.32 029-202-010 38 1.00 1.00 0.50 136.00 2.72 12,675 2.54 2.72 2.72 1.27 6.71 029-202-020 39 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.50 1.21 7,086 1.42 1.21 1.21 0.71 3.13 Assessment District No. 2012-1 - City of Burlingame 5-9 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Assessor's Parcel Number ID Aesthetic Benefit Points Safety Benefit Points Economic Activity Benefit Points Linear Frontage Linear Factor Lot Square Footage Lot Factor Total Aesthetic Benefit Points Total Safety Benefit Points Total Economic Activity Benefit Points Total Special Benefit Points 029-202-030 40* 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,552 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.26 1.26 029-202-040 41 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,403 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.24 1.24 029-202-080 42 1.00 1.00 0.50 75.06 1.50 4,453 0.89 1.50 1.50 0.45 3.45 029-202-090 43 1.00 1.00 0.50 51.24 1.02 4,770 0.95 1.02 1.02 0.48 2.52 029-204-030 44 1.00 1.00 0.50 55.00 1.10 5,500 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.55 2.75 029-204-040 45 1.00 1.00 0.50 45.00 0.90 4,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.45 2.25 029-204-050 46 1.00 1.00 0.50 45.00 0.90 4,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.45 2.25 029-204-060 47 1.00 1.00 0.50 94.00 1.88 5,850 1.17 1.88 1.88 0.59 4.35 029-204-270 48 1.00 1.00 0.50 116.50 2.33 8,100 1.62 2.33 2.33 0.81 5.47 029-211-010 49 1.00 1.00 0.50 103.33 2.07 4,417 0.88 2.07 2.07 0.44 4.58 029-211-260 50 1.00 1.00 0.50 169.00 3.38 15,400 3.08 3.38 3.38 1.54 8.30 Totals: 1 50.00 50.00 25.00 3,527.93 70.56 420,488 84.13 70.56 70.56 42.16 183.28 * Indicates assessment has been prepaid. Assessment District No. 2012-1 - City of Burlingame 5-10 Fiscal Year 2020/21 6. METHOD ASSESSMENT 6.1. Assessment Budaet In order to assess the parcels within the District for the special benefits received from the District Improvement Project, the general and special benefits must be separated. As previously quantified in Section 5.4 of this Engineer's Report, the general benefit received from the District Improvement Project is 28.85%. Accordingly, 71.15% of the benefits from the District Improvement Project are considered to provide special benefits to the properties within the District and thus could be subject to assessment therein. However, as shown below, because of contributions from various funds available to the City, including the sewer, water, and parking enterprise funds, Measure A funds, and grant funds, only 53.11 % of the District Improvement Project costs are being specially assessed. Reducing the District Improvement Project costs by these contributions, the total District Improvement Project costs to be specially assessed are as follows: Description Amount Total Net District Improvement Project Costs $11,227,015 Less: General Benefit Contribution (28.85%) (3,238,994) Subtotal — Portion of Budget Assessable for Special Benefit $7,988,021 Less: Sewer and Water Enterprise Fund Contribution ($922,000) Less: TLC Grant (301,000) Less: Additional Contribution from Parking Enterprise Fund (782,432) Less: Additional City Contribution (20,195) Total District Improvement Project Costs Assessed for Special Benefit(1) $5,962,394 Total Amount Pre -Paid During 30 Day Collection Period $341,582 Annual Assessable Budget: Average Annual Debt Service Payment for District Improvement Project Costs $310,156 Total Annual Assessable Budget $310,156 (1) $5,620,812 of the District Improvement Project costs have been financed over a period of 30 years. The City issued bonds for the total District Improvement Project costs assessed for special benefit and will use the assessment revenues to repay the bonds, over a period of 30 years, for the District's portion of that cost, $5,620,812, plus the City's estimated financing and interest costs. Section 6.3 of this Engineer's Report provides the basis of the average annual debt service payment used to establish the annual assessments. Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point The assessment rate per special benefit point is calculated by dividing the total annual assessable budget by the total special benefit points assigned to the parcels in the District. The following formula provides the assessment rate per special benefit point calculation: Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 6-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Total Annual Assessable Budget / Total Special Benefit Points = Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point $310,156 / 169.29 = $1,832.10 The total amount of financed District Improvement Project costs, which has been determined to provide special benefit to parcels within the District, will be assessed over a period of 30 years. The individual assessments are shown on the assessment roll in Section 8 of this Engineer's Report. 6.2. Method of Assessment Spread The method of assessment is based upon a formula that assigns the special benefit to each parcel, with special benefit points being adjusted by parcel linear and lot factors. The formulas below provide a summary of the annual assessment calculation for each parcel in the District. (A) Parcel's Total Aesthetic = Parcel's Assigned Aesthetic Points Benefit Points (1.00) (B) Parcel's Total Safety = Parcel's Assigned Points Safety Benefit Points (1.00) Parcel's Total Economic = Parcel's Assigned Economic Activity Points Activity Benefit Points (0.50) (D) _ Parcel's Assigned Linear Factor Linear Frontage (E) _ Parcel's Assigned Lot Factor Lot Square Footage (F) Parcel's (A) (B) Total Special = Parcel's Total + Parcel's Total Benefit Points Aesthetics Points Safety Points Parcel's Annual _ Assessment Rate: Assessment $1,832.10 x x (D) Linear Factor x (D) Linear Factor x ( Lot Factor / 50.00 / 5,000 (C) + Parcel's Total Economic Activity Points (F) Parcel's Total Special Benefit Points 6.3. District Improvement Project Debt Financing The $5,620,812 portion of District Improvement Project costs assessed to property within the District has been financed over a period of 30 years. In addition to the amount of financed District Improvement Project costs, any financing costs related to the issuance of debt such as the cost of issuance, original issue discount, and contingencies were included as part of the total amount financed. The City has calculated the annual assessment based on its costs of financing the District's portion of the District Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 6-2 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Project assessed for special benefit costs over a 30 year period, and has determined that it requires an annual assessment amount of $310,156 from the District. The difference between the original estimated financing costs and the actual financing costs will not affect the annual assessments shown in this Engineer's Report. 6.4. Assessment Prepayment Formula Assessment Prepayment Formula During the 30 Days Following District Formation In the 30 days after the formation of the District, property owners had the option to prepay and permanently satisfy their portion of the total District Improvement Project costs assessed for special benefit, without interest, and without financing costs, according to the following formula: Total District Parcel's 30 Day _ Improvement Project Prepayment Amount Costs Assessed for Special Benefit Parcel's 30 Day _ Prepayment Amount - $4,475,000 Parcel's Total x ( Special Benefit Points Parcel's Total x ( Special Benefit Points District's Total Special ) Benefit Points 183.28 ) Assessment Prepayment Formula After the 30 Day Period Following District Formation Property owners within the District may prepay and permanently satisfy their entire portion (no partial prepayments) of the total annual assessment of an assessor's parcel, provided that a prepayment may be made only if there are no delinquent assessments with respect to such assessor's parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an assessor's parcel intending to prepay the ongoing annual assessment obligation shall provide the City with written notice of intent to prepay. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the City shall notify such owner of the prepayment amount of such assessor's parcel. The assessment prepayment amount shall be calculated by the following steps: Step 1: Compute the special benefit points that could be assigned to the assessor's parcel prepaying the annual assessment obligation in the fiscal year in which the prepayment would be received by the City. Step 2: Divide the special benefit points computed pursuant to Step 1 for such assessor's parcel by the total special benefit points that could be assigned in that fiscal year to property in the entire District. Step 3: Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to Step 2 by the total annual assessment to compute that portion of the total annual assessment to be prepaid ("Parcel's Annual Assessment Amount"). Step 4: Calculate the revenue stream produced by the Parcel's Annual Assessment Amount from the date of prepayment up to and including the maturity date of the District, June 30, 2042, except that this assumed final maturity date may be amended by the City no later than the time of the calculation of the prepayment. Step 5: Calculate the present value of the annual revenue stream determined in Step 4. The present value shall be calculated using that discount rate which, when the prepayment is invested in City approved available investments earning a rate of interest equal to the discount rate, would produce annual revenues equal to the amount calculated in Step 4. Assessment District No. 2012-1 - City of Burlingame 6-3 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Step 6: Determine the prepayment amount by adding to the present value calculated in Step 5 any fees or expenses incurred by the City in connection with the prepayment calculation or the application of the proceeds of the prepayment. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 6-4 Fiscal Year 2020/21 7. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM An Assessment Diagram for the District is shown on the following page. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the County Assessor of the County of San Mateo, at the time this report was prepared, and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Engineer's Report. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 7-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM CITY OF BURLINGAME ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2012-1 DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF BURLINGAME COUNTY OF SAN MATEO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT ID APN-� FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF 1 029-122 190 - BURLINGAME THIS DAY OF , 2012. 2 029122-220� 3 a 5 029-122-230 029122-240 029-122-z50 \ A �� % I � �$ \� CTY CLERK \\, �V CITY OF BURLINGAME \� 6 029-122-z60 ' \ SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 029-122-270 029-122-280 029122-330 r JE AN ASSESSMENT WAS LEVIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 10 029-122-360 y�-= e / u 48 BURLINGAME ON THE LOTS, PIECES AND PARCELS OF LAND SHOWN 11 029-122-999 _ = ON THIS ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM. THE ASSESSMENT WAS LEVIED ON 12 13 029152-120 oz9lsz-12o _ �/ THE DAY OF 2012. REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE 13 2 j 22 z3 so ASSESSMENT ROLL RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE is 1s 029152-1so 02915z-190 / \ SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR THE EXACTAMOUNT OF EACH 16 17 029152-200 029-152-210 ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST EACH PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN ON C(o1° °' \ \ THIS ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM. 18 19 20 21 029152-220 029 152-230 029-isz-z70 029-152 310 21 45 / 20 94 CITY CLERK �� � '� act CITY OF BURLINGAME 22 23 029-152-320 029-152-390 1e \ SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA � \ ' 24 25 02&153-090 029-153-120 42 1q 43 \\ \ RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS / 19 26 02-153-150 ° ° % \ OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, THIS DAY OF , 2012. 27 28 029201-030 029-201-040 / 39 9 29 30 31 029-201-060 02s-201-070 029zo1-080 2 3 \ SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS / 4 / / CITY OF BURLINGAME 32 029201-080 32 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 33 029.201.110 / 7 34 35 36 37 029-201-320 0z92o1-360 029z01-370 029201-380 FILED THIS DAY OF 2012, AT THE HOUR OF 9 31 \ O'CLOCK _M, IN BOOKOF MAPS OFASSESSMENTAND / / COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS AT PAGE IN THE OFFICE OF 38 029202-010 11 29 / THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF 39 40 92 0202-020 029202-030 3 3 !` �� CAL I FORNIA. 41 029202-040 10 \\ 42 029-2 2-060 ���", 21 �X� COUNTY RECORDER '���� 43 029-202-070 �\ SAN MATED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 44 45 029204-040 029204-040 / / 46 47 029204-050k/' 029z04-060 ` 9ri y,`� \ NOTES: FOR PARTICULARS THE DIMENSIONS OF 48 029204-270 E MADE TO ASSESSORS PARCELS, REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE MAPS OF THE as oz9211-010 __ ASSESSOR OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATED. 50 029-211-260 QNBS' Legend 0,%10[. T,m ..l, [.+ 2 0 120 240 480 720 O PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY i�im . rn:isrr: :,1s j ra,1 ��:rlrnl Feel O PARCEL LINES 8. ASSESSMENT ROLL The assessment roll is a listing of the assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of San Mateo. The following table summarizes the assessments for the District for Fiscal Year 2020/21: Total Property Land Parcel Special Benefit Allowable Annual Total Annual Use Type Count Points Assessment Assessment All Parcels 45 169.29 $1,832.10 per special $310,156 benefit point Total 45 169.29 $310,156 The assessment roll is a listing of the District assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of San Mateo. The assessment roll for the District is listed on the following page. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 8-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 City of Burlingame City of Burlingame Assessment District No. 2012-1 Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project Fiscal Year 2020/21 Assessment Roll Assessor's Parcel Assessment Total Special Annual Number ID Site Address Benefit Points Assessment(1) 029-122-220 2 1420 BURLINGAME AVE 3.10 $5,679.51 029-122-230 3 1426 BURLINGAME AVE 3.03 5,551.26 029-122-240 4 1436 BURLINGAME AVE 2.98 5,459.66 029-122-250 5 1442 BURLINGAME AVE 3.00 5,496.30 029-122-260 6 1448 BURLINGAME AVE 2.62 4,800.10 029-122-270 7 1460 BURLINGAME AVE 3.39 6,210.82 029-122-280 8 1462 BURLINGAME AVE 3.29 6,027.61 029-122-330 9 1408 BURLINGAME AVE 2.69 4,928.35 029-122-360 10 1490 BURLINGAME AVE 6.32 11,578.87 029-122-999 11 1476-80 BURLINGAME AVE 8.71 15,957.59 029-152-110 12 1200 BURLINGAME AVE 3.78 6,925.34 029-152-120 13 1208 BURLINGAME AVE 1.29 2,363.41 029-152-160 14 1232 BURLINGAME AVE 3.36 6,155.86 029-152-200 16 1316 BURLINGAME AVE 3.47 6,357.39 029-152-210 17 1348 BURLINGAME AVE 3.12 5,716.15 029-152-220 18 1354 BURLINGAME AVE 2.16 3,957.34 029-152-230 19 1380 BURLINGAME AVE 3.20 5,862.72 029-152-270 20 1300 BURLINGAME AVE 3.15 5,771.12 029-152-320 22 1218 BURLINGAME AVE 6.94 12,714.77 029-152-330 23 1210 BURLINGAME AVE 3.86 7,071.91 029-153-090 24 1100 BURLINGAME AVE 4.04 7,401.68 029-153-120 25 1150-60 BURLINGAME AVE 3.92 7,181.83 029-153-150 26 1108-18 BURLINGAME AVE 4.86 8,904.01 029-201-030 27 1471 BURLINGAME AVE 2.10 3,847.41 029-201-040 28 1461 BURLINGAME AVE 2.63 4,818.42 029-201-060 29 1435 BURLINGAME AVE 5.80 10,626.18 029-201-080 31 1423 BURLINGAME AVE 3.13 5,734.47 029-201-100 32 1407 BURLINGAME AVE 2.38 4,360.40 029-201-110 33 1401 BURLINGAME AVE 3.82 6,998.62 029-201-320 34 1479-91 BURLINGAME AVE 7.71 14,125.49 029-201-360 35 1417 BURLINGAME AVE 5.80 10,626.18 029-201-370 36 1453 BURLINGAME AVE 1.32 2,418.37 029-201-380 37 1451 BURLINGAME AVE 1.32 2,418.37 029-202-010 38 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 6.71 12,293.39 029-202-020 39 1325 BURLINGAME AVE 3.13 5,734.47 029-202-040 41 1315 BURLINGAME AVE 1.24 2,271.80 029-202-080 42 1301 BURLINGAME AVE 3.45 6,375.71 029-202-090 43 1309 BURLINGAME AVE 2.52 4,561.93 029-204-030 44 1221 BURLINGAME AVE 2.75 5,038.28 029-204-040 45 1213 BURLINGAME AVE 2.25 4,122.23 029-204-050 46 1207 BURLINGAME AVE 2.25 4,122.23 029-204-060 47 1205 BURLINGAME AVE 4.35 7,969.64 029-204-270 48 1227 BURLINGAME AVE 5.47 10,021.59 029-211-010 49 1101 BURLINGAME AVE 4.58 8,391.02 029-211-260 50 1111 BURLINGAME AVE 8.30 15,206.43 TOTALS: 169.29 $310,156.23 (1) Difference due to rounding. Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 The City Council (the "Council") of the City of Burlingame (the "City") resolves as follows: WHEREAS, the Council previously completed its proceedings in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the "Act") to establish the City's Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project (the "Assessment District"); and WHEREAS, there have been no changes to the previous Annual Report concerning the levy and collection of assessments within the Assessment District. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Intention: The Council declares its intention to levy and collect assessments within the Assessment District to pay the costs of the improvements for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021. The Council finds that the public's best interest requires such action. 2. Improvements: The improvements include, but are not limited to: streetscape items such as sidewalks, street and pedestrian lighting, trees and landscaping, seating, signage, kiosks, gateway treatments, site furnishings, and other parking improvements, appurtenant facilities, and soft costs. 3. Assessment District Boundaries: The boundaries of the Assessment District are as shown by the assessment diagram filed in the office of the City Clerk, which is incorporated by this reference. 4. Annual Report: Reference is made to the Annual Report, on file with the Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the Assessment District and the zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the Assessment District. 5. Notice of Public Hearing: The Council declares its intention to conduct a Public Hearing concerning the levy of assessments in accordance with Section 22629 of the Act. All objections to the assessment, if any, will be considered by the Council. The Public Hearing will be held on Monday, May 18, 2020 at 7:00 pm or as soon thereafter as is feasible in the Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. The Council orders the Clerk to publish notice of this resolution in accordance with Section 22626 of the Act. 6. Increase of Assessment: The maximum assessment is not proposed to increase from the previous year above that was previously approved by the property owners (as "increased assessment" is defined in Section 54954.6 of the Government Code). 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 4t" day of May, 2020 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk TO: DATE: FROM: SUBJECT: l 1 . 0 Agenda Item # 2aE Meeting Date: April 2. 2012 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MARCH 26, 2012 PUBLIC WORKS DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2012-1. PURPOSE: It is recommended that Council take the following actions to initiate the formation of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1, 1. Review and approve the final project concept plan. 2. Review and approve the following attached resolutions. a. Adopt the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project Assessment Ballot Procedures. b. Initiate proceedings for the proposed Assessment District. c. Approve the preliminary Engineers Report with proposed boundary of the Assessment District. d. Declare the intention to order the formation of the Assessment District. 3. Review and approve the sample public notice and ballot to be sent to each property owner within the district. BACKGROUND: At the January 17, 2012 meeting, the Council reviewed three options for the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Projecfi and directed staff to proceed with Alternative 1 for the project design. Since that time, staff and the consultant team have met with the stakeholder group to further develop the design and held, a community workshop with the Council to obtain public input. In general, the recommended streetscape project concept includes 50% wider sidewalks with concrete pavers, parallel parking, intersection bulb -outs, and shorter crosswalks for pedestrian safety, site furnishings, new street lights, street trees, landscaping and new site furnishings. In addition, the project construction will also include utility replacements for water, sewer, and storm drain systems; asphalt roadway paving; concrete paving for the parking and intersection areas. Funding: The total overall estimated cost of the project (streetscape and utilities) is Approximately $11.475 M would be contributed by the City using various funding sources including water and sewer enterprise funds; parking meter rate increases, storm drainage funds, state gas tax and Measure A Grant as well as existing funds in the streetscape CfP budget. The remaining $4.475M is proposed to be funded by the Burlingame Avenue property owners through an Assessment District. DISCUSSION: In order to initiate the formation of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Assessment District 2012m1, Council must review and approve the following. The Final Concept Plan: The following are the key elements of the final project concept plan (The project consultant RHAA will make the presentation at the meeting). ■ 16 foot wide sidewalk made of concrete pavers ■ 10 foot wide asphalt concrete travel lanes ■ 8 foot wide concrete parallel parking stalls ■ 2 feet of parking / assist area ■ Accessible crosswalks of concrete pavers at all intersections ■ Pedestrian and roadway safety lighting ■ Hanging flower baskets with irrigation system ■ Street furnishings including bicycle racks and benches ■ Informational signage and kiosks ■ Replacement street trees and landscaping as well as ■ Gateway entry columns. Assessment District Proceedings: In order to proceed with the formation of the Assessment District 2012-1, the Council should review and approve the attached resolutions for establishing protest hearing procedures: initiation of Assessment District proceedings; the Engineer's Report; and declaration of intention to form the Assessment District. The Assessment District comprises a total of 50 parcels fronfiing Burlingame Avenue between EI Camino Real and California Drive. The attached Engineer's Repart provides the Assessment District Boundary Map and details of the special and general benefits, The assessments to individual parcels are based on three factors - aesthetics, safety, and economic benefits. The aesthetic and safety factors use linear lot frontage while the economic factor uses the individual parcel's square footage. The total annual revenue from the proposed Assessment District 2012-1 is estimated at $335,787, The average annual assessment per parcel is $61716. Actual annual assessment for a given parcel may vary depending on the actual linear frontage and square footage area of the parcel. The annual assessments will be for a period of 30 years. The property owner may pay off the annual assessments at any time during the 30 year period. Upon Council approval, the public notices and ballots will be sent via certified mailed to property owners within the proposed assessment district at least 45 days prior to the public hearing. The public hearing is set for May 21, 2012 at which the Council will hold the public hearing to receive protests and review the ballots received to determine the formation of an assessment district. The ballots are weighted by the proposed assessment amount on each property and the results announced by the City Council, If there is not a majority protest of the total ballots received prior to the close of the public hearing, the Council may proceed with the assessment district formation and pursue the project, BUDGET IMPACT: if approved, the Burlingame Streetscape Improvements project will be funded by a combination of City and Assessment District financing as described above in the staff report, EXHIBITS: Resolutions a. Assessment District Procedures b. Initiating proceedings for Assessment District No, 2012.1 c. Approve preliminary Engineers Report d. Declare intention to order the formation of the Assessment District No. 2012-1 Preliminary Engineer's Report with Assessment Boundary Map Sample Public Notice Sample Assessment Ballot Final Concept Plan (8 pages) ;r s:\a public works directory\staff reports181030 assessment district sr 3-26-12,docx TO: DATE i � ►1 Agenda Item # fia Meeting Date: May 21, 2012 SUBMITTEC APPROVED HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MAY 13, 2012 PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO FORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2012-1 FOR DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, PURPOSE: It is recommended that Council take the following actions to review the ballots cast in the formation of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1. 1. Hold a public hearing to: a. Hear all interested persons in the matter of the proposed assessment district and the amounts of the assessmentrs to be imposed; b. Hear all objections, protests, support or other written communications relative to the formation of the district or the amounts of the assessments from any person; c. Receive any remaining ballot submissions (must be submitted PRIOR to the conclusion of the public hearing). 2. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council should continue the proceeding until later in the meeting and direct the City Clerk to review all the ballots and report back to the Council before the end of the meeting. 3. Once the ballots have been tabulated, the Council should then review the ballot results and do one of the fallowing: a. If there i5 not a "majority protest" the Council may adopt the attached Resolution ordering improvements, ordering formation of the City of Burlingame Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1, confirming the assessment diagram, confirming and levying assessments, and authorizing necessary action; or b. if there is a "majority protest", then Council must abandon the creation of the district. BACGROUND: At the April 2, 2012 meeting, Council initiated the proceedings to form the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No, 2012-1. Weighted ballots were sent via certified mail to all the property owners on April 5, 2012. Ballots are weighted based on the assessment amount i calculated for each parcel. To date, of the fifty (50) ballots mailed to property owners, twenty ive (25) have been received by the City Clerk. QISCUSSION: In order to complete the formation of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Assessment District 2012A, Council must review the ballots and determine if there is a "majority protest" vote. In the event that the weighted assessment ballots cast in opposition, exceed the weighted assessment ballots in support, there will be a "majority protest" and the City Council will be precluded from proceeding with formation of the district. If a "majority protest' does not exist, Council may proceed with formation of the assessment district by adoption of the attached resolution. The City Clerk will review the validity of the ballots after the close of the public hearing, and report back to the Council before the end of the meeting. The ballot tabulations will be performed by the City Clerk with assistance from NBS Consultant and staff in Conference Room A at the City Hall, which will be open to the general public for observation. BUdGET IMPACT. If approved, the Burlingame Streetscape Improvements project will br funded by a combination of City and Assessment District financing. EXHIB{TS: Resolution ordering improvements and formation of assessment district 2012-1; Affidavit of mailing; Sample ballot; and Engineer's report. :r s:1a public works direcforylstaff reports\8103!) assessment district ballot count staff report re-gg-5-11-12,docx euRL- 1NG AGENDA NO: STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 4, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 4, 2020 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7253 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with ICF to Perform Environmental Review Services Related to the Proposed Development of a New Six -Story Office Building at 220 Park Road (former Post Office site) in the Amount of $239,154 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with ICF for environmental review services in the amount of $239,154 related to the development of a new, six -story office building at 220 Park Road, Burlingame. BACKGROUND The subject property at 220 Park Road consists of the former United States Post Office, which has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and has a historic preservation covenant. The applicant is proposing construction of a new six -story, office building. The project would include the restoration and reactivation of portions of the historic former post office building, and the construction of 11,915 SF of retail uses on the ground floor and 140,000 square feet of office on the floors above. The project proposes a total of 280 on -site parking spaces located in two levels of below -grade parking. The project also proposes a shared parking agreement with the City of Burlingame whereby all of the 280 on -site parking spaces would be made available to the public in the evenings and on weekends, when the office uses on site are not in operation. ni-Rri m—RinN ICF had been selected for environmental review of a prior development application for the property following submittals from three environmental consultants qualified to provide environmental review services. With a change of applicant and development program, the Community Development Department requested a revised proposal to evaluate the new development application. 1 Professional Services Agreement with ICF May 4, 2020 For the new application, ICF has prepared a scope and budget for environmental review under Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is based on an understanding that the proposed project would be consistent with the updated Burlingame General Plan and the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Therefore, it is assumed that efficiencies would be gained by tiering the CEQA review off of the General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) under CEQA Guideline Section 15162 and 15168. The ICF proposal assumes that the proposed project would comply with the Preservation Covenant applicable to the former post office, the City Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO-Title 21), the Secretary of Interior (SOI) Standards, and the Howard Mixed -Use (HMU) zoning regulations. Therefore, Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines would apply to the project. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. Environmental review is a duty imposed on the lead agency under state law, but such review is funded by the development applicant. Therefore, although the contract is with the City of Burlingame, the applicant will pay $239,154 to the City to cover the costs of the environmental review plus 10% of the contract amount to cover staff time, for a total of $263,069.40. The City will administer the contract and pay the consultant on a monthly basis as services are rendered. Attached is an Agreement for Professional Services with ICF to perform the environmental review services for the proposed project, in an amount not to exceed $239,154. Because the cost of the agreement exceeds $100,000, City Council approval is required. The Scope of Work for services to be provided by ICF is included as an attachment to this report. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for the environmental review of the application is provided by the project applicant. Therefore, there will be no fiscal impact to the City's budget. Exhibits: • Resolution • Draft Agreement for Professional Services with ICF • Scope of Work for CEQA Review — ICF Proposal for 220 Park Road, Burlingame • City Insurance Provisions 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ICF JONES & STOKES INC. TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 220 PARK ROAD, BURLINGAME WHEREAS, Sares Regis has submitted an application for the restoration and reactivation of portions of the historic post office building and the construction of 11,915 SF of retail uses on the ground floor and 140,000 square feet of office on the floors above; and WHEREAS, the subject property at 220 Park Road consists of the former United States Post Office, which has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and has a historic preservation covenant; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental review of the project must occur prior to consideration of the proposed development at 220 Park Road by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. has submitted a proposal to conduct the required environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15183 for the project at 220 Park Road; and WHEREAS, an agreement has been prepared incorporating the Scope of Services prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes Inc. in the amount of $239,154, which was found to be adequate to provide the level of environmental review required for the development at 220 Park Road, and the costs associated with the services to be provided by ICF Jones & Stokes Inc. are to be reimbursed by the applicant; and WHEREAS, because the agreement will authorize work in excess of $100,000, City Council approval is required. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with ICF Jones & Stokes Inc. for environmental review services related to the proposed project at 220 Park Road, consistent with the Scope of Work attached to this resolution, for a maximum cost of $239,154, as stated in the Scope of Work. The City Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager upon execution of the Professional Services Agreement. 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 4th day of May, 2020, and as adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Resolution No. City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND ICF JONES & STOKES, INC. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AT 220 PARK ROAD IN BURLINGAME THIS AGREEMENT is by and between ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. ("Consultant") and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California ("City"). Consultant and City agree: 1. Services. Consultant shall provide the Services set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, to provide environmental review services for a development proposal at 220 Park Road in Burlingame. 2. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum compensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform all of the Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for $239,154.00, as stated in their response to the request for proposals, including all materials and other reimbursable amounts ("Maximum Compensation"), for preparation of an environmental review document for the development proposal at 220 Park Road, Burlingame. 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 to City. 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, 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 3 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. 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 ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. 501 Primrose Road 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500 Burlingame, CA 94010 San Francisco, CA 94105 WE Lisa Goldman City Manager IM Trina Prince Contracts Administrator Date: Date: 4 Attest: Federal Employer ID Number: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer License Number: City Clerk Expiration Date: Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane City Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Work Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions i �• 41CF March 16, 2020 Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner Community Development Department — Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 SUBJECT: Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Dear Ms. Keylon: ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (hereafter referred to as ICF) is pleased to present this scope and budget to prepare a CEQA Checklist pursuant to Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, for the proposed 220 Park Road Project (hereafter referred to as the Project). This scope of work reflects the proposed Project information provided to ICF by Burlingame staff, knowledge of the area, and prior experience with similar projects within Burlingame. We offer a team of highly skilled environmental professionals who are familiar with the City and will produce legally defensible and comprehensive CEQA documentation allowing the Project to be developed as expeditiously as possible. Our experience on several projects in the City allows our staff to respond quickly to your needs. The Project site is located at 220 Park Road in downtown Burlingame. The 1.28-acre parcel fronts Park Road to the southwest and Lorton Avenue to the northeast. The Project site currently consists of a vacant United States Post Office building (approximately 13,300 sf), a free-standing garage building (approximately 1,300 sf), and a surface parking lot with 24 stalls. The Project would include partial demolition and partial preservation of the existing buildings and the addition of a new six -story building with two levels of underground parking. In total, the building would consist of approximately 140,000 sf of office in the upper floors, 20,000 sf of retail in the ground floor, and 280 parking stalls within the underground garage. This scope of work reflects recent conversations with the City and provides a solid launching point to move through the environmental review process efficiently, thoughtfully, and diligently. The proposed team includes Prevision Design (shadow diagrams) and Hexagon (Transportation). This scope of work and budget is valid for a period of 90 days, at which time ICF reserves the right to revise the contents or extend the validity date, if needed. 201 Mission Street, 15`h Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 USA +1.415.677.7100 icf.com Proposal to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 2 ICF respectfully reserves the right to negotiate contract terms similar to those we negotiated with the City in previous contracts. Please feel free to contact Kirsten Chapman at 415.537.1702 or kirsten.chapman@icf.com. We look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, Trina L. Fisher Contracts Administrator Attachments A. Prevision Design Scope (Shadows) B. Hexagon (Transportation) C. Budget D. Schedule ***ICF Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 3 A. Project Understanding and General Approach Project Understanding The Project site is located at 220 Park Road in downtown Burlingame. The 1.28-acre parcel fronts Park Road to the southwest and Lorton Avenue to the northeast. The Project site currently consists of a vacant United States Post Office building (approximately 13,300 sf), a free-standing garage building (approximately 1,300 sf), and a surface parking lot with 24 stalls. The Project would include partial demolition and partial preservation of the existing buildings and the addition of a new six -story building with two levels of underground parking. In total, the building would consist of approximately 140,000 sf of office in the upper floors, 20,000 sf of retail in the ground floor, and 280 parking stalls within the underground garage. The proposed plan preserves the historic interior and exterior of the gallery lobby and the exterior of the "main" fagade fronting Park Road, per the requirements of the 2013 Preservation Covenant. Similarly, the main building entry elements from Park Road into the gallery lobby, as well as the setback from Park Road along this frontage will be maintained. The historic, character -defining features of the property will be preserved in accordance with the property's Preservation Covenant and the Secretary of Interior (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and will be integrated into the new development. General Approach It is ICF's understanding that the Project would be consistent with the Envision Burlingame General Plan and the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Therefore, it is assumed that efficiencies would be gained by tiering from the General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan IS/MND under CEQA Guideline Section 15162 and 15168. It is also anticipated that the Project would comply with the Preservation Covenant, the City Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO), the SOI Standards,' and the Howard Mixed -Use (HMU) zoning. Therefore, Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines would apply to the Project. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project - specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an IS or other analysis: ■ Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located. ' Note that Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines uses the SOI Standards to determine if an impact is significant. If a project follows the SOI Standards, then the project is considered to be mitigated to a less -than -significant impact on historic resources. ***ICF Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 4 ■ Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent. ■ Are potentially significant off -site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action. ■ Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the lead agency with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standard, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. The primary virtue of Section 15183 streamlining is the ability to limit the scope of any new CEQA document. Therefore, for the purposes of this scope of work, ICF assumes that a CEQA consistency checklist, pursuant to Section 15183, would be prepared for this Project. In the case of this Project, the "prior EIR" to be used would include: : ■ Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and Specific Plan IS/MND (May 2010): The Project is located within Specific Plan area and Project is largely consistent with allowable development identified for the site in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan IS/MND evaluated the buildout of the Specific Plan programmatically and included Standard Conditions of Approval (SCAs) to mitigate potential environmental impacts. The SCAs have been found to substantially mitigate environmental effects of projects proposed in the area. As applicable, the SCAs are adopted as requirements of individual projects when approved by the City and are designed to avoid or substantially reduce a project's environmental effects. ICF anticipates being able to tier the analysis for a majority of the topics from this previous IS/MND and incorporating the SCAs, where applicable instead of mitigation measures, to address the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts. ■ Envision Burlingame General Plan and General Plan EIR (January 2019): In January 2019, the City adopted the Envision Burlingame General Plan, which outlined the community's conservation and development goals until 2040. The EIR conducted for the 2040 General Plan the Program EIR is described in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines as the appropriate analytical framework to assess the cumulative environmental effects of the full plan in a first -tier level of analysis, to identify broad concerns and sets of impacts, and to define/develop regulatory standards and programmatic procedures that reduce impacts and help achieve environmental ICF Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 5 goals and objectives. Later activities proposed pursuant to the goals and policies of the 2040 General Plan (such as the Project) will be reviewed in light of 2040 General Plan EIR and may focus on those site -specific and localized environmental issues that could not be examined in sufficient detail as part of the EIR. As with all projects proposed in the City, projects contained in specific focus areas where land use changes are proposed will be subject to CEQA compliance at such time the City receives a permit application for the project. At that time, the CEQA analysis would specifically address impacts of the project on localized traffic; the ability of service providers to serve the project; consistency with 2040 General Plan policies; consistency with building and engineering regulations of the City; site -specific biological, cultural resource, and visual effects; and impacts on on -site and off -site drainage. This scope of work for CEQA review of the Project considers all of these topics. B. Scope of Work While Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines does not have a specific document requirement (such as an EIR or IS/MND), consistency with Section 15183 must be supported. Therefore, a CEQA consistency checklist is proposed. ICF would prepare a custom checklist to indicate which topics were previously analyzed and can be scoped out for further review. For the purposes of this scope, ICF is assuming that all topics can be scoped out and only a consistency checklist will be needed. We have assumed that the document would tier the Project analysis from the Specific Plan IS/MND and the General Plan EIR. This scope of work assumes that the CEQA checklist will be prepared for the Project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Task 1. Kick -Off Meeting/Data Collection This task includes the following tasks: initiate CEQA process/kick-off meeting; prepare comprehensive data needs list; conduct site visit; review of site plans and preliminary studies; and refine the scope of work and schedule. We understand that it is the City's intention to initiate CEQA review for the Project before the submittal of the final plans and applications for entitlement by the Project Sponsor. Given that Project design may be in flux during the first portions of CEQA review, ICF will propose CEQA topics to prioritize pending receipt of final Project design plans. At the kick-off meeting, the following topics will be discussed. ■ Discuss data needs to complete the CEQA checklist. ■ Confirm procedures for contacting the Project Sponsor team, City staff, and public agencies. ■ Review and agree on schedules and deadlines. ■ Summarize the next steps. ■ Discuss in more detail how to apply the Specific Plan and General Plan and determine which SCAB and mitigation measures apply. ■ Discuss City preferences regarding the CEQA checklist format and organization. ICF Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 6 Deliverables ■ Data needs request for the City and Project Sponsor ■ Revised schedule Task 2. Project Description ICF will prepare the Project Description based on discussions with Project Sponsor team, input from City staff, site visit, data needs responses, and review of the Project application, plan set, and supplemental reports. A clear and accurate Project Description is essential to the analysis. Based on discussions with City staff and on the Project Sponsor's application and plans, ICF will prepare a Project Description for the CEQA checklist that will incorporate the following topics:2 ■ Project Overview and Background ■ Project Site Location ■ Project Characteristics by including: Relationship to the Specific Plan and General Plan Site plan Employment levels Site access, circulation, and parking Building design, architectural themes, massing, building design, potential sustainable design features, and materials Amenities such as landscaping, lighting, signage, courtyards, and gathering spaces Utilities Recycling and Waste ■ Phasing and Construction Scenario ■ Project Approvals and Entitlements The Project Description will be submitted to the City for review. Following receipt of comments, ICF will then revise the Project Description based on City comments and additional data needs responses from the Project Sponsor. This revised version of the Project Description will be included in CEQA checklist. Deliverables ■ Electronic copies of the draft Project Description in MS Word and Adobe PDF format Task 3. Administrative Draft CEQA Checklist The purpose of this task is to prepare the Administrative Draft CEQA checklist to demonstrate consistency with Section 15183. This task will synthesize background information for use in the existing setting, evaluate changes to those baseline conditions resulting from implementation of the Project, compare those impacts to the significance criteria to identify significant impacts, and identify SCAs or mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less -than -significant level. 2 Assumes that data needs outlined in ICF's data request have been fulfilled. I C F Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 7 For this task, there will be four principal activities: ■ Determine, by individual resource topic, the significance criteria to be used in the analysis. ■ Tier from the Downtown Specific Plan IS/MND and the General Plan EIR. ■ Present background information. ■ Present the analysis at full buildout of the Project and make determinations of impact significance. ■ Identify SCAs or recommend feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts, if needed. The ICF team will collect the information necessary to define baseline conditions in the Project area. ICF anticipates utilizing some of the existing conditions information from the Specific Plan IS/MND and General Plan EIR. The analysis will be based on standard methodologies and techniques and will focus on the net changes anticipated at the Project site. The text will clearly link SCAs or measures to impacts and indicate their effectiveness (i.e., ability to reduce an impact to a less -than -significant level), identify the responsible agency or party, and distinguish whether SCAs or measures are proposed as part of the Project, are already being implemented (such as existing regulations), or are to be considered. The following task descriptions summarize the data to be collected, impact assessment methodologies to be used, and types of mitigation measures to be considered, by environmental issue. While the below scope may be more extensive than needed, but the scope will be refined during Task 1, once the Project is defined and further discussions are complete. Topics with No Impacts or Less -than -Significant Impacts The Project is largely consistent with allowable development identified for the site in the Specific Plan. Because of this, ICF anticipates being able to tier the analysis for the following topics from the Specific Plan IS/MND and the General Plan EIR and incorporate SCAs and mitigation measures, where applicable, to address the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts. Based on our preliminary review, the following environmental topics would result in no impacts or less -than -significant impacts. ■ Aesthetics (including Shadow). The Project would be classified as an employment center pursuant to SB 743. The Project site is also within a Transit Priority Area due to its proximity to transit options. As a result, in accordance with SB 743, the Project's aesthetics impacts are not considered significant impacts on the environment. As such, this topic does not need to be evaluated. ■ Agricultural/Forestry Resources. ICF will describe existing conditions at the Project site, identify the General Plan designation and the zoning district, and indicate lack of agricultural and forestry uses at the Project site. ■ Biological Resources. The Project site is within an urban setting developed with an existing building and a paved parking lot. There are street trees located along the perimeter of and on the ICF Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 8 Project site. ICF will describe the existing conditions at the Project site and identify that natural biological resources are not likely to be present on site. Based on prior experience in the region, and the urban nature of the site, ICF anticipates that the issues for the Project will be limited to nesting migratory birds, roosting bats, and protected trees. ICF will evaluate the Project's effects on the identified biological resources and identify applicable SCAs, as warranted. ■ Energy. ICF will prepare an energy analysis based on an evaluation of how the Project will affect energy resources, generation, and transmission, and will assess any potential impacts associated with wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption during Project construction or operation. The analysis will be based on energy use outputs from the CalEEMod emissions model (described below). In addition, ICF will evaluate the Project's consistency with state and local energy efficiency goals. ■ Geology/Soils. The Project site is located in a seismically active portion of northern California. Other site -specific geotechnical concerns, such as expansive soils, liquefaction, or differential settlement, could potentially affect the Project. Based on the requirements of the City's Building Code, ICF assumes that the Project Sponsor will provide a site -specific soils report that identifies any potentially unsuitable soils conditions and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including provisions to reduce the effects of these soils. ICF will review available geotechnical information for the Project site to characterize geologic concerns on the Project site and describe potential impacts associated with ground shaking, ground failure, and underlying soil conditions. ICF will evaluate the geohazard risks from development at the Project site, using information provided in the Specific Plan IS/MND, General Plan EIR, and available geologic and/or soils maps. Pertinent regulatory requirements will be explicitly identified so that the nexus between regulations and minimized impacts is apparent. ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (November 2015) has been prepared for the Project site. Based on the age of the existing onsite building and condition of painted surfaces, it is possible that the existing Post Office building has been painted with lead -based paint. ICF will summarize the activities and finding of the Phase I ESA (2015) to describe the extent and magnitude of known or potential subsurface contamination on the Project site as well as to identify potential hazardous building materials of concern associated with demolition or modifications to portions of the existing building. ICF will also evaluate available information regarding other public health and safety hazards required to be analyzed under CEQA, such as aviation hazards and potential interferences with emergency response and evacuative plans. The analysis will describe applicable federal, state, local regulations as well as SCAs, as warranted, and how these apply to the Project to reduce the potential for impacts. ■ Hydrology/Water Quality. Proposed grading and construction activities could affect the geographic configuration of the Project site, potentially altering on and off -site flooding hazards. I C F Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 9 Construction and grading could also result in erosion and sedimentation, which could degrade stormwater runoff quality. Dewatering of excavations may be required during construction. The operational activities associated with the Project could also introduce new pollutants sources (e.g., related to increased vehicular use at the site). The primary hydrology and water quality issues that will be analyzed are impacts related to the Project's potential impacts due to stormwater runoff (quality and rate/volume of discharge). Pertinent regulatory requirements will be explicitly identified so that the nexus between regulations and minimized impacts is apparent. The analysis will also identify SCAs, as warranted, and how these apply to the Project to reduce the potential for impacts. ■ Land Use/Planning. Land use and planning generally considers compliance with zoning regulations and consistency of a proposed project with relevant local land use policies. Based on the Project Sponsor's project description, there are two conditions of the current Project design that may require a Conditional Use Permit or variance. The proposed building height of 89 feet exceed the current 55-foot height limit of the HMU zoning district. In addition, the office parking is currently proposed at 1 stall per 500 sf, while the current zoning allows for 1 stall per 300 sf. ICF will review the Specific Plan and incorporate relevant background information and goals/policies into the CEQA checklist. The analysis will identify SCAs, as warranted, and how these apply to the Project to reduce the potential for conflicts. The document will also examine consistency with the Specific Plan and General Plan policies. In particular, Policy D-3.2 of the Specific Plan requires that development over 40 feet be evaluated for the potential to create new shadows. The project description prepared by the Project Sponsor indicates a proposed building height of 89 feet, which exceeds the 55-foot height limit allowed by the site's zoning district. Shadow simulations would be conducted by Prevision Design (as outlined in Attachment A) and the results would be summarized in this section. ■ Mineral Resources. ICF will describe existing conditions at the Project site and identify the mineral resources zone classification for soils at the site. It is anticipated that the site does not contain significant mineral resources. ■ Population/Housing. ICF will present existing population projects for the City from the General Plan EIR and ABAG projections. The analysis will focus on the direct increase in population employees generated by the Project. However, since no housing is proposed as part of the Project, it is not anticipated that the Project would directly induce substantial population growth. ■ Public Services/Recreation. The increase in employees at the Project site could affect City public service providers, including police, fire, parks (recreation), schools, and libraries. Additional onsite employees compared to existing conditions would likely increase calls for service, creating an additional burden on the Burlingame Police Department and the Central County Fire Department. In addition, employees could use the Burlingame Main Library or visit nearby parks. ICF Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 10 However, since the Project would not include new residential uses, it is unlikely that there would be a substantial increase in the number of school -aged children in the area. The potential public services impacts will be analyzed in the document. ■ Utilities/Service Systems. The increase in employees at the Project site could affect utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater, storm water, and electricity/gas. The CEQA checklist will discuss whether implications of the Project trigger the expansion or construction of new infrastructure or facilities. The analysis will identify SCAs, as warranted, and how these apply to the Project to reduce the potential for impacts. Air Quality In accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), projects under a certain size do not require a quantitative analysis of criteria pollutant emissions and impacts are considered less than significant. Although the Project could be considered to be below the BAAQMD's screening level sizes for construction and operational criteria pollutants based on the office space, ICF proposes a quantitative analysis for construction and operational emissions. Where feasible, ICF will tier from the Specific Plan IS/MND and the General Plan EIR. ICF will quantify construction -related emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 using an approved modeling methodology, such as the CalEEMod model, and construction data (i.e., construction schedule and equipment) for the Project provided by the Project Sponsor. Where Project -specific data are unavailable, we will use default values from CaIEEMod. The analysis will address construction -related mitigation measures required by BAAQMD, including adherence to BAAQMD rules and regulations. Estimated construction emissions will then be compared to the BAAQMD's construction emission thresholds to determine the Project's significance for construction activities. For operations, ICF will use the traffic data (i.e., trip generation rates) from the traffic analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants to estimate operational emissions from Project -related vehicle emissions based on approved methodologies, such as the CaIEEMod model and the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) EMFAC model. Motor vehicle emission estimates will be based on motor vehicle activity (number of trips, trip length) estimated by the traffic analysis prepared by the transportation engineers. Operational emissions associated with area sources (i.e., landscaping, paints space and water heating, and consumer products) will also be estimated based on the CalEEMod model. Construction of the Project would result in emissions of toxic air contaminants JAC), which could impact sensitive receptors. ICF will complete the following tasks to evaluate potential health risks associated with Project construction: ■ Document existing air quality conditions. I C F Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 11 ■ Describe the existing environmental conditions and the current air quality regulatory environment as it applies to the Project. Describe the general locations of existing sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. ■ Prepare a project -level HRA for construction activities to estimate potential health risks to existing sensitive receptors near the Project site. ICF will work with the Project Sponsor to obtain the most accurate and realistic construction schedule and equipment information for the Project. ■ Construction emissions for diesel -related exhaust as determined from the criteria pollutant analysis will be used to evaluate health risks to nearby receptors from exposure to construction - related diesel particulate matter (DPM) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exhaust emissions using the AERMOD dispersion model. These will be compared to the BAAQMD's thresholds of significance to determine project -level impacts. ■ Evaluate health risks to nearby sensitive receptors on a cumulative basis by evaluating the contribution of existing TAC sources located within 1,000 feet of the Project site boundary to health risks associated with construction activities. ■ Where significant impacts are identified, we will identify mitigation measures (including those recommended and required by the BAAQMD designed to reduce the significance of Project - related air impacts). For the assessment of CO impacts during Project operation, data from the Project's transportation analysis will be reviewed to determine the need for localized CO modeling, consistent with the BAAQMD's CO screening procedures. In the event that the screening analysis indicates a quantitative CO analysis is necessary, ICF will use the CALINE4 model and the latest version of ARB emission factors to estimate CO concentrations at up to 3 intersections for each year analyzed in the transportation analyses. CO impacts will be assessed by evaluating whether each project meets the ambient air quality requirements for localized pollutants by determining whether it causes or contributes to an exceedance of state or federal CO standards. Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy ICF will prepare an analysis of climate change impacts. The climate change analysis will focus on the greenhouse gases (GHG) of greatest concern, carbon dioxide, (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) that will be generated by construction and operation of the Project. ICF's climate change specialists will prepare a climate change analysis describing existing conditions, the Project's impacts to climate change and impacts to the Project resulting from climate change, and mitigation measures designed to reduce the significance of Project -related climate change impacts. The document will discuss that the City's 2019 Climate Action Plan (CAP) is considered to be a qualified reduction strategy for CEQA purposes. ICF will quantify the project's construction and operational GHG emissions using CaIEEMod or similar methodology to fully disclose GHG emissions. The City's CAP ICF Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 12 includes 2020 and 2030 GHG reduction targets and identifies GHG reduction measures to sufficiently meet those goals. This scope of work assumes that the project applicant will implement all applicable and feasible greenhouse gas emission reduction measures from the CAP, in order to satisfy the CAP tiering requirements. BAAQMD's current CEQA Guidelines include operational GHG thresholds for land use development and stationary source projects. These thresholds are derived from the state's 2020 GHG reduction goal, and therefore may not be appropriate to evaluate project -level emissions generated after 2020. At this time, ICF anticipates that GHG impacts will be primarily evaluated by documenting the project's consistency with the City's CAP. However, BAAQMD is currently working on an update to their CEQA Guidelines, which is expected to include GHG thresholds for project -level GHG emissions relative to the state's post- 2020 GHG reduction targets. Because the regulatory environment for GHG emissions is frequently evolving, additional significance thresholds published by BAAQMD may also be used to evaluate long- term GHG impacts for the project, depending on the available guidance at the time of analysis preparation. If the project is not able to tier from the City's CAP, and, in the absence of post-2020 thresholds from BAAQMD, mitigating GHG emissions from projects that generate a substantial net number of daily trips or VMT to a less than significant level may not be feasible. If this is the case, the scope and budget will be revisited. ***ICF Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 13 Cultural Resources/Tribal Resources It is ICF's understanding that the Project Sponsor is working with a historic consultant team (Page & Turnbull) to review the project designs to ensure consistency with the SOI Standards and the Covenant. In coordination with Page & Turnbull, ICF proposes to prepare a Cultural Resources Technical Report to consider the Project's potential impacts to cultural resources (including historic built and archeological resources) as defined by CEQA. ICF will conduct the following tasks in preparation of the cultural resources analysis: Review Background Materials, Conduct Records Search, and Site Visit. This task will require review of background documentation on the property (including any Page & Turnbull reports, the Specific Plan Inventory of Historic Resources [October 2008], Postal Historic Structure Report for Burlingame Main Post Office [February 2013], and the 220 Park Road Preservation Covenant Language); a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC); outreach to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); a desktop -based review of buried archaeological site sensitivity; Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation support; and a brief historic built resource reconnaissance survey to examine existing conditions. The following assumptions are included in this task: ■ No archaeological fieldwork will be required to complete this task. ■ ICF will prepare outreach letters to the NAHC and the individuals that the NAHC identifies. Follow-up with individuals that the NAHC identifies will consist of up to two telephone calls to each individual. ICF will tier NAHC outreach activities from any recent outreach efforts conducted as part of the City's General Plan update. ■ ICF's AB 52 consultation support will include authoring and submitting AB 52 consultation letters to Native American tribes on behalf of the City, documenting responses from Native American tribes, integrating any information into the CEQA checklist, and providing all documentation to the City. ■ Project Sponsor will provide access to the property and will coordinate any necessary site access and safety precautions. Attend Project Design Meetings. A key part of the cultural resources analysis will involve meeting with the Project development and design team, including the Project architect Page & Turnbull, before the Project design is finalized so that ICF can improve our understanding of the objectives and constraints of the Project. This will inform the review of potential Project impacts. ICF will participate in meetings to advise the team on strategies to reach conformance with the SOI Standards with regards to the existing Post Office building on the Project site. Projects that are found to comply with the Standards are typically considered to have a less -than -significant impact on cultural resources during CEQA review. ICF also notes that compliance with the Standards is a condition in the 220 Park Road Preservation Covenant Language. ICF Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 14 ICF will attend up to two meetings with the Project team to provide comments on the Project design's compliance with the Standards. If additional meetings are requested or required to review additional iterations of the project design, ICF will request a contract amendment in order to attend these meetings. Complete Cultural Resources Technical Report. ICF will complete a Cultural Resources Technical Report, which will summarize the prehistoric and ethnographic context of the Project site, the methods and results of the NWIC records search, NAHC outreach, and AB 52 consultation. Additionally, the report will assess the Project's conformance with the Standards with regards to built environment resources. The existing Post Office building at the Project site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and is considered a historical resource for CEQA review purposes. ICF will coordinate with the Project development and design team and will provide independent and impartial analysis of the Project design's conformance with the Standards. If the Project design is found not to be in compliance with the Standards, the report will include measures that can be incorporated into the Project to improve its Standards compliance. The report will also analyze potential Project impacts on surrounding historical resources, such as the nearby Burlingame Hotel at 283-287 Lorton Avenue. The analysis in the report will inform an assessment of the Project's impacts on cultural resources under CEQA. The following assumptions are included in this task: ■ ICF will complete the Cultural Resources Technical Report, which will include a Standards analysis in response to one set of design drawings provided by the Project Sponsor. If Project design is adjusted following the completion of the report, ICF will request a contract amendment in order to revise the report based on the updated design. ■ ICF assumes no additional age -eligible resources are located within or surrounding the Project site that require evaluation for listing in the National Register or California Register eligibility evaluations will be conducted. CEQA Checklist. Based on the results of the Cultural Resources Technical Report, ICF will prepare the cultural resources section in the CEQA Checklist. To complete the CEQA analysis, ICF will conduct the following tasks: ■ Describe the regulatory framework for cultural resources, including federal, state, and local agencies, laws, and regulations. ■ Summarize the findings of the Cultural Resources Technical Report, which include the results of the NWIC records search, NAHC outreach, AB52 consultation, and assessment of the Project's impacts on historic architectural resources, in order to make conclusions regarding the Project's level of potential impacts on cultural resources under CEQA. ■ As necessary, identify Project -specific mitigation measures and SCAs. ICF Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 15 Noise ICF will prepare a noise and vibration impact analysis that employs standard noise and vibration modeling techniques consistent with the requirements of the City of Burlingame Noise Element and noise section of the City's municipal code. ICF will address the following key noise issues: ■ Exposure of existing noise sensitive land uses to noise and vibration associated with demolition and construction activity. ■ Exposure of existing noise sensitive land uses to Project -related changes in traffic noise. ■ Exposure of existing noise sensitive land uses to operational noise from the Project site (mechanical equipment, parking lots, loading docks, etc.). Primary noise sources in the Project vicinity include local and regional roadway traffic, including traffic along California Drive. Noise -sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity include predominantly office and commercial land uses, located adjacent to the Project site. Other sensitive receptors could be identified during the screening process or during the optional noise field survey (discussed below). Due to the development intensity at the Project site, the Project will likely result in greater noise levels as compared to existing conditions. Traffic noise will be evaluated along up to a maximum of 5 roadways segments under the following conditions using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) and traffic data prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. A Project scenario and cumulative scenario will be evaluated for the noise analysis. It is assumed that traffic data from the traffic analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants will include average annual daily traffic volumes, posted speeds, and heavy truck percentages for each roadway segment. City of Burlingame noise standards and other noise standards as applicable will be summarized. In the setting section, existing sources of noise in the Project area will be identified along with existing noise -sensitive land uses in the Project area. Existing noise levels in the Project area will be characterized based on noise measurements from the Specific Plan IS/MND, the City's General Plan EIR, and traffic noise modeling, as follows: ■ Existing traffic noise conditions in the Project area will be modeled using TNM and traffic data from the traffic analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. In the impact section CEQA significance thresholds will be established based on applicable City noise standards. Demolition and construction noise will be evaluated using construction noise modeling methods recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation and construction equipment data to be provided by the Project Sponsor. Noise generated by facility operations, including noise sources such as loading docks, outdoparking lots, and mechanical equipment, will be evaluated using standard acoustical modeling methods and operational data provided by the Project Sponsor. Where significant noise impacts are identified, SCAs or mitigation will be identified to reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level I C F Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 16 (where feasible). Noise mitigation will be described at a level that is appropriate for environmental review and not at a design level of detail. Noise measurements document the existing noise levels in the Project area before the Project is developed. The scope above assumes that measurements taken for the Specific Plan IS/MND and measurement provided in the City's General Plan EIR are adequate for this purpose. Transportation/Traffic ICF will retain Hexagon to prepare a Transportation Analysis (TA) for the Project. Hexagon's scope of work is provided in Attachment B. ICF will review the TA that is prepared by Hexagon and incorporate it into the CEQA checklist. Deliverables: ■ Electronic copies of the Administrative Draft Checklist in MS Word and PDF via email. Task 4: Screencheck CEQA Checklist The purpose of this task is to prepare the Screencheck Draft CEQA checklist for City staff review. ICF will prepare a Screencheck Draft CEQA checklist to respond to the City's comments. This scope assumes that comments from multiple reviewers will be consolidated with any conflicting comments are resolved, and that comments do not result in substantial revisions or additional analyses. Deliverables: ■ 3 hardcopies of the Screencheck Draft CEQA Checklist. ■ Electronic copies of the Screencheck Draft CEQA Checklist in MS Word and PDF via email. Task 5: Final CEQA Checklist The purpose of this task is to prepare and submit the Final CEQA Checklist to the. ICF will revise the Screencheck CEQA checklist to incorporate modifications identified by the City. It is assumed that this checklist would be kept on file at the City and not distributed for public review and comment. Regardless, this scope of work assumes that ICF will prepare the Notice of Exemption (NOE) and a Notice of Determination (NOD) and will file them with the State Clearinghouse. Deliverables: ■ Ten (10) hard copies of the CEQA Checklist with CDs of appendices.3 ■ Electronic copies of the CEQA Checklist in MS Word and in Adobe PDF format via email. 3 Additional hardcopies can be printed at a cost of approximately $120 to $200, depending on the size of the document. ICF Scope of Work to Conduct CEQA Review for the 220 Park Road Project Page 17 ■ One (1) electronic copy of the NOE and NOD. Task 6: Project Management/Meetings The purpose of this task is to effectively manage the above tasks, and maintain communication with City staff. ICF project management will be responsible for coordination activities, will maintain QA/QC requirements for document preparation, and will monitor schedule and performance for all tasks. Project management subtasks also include maintaining internal communications among ICF staff and subconsultants and with City staff and other team members through emails and frequent phone contact, as well as the preparation of all correspondence. The Project Manager will coordinate internal staff, project guidance, and analysis criteria. This task also includes attending meetings to accomplish the above tasks. Team members will attend and participate in meetings on an as -needed basis. For purposes of the cost estimates, ICF has assumed 2 City staff and/or Project Sponsor face-to-face meetings (excluding public hearings, which are not assumed in this scope of work) and 5 additional phone conference calls. These meetings are in addition to what is already assumed in the preceding tasks. Additional meetings may be appropriate during the course of this effort, and will be invoiced on a time -and -materials basis. The estimated cost for additional meetings is included in the discussion of the Project budget. In terms of progress reporting, ICF will prepare a brief progress report every month documenting the key accomplishments on the CEQA process, schedule progress, and identification of any key issues that have arisen that may affect the CEQA checklist, budget, or schedule. C. Cost The cost estimate for the CEQA checklist is $239,154, as detailed in Attachment C. D. Schedule Our preliminary project schedule to prepare the CEQA checklist is included as Attachment D. ICF Attachment A �i PREVISION DESIGN Kirsten Chapman, Project Manager ICF 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 March 10, 2020 PROPOSAL FOR CEQA SHADOW ANALYSIS: 220 PARK ROAD, BURLINGAME CA Dear Kirsten, Prevision Design is pleased to present this proposal to perform a shadow analysis in accordance with accepted regional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) shadow study standards for the proposed redevelopment of 220 Park Road in Burlingame, CA. The proposed redevelopment ("the project") anticipates the partial demolition and partial preservation of the existing buildings and the addition of a new six -story building with two levels of underground parking. The ground floor will consist of retail, ancillary building services, and parking, while the upper floors will be office space. Prevision Design is not aware that the City of Burlingame has established community standards for shadow analysis, nor any established criteria for significance. The Downtown Specific Plan provides general guidance for assessing potential shadow impacts for projects in Downtown Burlingame, specifying that as part of the design review process, development in the Specific Plan Area that is proposed to be taller than existing surrounding structures should be evaluated for potential to create new shadows/shade on public and/or quasi -public open spaces and major pedestrian routes. The plan suggests at a minimum shadow diagrams should be prepared for 9am, 12pm, and 3pm on March 21 st, June 21 st, September 21 st, and December 21 11 (approximately corresponding to the solstices and equinoxes) to identify potential extreme conditions and general patterns of shading on these key dates. A. PROJECT APPROACH Existing + Project 3D Modeling Prevision Design shall gather urban 3D model data, along with a model of the project to build a virtual 3D environment which will used to analyze existing conditions vs. the net new shadow effects created by the addition of the project. Snapshot Shadow Diagrams Prevision Design will develop graphical shadow representations that demonstrate the existing vs. net new project shadows that would be cast. Diagrams are produced the following days: Summer solstice (June 21 st), Winter solstice (December 21 st), Spring/Fall Equinox (March 215t/September 21 st, spring and 1806 Belles Street, Suite 6B I San Francisco, CA 94129 1 415 498 0141 Page 1 of 5 Attachment A PREVISION DESIGN fall are considered equivalent for the purposes of shadow) and represent the progression of shadow at 9am, 12pm, and 3pm. Shadow Study Report Prevision will prepare a written summary including the following: • 3D modelling assumptions • Shadow Analysis Methodology and Results • Qualitative Shadow Characterization • Shadow Diagrams OPTIONAL: Shadow Fan Diagram Prevision will develop a graphical full year shadow diagram, graphically depicting the total aggregate extents of net new project shadow that would fall at any point between 9am and 3pm throughout the year. This diagram will identify all spaces that would be affected by net new shadow between these daily times. B. PROJECT FEE PROPOSAL Scope Fee Existing + Project 3D Modeling $2,000 Snapshot Shadow Diagrams $1,500 Shadow Study Report $1,500 TOTAL PROPOSED FEE $5,000 OPTIONAL: Shadow Fan Diagram $1,500 Fee Qualifications: 1. Listed fees are for professional services and named deliverables only, are based on the scope of work as assumed at the time this proposal was prepared and are subject to change due to changes in the scope of work. 2. Work performed at client's behest beyond the above -outlined scope of work, including attendance at meetings beyond the allowance given shall be subject to additional fees, billed hourly as Extra Services at the rates per the attached Schedule of Charges. C. PAYMENT SCHEDULE Progress billing shall occur monthly on the 1 st of each month with amount due reflecting percentage completion. Invoices shall be sent electronically via email (unless paper copies are requested) and are considered due upon receipt and shall be deemed delinquent after 30 days. 1806 Belles Street, Suite 6B I San Francisco, CA 94129 1 415 498 0141 Page 2 of 5 Attachment A �i PREVISION DESIGN D. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY 1. The proposed shadow simulations and analyses produced are presented as reasonable and economical approximations of the shadow impacts of proposed project based on data provided by the client, available building data, and site observations and are representative of the accepted standards of the City of Burlingame. Prevision Design is indemnified and held harmless from any actions arising from their accuracy and any errors on the part of Prevision Design will be corrected as a matter of course. 2. Prevision Design has the right rely on the accuracy and completeness of any client or city -supplied materials or information. 3. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Client agrees to limit Prevision Design's liability for the Client's damages to Prevision Design's total fee. This limitation shall apply regardless of the cause of action or legal theory pled or asserted. 4. Each party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other party and its employees, members, land -lord, successors, and assigns, from any claims, liabilities, losses, damages, and expenses asserted against the other party arising out of the performance of any of its duties or obligations under this Agreement, however this indemnification shall not extend to cover acts of willful misconduct and/or gross negligence. The provisions of this indemnification are solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and not intended to create or grant any rights, contractual or otherwise, to another person or entity. E. WORK PRODUCT 1. Most work product generated by Prevision Design shall be considered the property of the client and shall be provided electronically at any time upon request, with the following exceptions: 2. Prevision Design frequently uses 3D modelling data which owned and licensed a 3rd party and has secured the rights to use this data the purpose of creating 3D urban models for shadow calculation but does not have the right to provide 3D models containing this data to any other party, including clients. 3. Prevision Design uses custom built software tools and data models which are part of a proprietary process which shall not be provided. Project data spreadsheets, if requested, shall be sent with values only (formulas removed). F. OTHER PROVISIONS & DISCLOSURES 1. This Contract shall be governed by the law of the place where the Project is located. 2. Neither party to this Contract shall assign the contract as a whole without written consent of the other. 3. Nothing contained in this Contract shall create a contractual relationship with, or a cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the Client or Prevision Design. 4. Contract maybe terminated by either party by providing written notice. Upon termination, prorated fees for any work performed since the last invoice shall be paid to Prevision Design. 5. Prevision Design maintains the following insurance coverage (per occurrence/aggregate limits): 1806 Belles Street, Suite 6B I San Francisco, CA 94129 1 415 498 0141 Page 3 of 5 Attachment A PREVISION DESIGN • Commercial General Liability (1 M/2M) • Professional Liability Errors & Omissions (1 M/1 M) • Workers Compensation (1 M/1 M) • Business Auto (1 M/1 M) 6. Disclosure: Prevision Design is a DBA for Adam Phillips Architectural Corporation. For the purposes of this contract no distinction shall be drawn between these entities. G. ACCEPTANCE If this proposal is acceptable, please sign below and return to Prevision Design in order to execute this contract and proceed. This unsigned proposal shall expire 60 days from its submission. -491. Adam Phillip rincipal Client Authorization: Signature of Client or Authorized Agent Printed Name: Title: March 10, 2020 Date Date 1806 Belles Street, Suite 613 1 San Francisco, CA 94129 1 415 498 0141 Page 4 of 5 Attachment A PREVISION DESIGN PREVISION BILLING RATES & PAYMENT POLICIES Effective January 1st, 2020 HOURLY BILLING RATES Adam Phillips, Principal $250 / hr Jeff Hantman, Associate $125 / hr REIMBURSABLE CHARGES The following charges are in addition to personnel fees: Auto Mileage IRS Standard Mileage Rates Printing and reproduction (per sheet) Black & White Prints/Copies (Letter) $0.25 Black & White Prints/Copies (Ledger/Super B) $1.00 Presentation Color (letter size) $4.00 Large Format prints/plots (outsourced) Cost + 10% Unless otherwise specified by contract, charges for all outside consultant and other reimbursable expenses are computed on the basis of cost plus 10%. PAYMENT METHOD Invoices shall be prepared and sent via email (unless hard copy is requested) on a monthly basis. Billing shall reflect hours spent and/or project progress, shall be due upon receipt. Failure of the client to make payments within 30 days may be taken as a directive to cease work until payment are received. Past due payments shall additionally be subject to interest at the prevailing rate. CHANGES IN BILLING RATES AND POLICIES The rates shown on the schedule of charges are reviewed yearly and are then reissued if modified. Unless specified by contract, charges to all projects (including those continuing from the previous schedule) will be based on the latest schedule of charges. 1806 Belles Street, Suite 6B I San Francisco, CA 94129 1 415 498 0141 Page 5 of 5 Attachment B ►�dd HEXAGON hANSPOPTATION CONSULTANTS, IN(. March 10, 2020 Ms. Kirsten Chapman ICF International 620 Folsom Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 Re: Proposal to Prepare a Transportation Analysis (TA) Report for the Proposed Park Square Mixed -Use Development at 220 Park Avenue in Burlingame, California Dear Ms. Chapman: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare a Transportation Analysis (TA) for the proposed Park Square mixed -use development at 220 Park Avenue in Burlingame, California. The project proposes to redevelop the former US Post Office site and the adjoining City -owned surface parking lot (Lot E) with a six -story building and two levels of underground parking. The ground floor would consist of retail, ancillary building services, and parking, while the upper floors would be office space. The mixed -use development (inclusive of the preserved historic elements) would consist of 140,000 square feet of office space and 20,000 square feet of retail space. Access to the project site would be provided via two full -access driveways on Lorton Avenue. Parking would be provided via a subterranean parking garage, which would also include designated public parking, to replace the loss of public parking spaces in Lot E. This scope of services was developed by Hexagon staff based on our knowledge of City of Burlingame and San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) transportation study requirements, as well as our past experience with preparing various traffic studies for projects within the City of Burlingame. The project would generate fewer than 100 net new peak - hour vehicle trips, so a Congestion Management Program (CMP) traffic analysis based on C/CAG Guidelines is not required. Our proposed scope of work must be reviewed and approved by Burlingame staff prior to our commencement of the study. The Scope of Services provided below is therefore subject to change. We will inform you if the City requests additional work elements not included in our proposal that would affect the project schedule or budget. Scope of Services CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Hexagon will report the average VMT per capita for the project's zone and compare it to the Countywide and Bay Area averages. The data will come from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) website. Due to the proximity of the Caltrain station, the VMT impact is expected to be less than significant. Transportation Analysis The purpose of the transportation study is to satisfy the requirements of the City of Burlingame and to determine any transportation operational issues in the proximate area of the project that may arise due to the project. The traffic analysis will include an analysis of weekday AM and PM 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 • San Jose, California 95113 • phone 408.971.6100. fax 408.971.6102 • www.hextrans.com Attachment B Pr_'N Ms. Kirsten Chapman March 10, 2020 b..,A Page 2 of 5 peak -hour traffic conditions at nearby intersections within the surrounding roadway network. The seven (7) signalized and three (3) unsignalized intersections that we propose to study are identified below. Study Intersections: 1. California Drive and Burlingame Avenue 2. California Drive and Howard Avenue 3. California Drive and Bayswater Avenue 4. Lorton Avenue and Burlingame Avenue (unsignalized) 5. Lorton Avenue and Howard Avenue (unsignalized) 6. Park Road and Burlingame Avenue (unsignalized) 7. Park Road and Howard Avenue 8. El Camino Real and Burlingame Avenue 9. El Camino Real and Howard Avenue 10. El Camino Real and Bayswater Avenue The tasks to be included in the transportation analysis are: 1. Site Reconnaissance and Existing Conditions. The physical characteristics of the site and the surrounding roadway network will be reviewed to identify existing roadway cross - sections, intersection lane configurations, traffic control devices, and surrounding land uses. Observations of existing traffic conditions will be made to identify any operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of the calculated levels of service. 2. Data Collection. New manual peak -hour turning movement counts will be conducted during the typical weekday peak commute hours (7-9 AM and 4-6 PM) at each study intersection. Trip generation counts will be conducted at the existing three driveways of Parking Lot E. 3. Evaluation of Existing Conditions. Existing traffic conditions will be evaluated based on existing traffic volumes at the study intersections. The existing traffic conditions at the key study intersections will be evaluated using the Synchro software, which employs the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for intersection analyses and is the designated City of Burlingame level of service methodology. 4. Project Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment. Estimates of trips to be added to the surrounding roadway network by the proposed mixed -use development will be based on the trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of Traffic Engineers' Trip Generation Manual, 10r" Edition. No credit will be given for the existing post office building because it is vacant. The directional distribution of site -generated traffic will be forecast based on the projected areas to be served by the mixed -use development as well as existing travel patterns, relative locations of complementary land uses, and information obtained from previous traffic studies conducted for developments in the study area, as available. The site -generated traffic will be assigned to the roadway network based on the trip generation and distribution pattern discussed above. 5. Evaluation of Existing Plus Project Conditions. Project -generated traffic will be added to the existing traffic volumes. Intersection levels of service under existing plus project conditions will be evaluated using the Synchro software. Intersection level of service Attachment B Pr_'N Ms. Kirsten Chapman March 10, 2020 b..,A Page 3 of 5 calculations will be conducted to estimate existing plus project traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours after the completion of the proposed mixed -use development. 6. Evaluation of Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes represent the existing volumes plus the projected volumes from approved developments that have not yet been constructed and occupied. Approved project trips and/or approved project information will be obtained from the City of Burlingame. In addition, roadway improvements associated with approved developments will be assumed as directed by City staff. Intersection levels of service under background conditions will be evaluated using the City methodology. 7. Evaluation of Background Plus Project Conditions. Project -generated traffic will be added to the background condition traffic volumes. Intersection levels of service under background plus project conditions will be evaluated using the Synchro software. 8. Evaluation of Cumulative Conditions. Traffic volumes under cumulative no project conditions will either be obtained by applying a growth factor of 1 % per year to the existing traffic volumes (growth factor taken from the C/CAG travel demand forecast model) or another source as directed by City staff. Roadway improvements associated with volume forecasts will be assumed as directed by City staff. Project -generated traffic will then be added to the cumulative traffic volumes to derive cumulative plus project volumes. Intersection levels of service under cumulative conditions with and without the project will be evaluated using the Synchro software. 9. Site Access, On -Site Circulation, and Parking. A review of the project site plan will be performed to determine the overall adequacy of site access and on -site circulation in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. This will include a quantitative analysis of the anticipated traffic volumes at the site's driveway, as well as a qualitative analysis of the proposed site circulation and parking layout. The site plan review will consider driveway location and dimensions, sight distance, truck access, pedestrian access and circulation, and vehicle queuing. Parking supply will be evaluated relative to the City of Burlingame parking requirements. 10. Signal Warrant Analysis. The need for future signalization at selected unsignalized study intersections near the project site will be evaluated on the basis of the warrants in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The warrants will be evaluated using volumes for all study scenarios. Hexagon will rely on the City of Burlingame to supply accident data. 11. Evaluation of Vehicle Queuing. For selected locations where the project would add a significant number of left -turning vehicles (e.g., more than 10 trips per left -turn lane), the adequacy of existing and/or planned storage at turn pockets will be assessed by means of comparison with expected maximum vehicle queues. Vehicle queues will be estimated using a Poisson probability distribution. 12. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities. A qualitative analysis of the project's effect on transit services in the area and on bicycle and pedestrian circulation in the study area will be included in the traffic report. The traffic study will identify any deficiencies due to the project and will recommend improvements if necessary. Attachment B Pr_'N Ms. Kirsten Chapman March 10, 2020 b..,A Page 4 of 5 13. Description of Deficiencies and Recommendations. Based on the results of the transportation analysis, deficiencies due to the site -generated traffic will be identified and described. Recommendations will be formulated that identify the locations and potential improvements or modifications necessary to improve deficiencies. Improvements could include changes in lane usage, addition of traffic signals, or modifying existing traffic signals. Improvements could also include improvements to transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, as well as the development of measures that promote multi -modal travel and reduce the use of single -occupant automobile travel. 14. Reports and Meetings. Our findings and recommendations will be summarized in a draft TIA report. Hexagon Transportation Consultants will respond to one round of comments on the draft report. This proposal includes attendance at one staff meeting. Additional Services Any work not specifically referenced in the above Scope of Work —for example analyzing a modified project description or project alternative, analyzing different phases of development, conducting additional counts of any kind, analyzing additional intersections, analyzing roadway segments or freeway segments, developing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, drawing conceptual plans for mitigation measures, or attending any additional meetings— shall be considered additional services. Additional services will require additional budget and additional time. Time of Performance Barring any unforeseen delays, a draft traffic report will be submitted approximately six weeks after: (1) authorization to proceed, (2) City approval of our proposed scope of work, and (3) receipt of all new count data. Please note that this schedule is subject to the responsiveness of City staff to our requests for information. The final traffic report will be delivered one week after receipt of all review comments. Cost of Services The total fee for the Scope of Services rendered under this agreement will be based on staff time plus expenses not to exceed $42,000. We look forward to working with you on this project and appreciate your consideration of Hexagon Transportation Consultants for this assignment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Gary K. Black President Attachment B Pr-'N Ms. Kirsten Chapman March 10, 2020 b..,A Page 5 of 5 Hexagon 2020 Billing Rates Professional Classification Rate per Hour President $285 Principal $245 Senior Associate II $230 Senior Associate 1 $215 Associate II $195 Associate 1 $175 Planner/Engineer 11 $155 Planner/Engineer 1 $125 Admin/Graphics $110 Senior CAD Tech $95 Technician $75 Direct expenses are billed at actual costs, with the exception of mileage, which is reimbursed at the current rate per mile set by the IRS. Billing rates shown are effective January 1, 2020 and subject to change January 1, 2021. Attachment C. 220 Park Road Project Employee Name Project Role Labor Classification Task Consulting Staff Subcontractors Labor Total Expenses Total Price Efner Chapman Mena Vurlumis Andersen Sukola Yoon Matsui Buehler Foley Elder Boyce Rusch Ricketts Roberts Barnard Mathias Erin Kirsten Leo Caroline Jennifer Katrina Laura Cory David Elizabeth James Gretchen Jonathon Matthew Diana Alan John Project Project Sr. Air Air Sr. Word Editor/ Director Manager Deputy PM Analyst Analyst Hydrology Quality/GHG Quality/ Sr. Noise Noise Archeo Historian Historian Biologist Geo/Haz Processing Formatter Sr Consult Assoc Assoc Assoc Assoc Sr Consult II Sr Consult Mng Sr Consult Sr Consult I Sr Consult II Sr Consult Sr Consult I Asst Proj Dir II Consult II Consult I Consult III Consult II I Proj Dir Sr Consult I Consult III I Consult Subtotal Hexagon Prevision Transporation Shadows Subtotal Mark - up: 10% Task 1: Kick -Off Meeting/Data Collectit 2.0 8.0 12.0 8.0 8.0 $6,506 $0 $0 $6,506 $6,506 Task 2: IS/MND Project Description 2.0 10.0 16.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 $6,434 $0 $0 $6,434 $6,434 Task 3: Admin Draft IS/MND 18.0 44.0 58.0 40.0 12.0 8.0 40.0 190.0 8.0 90.0 24.0 24.0 74.0 6.0 24.0 4.0 24.0 $99,694 $42,000 $5,000 $47,000 $4,700 $151,394 $151,394 Task 4: Screencheck IS/MND 6.0 24.0 40.0 24.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 16.0 2.0 16.0 4.0 6.0 24.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 16.0 $29,848 $0 $0 $29,848 $29,848 Task 5: Final IS/MND 4.0 12.0 20.0 8.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 8.0 $12,322 $0 $0 $12,322 $12,322 Task 6: Project Management/Meeting!, 30.0 50.0 1 40.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $22,420 $0 $0 $22,420 $22,420 Total hours 1,173.0 Billing Rates 62.0 $265.00 148.0 $171.00 186.0 $148.00 76.0 $113.00 18.0 $144.00 13.0 $115.00 50.0 $191.00 210.0 $124.00 11.0 $280.00 110.0 $124.00 29.0 $173.00 39.0 $222.00 114.0 $132.00 9.0 $156.00 34.0 $138.00 10.0 $162.00 54.0 $121.00 Subtotal $16,430 $25,308 $27,528 $8,588 $2,592 $1,495 $9,550 $26,040 $3,080 $13,640 $5,017 $8,658 $15,048 $1,404 $4,692 $1,620 $6,534 1 $177,224 $42,000 $5,000 1$47,000 1 $4,700 $228,924 Other Direct Costs 523.02 Reproductions 523.04 Postage and Delivery 523.05 Travel, Auto, incld. Mileage at current IRS rate (.58/mile) 523.07 Surveys and Reports Mark-u on 10% $6,000 $1,500 $600 $1,200 $930.00 Direct expense subtotal $10,230.00 Total price $239,154.00 Date printed 4/20/2020 3:42 PM Approved by Finance { sh } 220 Park Road Cost Rev 031220(client) ID Task Name Attachment D: 220 Park Road Project - CEQA Consistency Checklist Duration Start IFinish 12020 1 May 2020 1 June 2020 1 July 2020 August 2020 0 1 220 Park Road Project - CEQA Consistency Checklist 94 days Mon 4/13/20 Thu 8/20/20 1 Project Initiation/Project Description 19 days Mon 4/13/20 Thu 5/7/20 2 Kick -Off, Scoping, and Team Meeting 1 day Mon 4/13/20 Mon 4/13/20 Prepare Project Description/Data Needs 8 days Tue 4/14/20 Thu 4/23/20 3 City/Applicant Reviews PD Addresses Data Needs 10 days Fri 4/24/20 Thu 5/7/20 4 (including new traffic count data) 5 1 TIA 6 Hexagon Provides Draft TIA to ICF 7 City Reviews Draft TIA 8 Hexagon Provides Final TIA to ICF 9 Consistency Checklist 10 ICF Prepares Admin CEQA Checklist 11 City Reviews Admin CEQA Checklist 12 ICF Prepares Screencheck CEQA Checklist 13 City Reviews Screencheck CEQA Checklist 14 ICF Finalizes CEQA Checklist 45 days Fri 5/8/20 Thu 7/9/20 30 days Fri 5/8/20 Thu 6/18/20 10 days Fri 6/19/20 Thu 7/2/20 5 days Fri 7/3/20 Thu 7/9/20 30 days Fri 7/10/20 Thu 8/20/20 8 days Fri 7/10/20 Tue 7/21/20 10 days Wed 7/22/20 Tue 8/4/20 5 days Wed 8/5/20 Tue 8/11/20 5 days Wed 8/12/20 Tue 8/18/20 2 days Wed 8/19/20 Thu 8/20/20 Sun 3/15/20 9:09 PM Page 1 BURL- iNAGENDA NO: 8h STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 4, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 4, 2020 From: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk — (650) 558-7203 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the City of Burlingame Conflict of Interest Code to Revise the List of Designated Officials and Employees RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution amending the City of Burlingame Conflict of Interest Code to revise the List of Designated Employees and Disclosure Categories. BACKGROUND California Government Code §87306.5 requires that each local agency review and, if necessary, revise its Conflict of Interest Code in every even -numbered year. The City's Conflict of Interest Code details who in the City organization must file a Statement of Economic Interests, known as Form 700. The City of Burlingame has adopted a Conflict of Interest Code that incorporates by reference the Fair Political Practices Commission's (FPPC) Standard Model Conflict of Interest Code contained in 2 California Code of Regulations §18730. While this Code is automatically updated whenever the model code is changed, the City is required, in even -numbered years, to review and, if necessary, revise its list of "Designated Employees" (those employees, elected, and appointed officials required to file the Form 700) and their "Disclosure Categories" (the economic interests that must be disclosed on the Form 700). The last review and revision to the City's Conflict of Interest Code occurred in 2018. New positions, minor omissions on the prior list, and revised job titles require revision to the list of "Designated Employees and Disclosure Categories." Certain positions that are required to file the Form 700 with the State (City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Chief Financial Officer, etc.) are by law not included in the attached list of designated employees. DISCUSSION Adoption of an updated Conflict of Interest Code is required by state law. Attached to this report is a resolution providing for an amended list of Designated Employees and Disclosure Categories. The City Council should review the list and adopt the resolution. 1 Conflict of Interest Code Amendment May 4, 2020 FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibit: • Resolution Amending the City of Burlingame Conflict of Interest Code to Revise List of Designated Employees RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE TO REVISE THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000 and following, requires the City to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code for the City; and WHEREAS, in every even -numbered year, the Political Reform Act requires each local agency to review and, if necessary, amend its Conflict of Interest Code; and WHEREAS, Resolution 47-80 adopted a City Conflict of Interest Code, and the list of designated employees required to file statements of economic interests was subsequently amended by Resolutions 19-87 and 51-92 and 90-96; and WHEREAS, Resolution 12-98 adopted and amended a conflict of interest code pursuant to the Political Reform Act, and the list of designated employees was further amended by Resolution Nos. 32-98, 102-00, 23-2001, 99-2002, 14-2003, 80-2008, 82-2010, 93-2014, 67- 2016, and 85-2018; and WHEREAS, amendments are necessary to add additional employees to the designated employee list, to revise employee title changes, to delete positions no longer existing, and to reflect additional organizational changes. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council adopts by reference, as its Conflict of Interest Code, 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730; a copy of said code is available for review in the Office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Council amends the City of Burlingame Conflict of Interest Code to add the revised List of Designated Employees in Exhibit A attached and incorporated herein. 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 4th day of May, 2020 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk APPENDIX A LIST OF DESIGNATED OFFICERS/EMPLOYEES AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES The following City officers and employees are designated for filing statements of economic interests pursuant to the City Conflict of Interest Code and the Political Reform Act: Disclosure Category Disclosure Category BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FINANCE DEPARTMENT Beautification Commission I Finance Director I Library Board of Trustees I Deputy Finance Director I Parks & Recreation Commission I Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission I HUMAN RESOURCES Human Resources Director I CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Human Resources Analyst II 11 Assistant City Attorney I Code Compliance Officer I LIBRARY Code Compliance Officer and Senior Risk Analyst I City Librarian I Library Circulation Supervisor 11 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Librarian III*** 11 Assistant to the City Manager 11 Library Assistant 11— Acquisitions and Accounts Payable/Receivable 11 Sustainability Coordinator II Library Services Manager 11 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT City Clerk I Parks & Recreation Director I Recreation Supervisor 11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Parks Superintendent/City Arborist 11 Community Development Director I Parks Supervisor 11 Planning Manager I Senior Planner I POLICE DEPARTMENT Assistant Planner I Chief of Police I Associate Planner I Police Captain I Planning Technician I Facilities and Fleet Maintenance (assigned Police Officer) 11 Chief Building Official I Information Technology Services (assigned Police Officer) 11 Senior Building Inspector I Administrative Assistant to Chief 11 Building Inspector I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONSULTANTS Director of Public Works I Design Review I Assistant Director of Public Works I Planner/Planning Commission I Deputy Director of Public Works Operations I Water Quality Treatment Plant Contractor I Transportation Engineer I Plant Manager I Senior Civil Engineer I Environmental Compliance Officer I Facilities Division Manager I Storm Water Coordinator I Water Division Manager I Information Technology Service 11 Fleet Manager 11 Disclosure Category Disclosure Category Streets, Storm Drains and Sewers Division Manager I Public Works Inspector 11 Senior Public Works Inspector 11 Management Analyst 11 Associate Engineer 11 Assistant Engineer 11 Street and Sewer Supervisor 11 Water Quality Supervisor 11 Water Supervisor 11 *** Employees designated for "purchasing only" DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES: Statements of Designated Employees in Disclosure Category I shall include: a) Investment and business positions in any business entity; b) Income; and c) Interests in real property within the requirements of the Statement of Economic Interests as to reportability. Designated employees in Category I shall complete Schedules A through F. II Statements of Designated Employees in Disclosure Category II shall include: a) Investments and business positions in any business entity; and b) Income within the requirements of the Statement of Economic Interests as to reportability. Designated employees in Category II shall complete Schedules A, C through F. EURL— iN�AMF AGENDA NO: 8i STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 4, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 4, 2020 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director—(650) 558-7222 Subject: Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending March 31, 2020 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive and approve the City's investment report through March 31, 2020. BACKGROUND This report represents the City's investment portfolio as of March 31, 2020. The report includes all invested City funds with the exception of bond proceeds, the City's account with the California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), which is used to pre -fund the City's retiree medical obligations, and the §115 trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Pension Rate Stabilization Program. All other investments are covered by and in compliance with the City's adopted Statement of Investment Policy. DISCUSSION The City's investments are guided by the Statement of Investment Policy (the "Policy"), which is reviewed and approved by the Council annually. The City Council last approved the Policy on June 3, 2019. The Policy directs that investment objectives, in order by priority, are safety, liquidity, and return. This conservative approach ensures assets are available for use while also allowing the City to earn additional resources on idle funds. The City utilizes a core portfolio of investments managed by the City's investment advisor, PFM Asset Management (PFM), and also maintains funds invested in the State's Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the California Asset Management Program (CAMP) to achieve its investment goals. CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS Although the U.S. economy entered the year on strong footing, conditions deteriorated quickly as the COVID-19 pandemic took hold across the globe, creating significant supply shocks as many countries closed factories and schools, restricted travel, and implemented border restrictions. The ensuing uncertainty and expectations of a sharp slowdown in global growth resulted in a sell-off in the domestic equity markets and heighted volatility in financial markets worldwide. The immediate impact of the pandemic on global economies rendered typical economic indicators, most of which are backward -looking, essentially irrelevant. 1 Investment Report, March 31, 2020 May 4, 2020 In an effort to provide adequate liquidity and calm the financial markets, the Federal Reserve responded aggressively by: — cutting rates at two emergency meetings to the new target range of 0% to 0.25%, — initiating unlimited bond buying (quantitative easing) of various security types, and — dusting off and adding to their playbook of market support programs from the 2008-09 financial crisis to cushion the potential blow on financial markets In an attempt to slow the spread of the virus, governors across the county issued "shelter in place" orders to residents, limiting all but the most essential travel. Despite these measures, the virus continued to spread. By the end of March, the U.S. had the highest number of confirmed cases in the world. As many businesses closed their doors in response to the "shelter in place" orders, jobless claims skyrocketed with nearly 10 million individuals filing new jobless claims in the last two weeks of March alone. While the official unemployment reading for the month of March registered at 4.4%, many economists speculate that the actual unemployment level may be much higher at 10% or more with expectations that the unemployment rate may reach 20% in coming months. As a result of the severe drop in business activity and the surge in unemployment levels, many economists are projecting a steep decline in economic activity in the first half of the year — perhaps as severe as a 40% drop in economic activity in the second quarter —before rebounding in the third and fourth quarters of the year. In the face of these dire predictions, lawmakers have been scrambling to offer support to businesses, individuals, and state and local governments. The largest of the three COVID-19 related stimulus packages so far, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, was signed into law in late March. The $2 trillion stimulus package provides loans and grants to individuals, small and large businesses, state and local governments, and the healthcare industry. In addition, the U.S. Treasury postponed most tax payment due dates for three months. Not surprisingly, U.S. Treasury yields ended the quarter down markedly across the curve, with longer maturity obligations reaching record lows. This resulted in strong market value appreciation for fixed income investments. On the other hand, U.S. equity markets plummeted in March with all three major domestic equity indices entering correction territory during the quarter. By the end of the quarter, the Nasdaq fared the best with a 14% quarterly decline while the S&P 500 and the Dow dropped by 23% and 20%, respectively, for the full quarter. 2 Investment Report, March 31, 2020 May 4, 2020 US Treasury Yield Curve —March 31, 2020 — December 31, 2019 2.5% 2.0% ------------------------------------------------------------ 1.5%a------------------------------------------------------ 2-Yr. 0.25% 1.57% -1.32% 3-Yr. 0.29% 1.61 % -1.32% 5-Yr. 0.37% 1.69% -1.32% 10-Yr. 0.66% 1.92% -1.26% 30-Yr. 1.35% 2.39% -1.04% 10°' The City's cash, excluding bond proceeds, is 0.66% pooled for investment purposes. As of March 31, 0.5%---------------------------------aaz•�------------------------ 2020, invested funds totaled $206,667,818.26. 0.07% These investments are assets of the City of 0.0% Burlingame and include the General Fund, the M Y Y Y Y Y Y enterprise funds (such as Water, Sewer, and Solid Maturity Waste), as well as various non -major funds. Note that the City's account with the California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), used to pre -fund the City's retiree medical obligations, is not included in this calculation of the City's investment portfolio. Similarly, funds held within the City's §115 Trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Pension Rate Stabilization Program are not included in this calculation of the City's investment portfolio. Main Investment Portfolio $122,484,115.33 Main Investment Portfolio - Cash Balance in Custody Account $ 401,924.32 CAMP Balance $ 36,452,669.76 LAIF Balance $ 47,329,108.85 Total $206,667,818.26 PFM, the City's investment advisor, has continued to recommend a neutral duration stance relative to the benchmark for the City's main investment portfolio. This neutral duration positioning is intended to minimize risk and maximize relative performance. At the end of the quarter, the main portfolio's duration was 2.54 years, in line with the benchmark's duration of 2.58 years. Factoring in liquid investments, such as LAIF and CAMP, the effective duration of the City's aggregate investments was 1.51 years. The City continues to benefit from a strategy of broad diversification, which serves to reduce the overall risk in the portfolio while providing for the opportunity for better returns over the long-term. Entering the quarter, PFM held a modestly defensive posture on corporate notes, reflective of expensive pricing relative to U.S. Treasury obligations and concerns about the increased leverage by issuers in the sector. As such, PFM did not recommend the purchase of any additional corporate notes during the first quarter. Instead, new purchases were recommended in the U.S. Treasury, federal agency, asset -backed security (ABS), and negotiable certificate of deposit (CD) sectors. 3 Investment Report, March 31, 2020 May 4, 2020 Over the course of the quarter, PFM recommended increasing the portfolio's overall allocation to U.S. Treasury and federal agency sectors. This shift served to enhance the portfolio's liquidity positioning and credit quality profile. In total, the main portfolio's allocation to the U.S. Treasury federal agency sectors was increased by 4% and 3%, respectively. In early February, PFM recommended selling a 2-year U.S. Treasury note and reinvesting the proceeds in a newly -issued negotiable CD issued by Societe Generale NY with a similar maturity date. This trade represented a pick-up in yield of approximately 35 basis points (0.35%). In the first half of the quarter, PFM recommended the purchase of several AAA -rated asset - backed security (ABS) issues. These securities offer a high credit rating, strong structural protections, and an attractive yield pick-up relative to U.S. Treasury obligations. In total, PFM recommended the purchase of $1.9 million of high -quality ABS structures during the quarter. Please see below for a summary of transactions for the quarter ended March 31, 2020: Trade Date Settlement Transaction CUSIP Issuer Term Yield Principal Date (Mths) 1/3/2020 1/7/2020 Purchase 9128283J7 United States 59 1.63 °/° $2,195,000 Treasury 1/3/2020 1/7/2020 Sale 931142EA7 Wal-Mart Corp 11 1.70% $1,850,000 Note 1/3/2020 1/7/2020 Sale 24422ETS8 John Deere 6 1.91 /o $220,000 Corp Note 1/14/2020 1/22/2020 Purchase 14315XAC2 CarMax ABS 59 1.90% $410,000 1/14/2020 1/15/2020 Sale 9128281-57 United States 32 58 1./° $410,000 Treasury 2/4/2020 2/5/2020 Purchase 9128283VO United States 60 1.43 °/o $2,525,000 Treasury 2/4/2020 2/12/2020 Purchase 89232HAC9 ToyotaAutouto 51 1.66% $865,000 2/4/2020 2/5/2020 Sale 3135GOS38 Fannie Mae 23 1.46% $1,500,000 2/4/2020 2/5/2020 Sale 912828D72 United States 19 1.47 °/o $875,000 Treasury 2/4/2020 2/6/2020 Sale 912828W89 United States 26 1.42% $855,000 Treasury Federal Home 2/10/2020 2/10/2020 Purchase 313384SZ3 Loan Bank <1 1.45% $924,000 Disc. Note 2/13/2020 2/14/2020 Purchase 3137EAEPO Freddie Mac 60 1.52% $2,650,000 2/13/2020 2/14/2020 Sale 9128283VO United States 59 1.44 °/o $2,525,000 Treasury Trade Date Settlement Transaction CUSIP Issuer Term Yield Principal Date (Mths) Investment Report, March 31, 2020 May 4, 2020 2/14/2020 2/19/2020 Purchase 83369XDL9 Societe 24 1.80 °/o $1,180,000 Generale CD United States 2/14/2020 2/19/2020 Sale 912828W89 25 1.43% $145,000 Treasury United States 2/14/2020 2/19/2020 Sale 912828W89 25 1.43% $1,020,000 Treasury 2/19/2020 2/26/2020 Purchase 43813RAC1 HondaAuto 50 1.62% $630,000 ABS 2/20/2020 2/24/2020 Sale 912828XQ8 United States 29 1.39 °/o $620,000 Treasury United States 3/2/2020 3/4/2020 Purchase 912828Y87 53 0.84% $5,225,000 Treasury United States 3/2/2020 3/4/2020 Sale 912828W89 25 0.82% $1,680,000 Treasury United States 3/2/2020 3/4/2020 Sale 912828W89 25 0.82% $1,150,000 Treasury United States 3/2/2020 3/4/2020 Sale 912828W90 25 0.82 °/° $2,190,000 Treasury 3/4/2020 3/5/2020 Purchase 3135GOX24 Fannie Mae 58 0.85% $2,440,000 3/4/2020 3/5/2020 Sale 9128283J7 United States 57 0.74 /o $2,370,000 Treasury In this time of unprecedented market uncertainty, PFM continues to prioritize the safety and liquidity of the City's investment assets above all else. PFM continues to monitor the markets and will recommend relative -value trades as appropriate in order to safely enhance the City's portfolio earnings. However, the priority will always be to maintain the safety and liquidity of the City's investments. PFM will continue to carefully monitor the creditworthiness of all current issues in the City's portfolio and any new issues recommended for purchase. PFM's Credit Committee and Investment Committee are meeting several times a week to assess emerging news and market trends and will make trade recommendations as necessary to protect the safety of the City's investments. As noted in the following pie charts, the City's aggregate investment portfolio, as of March 31, 2020, was heavily weighted towards the State Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), the AAAm- rated CAMP Fund, and high -quality (AA+ rated) federal agency and U.S. Treasury securities to maintain the focus on safety and liquidity. 5 Investment Report, March 31, 2020 May 4, 2020 Investments By Security Type As of March 31, 2020 Local Agency f Investment Fund Corporate Notes I (LA 10°/0 Asset-Bac SecuritiE 4% Negotiable Certificates Deposit 6% Supranationals 2% Municipal 14{0 Federal Ac CMC 1% Federal Agencies .2f0 13% CAMP 180/0 ish 11/0 Ines Credit Quality of Investments As of March 31, 2020 NR (LAIF) 23% BBB+" AAAm (CAMP) 1% 18% A 7% A-1 {Short -Term} 4% A-1+ (Short -Term) Cash 1 % <1% ' NR (Aaa)" AA 5% 0 40% 1 /a *The `B88+" category comprises securities rated in the category of A or better by Moody's and/or Fitch, which meets the credit rating criteria established in the City's Statement of Investment Policy. **The NR (Aaa) category comprises asset -backed securities that are not rated by S&P but are rated Aaa by Moody's. As of March 31, 2020, 41 % of the City's funds were invested in very short-term liquid investments; 16% of the funds were invested with maturities between one day and two years; and 43% of the investment portfolio had a maturity ranging from two to five years. This distribution M Investment Report, March 31, 2020 May 4, 2020 gives the City the necessary liquidity to meet operational and emergency cash needs while maximizing returns on funds not needed in the immediate future. The City's aggregate investments maintain an effective duration of 1.51 years and currently generate annual income of 2.05% before investment expenses. The City's funds are invested in high credit quality investments and continue to meet the City's goals of safety, liquidity, and yield/return. 45% 41% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Maturity Distribution As of March 31, 2020 16% 16% 12% Overnight One Day-6 6-12 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 3-4 Years 4-5 Years Months Months As of March 31, 2020, the yield to maturity at cost on the main portfolio of securities was 2.22%. Including additional investments such as LAIF and CAMP, the average yield to maturity" on the City's aggregate investments was 2.05%. During the quarter, the main portfolio generated accrual basis earnings of $1,024,818. Market Value $206,667,818.26 Effective Duration 1.51 Years Average Credit Quality* AA Yield to Maturity** 2.05% *Ratings by Standard & Poor's. Average excludes `Not Rated'securities. **Calculated as a weighted average of the main portfolio's yield at cost as of 3131120, the LAIF quarterly apportionment rate for the quarter ended 3131120, and CAMP's monthly distribution yield as of 3131120. The chart on the following page compares the yield of the City's managed portfolio to the yields on the 2-year U.S. Treasury note, LAIF, and the San Mateo County Pool. As of March 31, 2020, the gross yield on the City's managed portfolio was 2.22%; net of PFM's investment advisory fees, the yield on the City's managed portfolio was 2.14%. 7 Investment Report, March 31, 2020 May 4, 2020 2.75% 2.50% 2.2511/0 2.00% 1.75% 1.50010 1.25010 1.00% 0.75% 0.50010 0.25% 0.00% ova Yield History March 31, 2016 - March 31, 2020 �PyNro NO -1b 0121, 1\1 �Pl N1 IPa N1 01a,1\�, 51310 NO N16 02, Y�Nl� \-0 1\113 01a,11) —m—Portfnlic Under Management a- LAIP 2-Year Treasury —*--San Mateo County Pool 2.22% 1 2.03% 0.25% The table below summarizes cash and investment holdings held by each fund as of March 31, 2020, which includes invested funds, debt service reserves, amounts held in overnight (liquid) accounts, the City's main checking account, and other operating funds. General Fund Capital Project Funds Internal Service Funds Water Fund Sewer Fund Solid Waste Fund Parking Fund Building Fund Landfill Fund Debt Service Fund Subtotal, Operating Funds Other Funds Total Cash and Investments Cash and Investments by Fund As of 03/31/20 As of 12/31/19 Change $ $ 32,612,173 $ 28,737,133 $ 3,875,040 65,189,506 69,136,477 (3,946,971) 21,418,684 21,237,426 181,259 19,506,099 19,774,618 (268,520) 19,349,980 18,944,144 405,836 4,662,567 4,650,325 12,242 11,593,878 11,327,855 266,023 13,976,809 12,948,464 1,028,345 2,089,372 1,994,755 94,617 51,909,794 51,978,130 (68,336) 242,308,861 240,729,327 1,579,534 15,981,727 14,530,061 1,451,666 $ 2581290,588 $ 255,259,389 $ 3,031,200 I Investment Report, March 31, 2020 May 4, 2020 Cash holdings in the General Fund increased by nearly $3.9 million in the third quarter of the 2019-20 fiscal year, largely due to receipt of $2.5 million in property tax revenues, including the County's Excess ERAF Distribution for the fiscal year. The decrease in Capital Project Funds reflects continued capital spending/progress payments on infrastructure projects ($1.1 million for the annual street resurfacing program, and nearly $100,000 for the sidewalk repair program) and facilities ( $533,000 on the new Community Center; $392,000 on the Fire Station 35 Rehab & HVAC System Upgrade; and $133 on the Police Station Fuel Tank Replacement project.) The increase in the Building Enterprise Fund is due to the receipt of construction permit fees for two larger development projects. As for the performance of the City's trust funds, which adhere to different strategies than reflected in the City's Investment Policy for its main portfolio, the most recent statements are attached to this staff report. Because the City's funding of its retiree medical obligations is relatively low (<30%), the City's trust account is invested in the most aggressive (Strategy 1) portfolio available with the California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Fund. The net return for the portfolio for the year ended March 31st was-6.35%. The PARS §115 trust account for funding the City's pension liabilities, established in October 2017, reported a -3.95% return for the past year, as reflected in the March 2020 statement attached to this report. CONCLUSION All City funds are invested in accordance with the approved Statement of Investment Policy with an emphasis on safety, liquidity, and return (in that order). The City's investment strategy of balancing the investment portfolio between short-term investments (to meet cash flow needs) and longer -term maturities (to realize a higher rate of return) is appropriate, given current market conditions. Due to the ease of access of the City's funds in liquid accounts such as LAIF and CAMP, the City has more than sufficient funds available to meet its liquidity (expenditure) requirements for the next six months. Staff and the City's investment advisor will continue to closely monitor the City's investments to ensure the mitigation of risk and the ability to meet the City's investment goals while being able to respond to changes in market conditions. FISCAL IMPACT Quarterly reporting of the City's Investment Portfolio will not result in any direct impact on City resources. Exhibits: • Portfolio Holdings as of March 31, 2020 • CERBT Monthly Statement for March 31, 2020 • PARS Monthly Statement for March 31, 2020 17 0 PfM Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2020 CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES 912828X47 1,050,000.00 AA+ Aaa 03/25/19 03/26/19 1,039,828.13 2.20 8,275.24 1,043,099.97 1,083,632.76 DTD 05/01/2017 1.875% 04/30/2022 US TREASURY NOTES 9128282P4 1,225,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/01/17 11/03/17 1,217,870.12 2.00 3,849.16 1,221,416.74 1,269,406.25 DTD 07/31/2017 1.875% 07/31/2022 US TREASURY NOTES 912828XO8 1,830,000.00 AA+ Aaa 08/31/17 09/01/17 1,853,232.43 1.73 6,133.52 1,841,277.74 1,900,912.50 DTD 07/31/2015 2.000% 07/31/2022 US TREASURY NOTES 912828L57 1,175.000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/04/17 12/05/17 1,153.473.64 2.15 56.18 1,163,573.90 1,216.125.00 DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022 US TREASURY NOTES 912828L57 1,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/04/18 06/06/18 1,438,769.53 2.76 71.72 1,463,711.82 1,552,500.00 DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022 US TREASURY NOTES 912828P38 230,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/02/18 10/04/18 219,021.09 2.93 674.52 222,656.45 239,128.13 DTD 02/01/2016 1.750% 01/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828P79 1,890.000.00 AA+ Aaa 07/02/18 07/05/18 1,787.895.70 2.74 2,465.22 1,824,618.61 1,953.196.88 DTD 02/29/2016 1.500% 02/28/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828P79 2,700,000.00 AA+ Aaa 04/30/18 04/30/18 2,542,113.28 2.80 3,521.74 2,602,365.11 2,790,281.25 DTD 02/29/2016 1.500% 02/28/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828029 2,175,000.00 AA+ Aaa 02/08/19 02/12/19 2,094,881.84 2.44 89.14 2,116,064.66 2,250,445.31 DTD 03/31/2016 1.500% 03/31/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 912828R28 1,885,000.00 AA+ Aaa 07/02/18 07/05/18 1,789,792.77 2.75 12,875.22 1,822,764.35 1,958,632.81 DTD 05/02/2016 1.625% 04/30/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828S92 1,330,000.00 AA+ Aaa 04/02/19 04/04/19 1,273.682.81 2.28 2,786.06 1,286,148.69 1,368,861.00 DTD 08/01/2016 1.250% 07/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828S92 2,100,000.00 AA+ Aaa 02/08/19 02/12/19 1,994,917.97 2.44 4,399.04 2,020,556.29 2,161,359.48 DTD 08/01/2016 1.250% 07/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 9128282D1 4,195,000.00 AA+ Aaa 07/01/19 07/03/19 4,132,402.73 1.75 5,015.76 4,143,342.35 4,338,547.87 DTD 08/31/2016 1.375% 08/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 9128285D8 780,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/01/19 05/03/19 800,505.47 2.25 61.27 796,433.47 848,493.75 DTD 10/01/2018 2.875% 09/30/2023 PFM Asset Management LLC Page 1 0 PfM CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP US TREASURY NOTES DTD 11/15/2013 2.750% 11/15/2023 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 11/30/2016 2.125% 11/30/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES DTD 01/31/2017 2.250% 01/31/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES DTD 05/01/2017 2.000% 04/30/2024 US TREASURY N/B DTD 07/31/2017 2.125% 07/31/2024 UNITED STATES TREASURY NOTES DTD 07/31/2019 1.750% 07/31/2024 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 08/15/2014 2.375% 08/15/2024 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 10/02/2017 2.125% 09/30/2024 US TREASURY N/B DTD 10/31/2017 2.250% 10/31/2024 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/30/2017 2.125% 11/30/2024 US TREASURY N/B DTD 11/30/2017 2.125% 11/30/2024 Security Type Sub -Total Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2020 S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value 912828WE6 1,375,000.00 AA+ Aaa 03/06/19 03/08/19 1,388,911.13 2.52 14,335.51 1,385,906.97 1,492,089.78 912828U57 1,515,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/30/19 01/31/19 1,484,581.64 2.57 10.819.21 1,491,606.08 1,611,581.25 912828V80 1,050,000.00 AA+ Aaa 03/25/19 03/26/19 1,050,943.36 2.23 3,959.13 1,050,764.46 1,125,140.63 912828X70 2,300,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/03/19 06/05/19 2,310,421.88 1.90 19,335.16 2,308,753.80 2,449,859.26 9128282N9 500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 08/01/19 08/02/19 506,992.19 1.83 1,780.56 506,100.93 537,187.50 912828Y87 5,225,000.00 AA+ Aaa 03/02/20 03/04/20 5,430,122.07 0.84 15,323.32 5,426,605.84 5,531,968.75 912828D56 1,650,000.00 AA+ Aaa 08/30/19 09/03/19 1,723,154.30 1.44 4,952.27 1,714,923.24 1,792,312.50 9128282Y5 2,110,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/01/19 10/03/19 2,173,052.73 1.50 122.51 2,167,015.22 2,273,525.00 9128283DO 1,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/04/19 11/06/19 1,545,000.00 1.62 14.186.13 1,541,486.03 1,625,859.30 912828317 280,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/02/19 12/04/19 286,081.25 1.67 1,999.59 285,699.76 302,181.26 9128283J7 2,195,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/03/20 01/07/20 2,245,845.12 1.63 15,675.36 2,243,528.95 2,368,885.27 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION 45950KCMO NOTE DTD 01/25/2018 2.250% 01/25/2021 PFM Asset Management LLC 43,765,000.00 43,483,493.18 1.99 152,762.54 43,690,421.43 46,042,113.49 795,000.00 AAA Aaa 01/18/18 01/25/18 792,662.70 2.35 3,279.38 794,347.95 805,986.11 Page 2 0 PfM CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Supra -National Agency Bond / Note INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION 45950VLO7 NOTE DTD 03/16/2018 2.635% 03/09/2021 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 4581XODB1 NOTE DTD 04/19/2018 2.625% 04/19/2021 INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV 459058GHO NOTE DTD 07/25/2018 2.750% 07/23/2021 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost 1,550,000.00 AAA Aaa 03/09/18 03/16/18 1,548,837.50 2.66 895,000.00 AAA Aaa 04/12/18 04/19/18 893.031.00 2.70 1,210,000.00 AAA Aaa 07/18/18 07/25/18 1,207,168.60 2.83 For the Month Ending March 31, 2020 Accrued Amortized Market Interest Cost Value 2,495.93 1,549,622.40 1,582,457.00 10,572.19 894,292.95 914.624.67 6,285.28 1,208,731.11 1, 245, 267.87 Security Type Sub -Total 4,450,000.00 4,441,699.80 2.66 22,632.78 4,446,994.41 4,548,335.65 Municipal Bond / Note CA ST TXBL GO BONDS 13063DRJ9 1,170,000.00 AA- Aa2 10/16/19 10/24/19 1,193,411.70 1.87 12,246.00 1,190,894.99 1,205,626.50 DTD 10/24/2019 2.400% 10/01/2023 Security Type Sub -Total 1,170,000.00 1,193,411.70 1.87 12,246.00 1,190,894.99 1,205,626.50 CollateralizedFederal Agency • Obligation FNA 2018-M5 A2 3136B1XP4 408,662.47 AA+ Aaa 04/11/18 04/30/18 416,791.19 2.27 1,212.37 411,983.05 411,410.10 DTD 04/01/2018 3.560% 09/25/2021 FANNIEMAE-ACES 3136AJB54 845,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/13/19 12/18/19 886,061.72 1.04 2,356.03 883,664.13 899,372.91 DTD 04/01/2014 3.346% 03/25/2024 Security Type Sub -Total Federal Agency Bond / Note 1,253,662.47 1,302,852.91 1.42 3,568.40 1,295,647.18 1,310,783.01 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135GOS38 1,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 02/10/17 02/13/17 1,001,060.00 1.98 4,777.78 1,000,395.48 1,026,847.00 DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135GOS38 1,585,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/27/17 06/29/17 1,595,128.15 1.85 7,572.78 1,589,049.29 1,627,552.50 DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022 PFM Asset Management LLC Page 3 0 PfM CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 01/11/2019 2.625% 01/11/2022 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 09/06/2019 1.375% 09/06/2022 FANNIE MAE AGENCY NOTES DTD 10/06/2017 2.000% 10/05/2022 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 01/23/2018 2.375% 01/19/2023 FREDDIE MAC NOTES DTD 06/11/2018 2.750% 06/19/2023 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 09/14/2018 2.875% 09/12/2023 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS NOTES DTD 12/09/2013 3.375% 12/08/2023 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 01/10/2020 1.625% 01/07/2025 FREDDIE MAC NOTES DTD 02/14/2020 1.500% 02/12/2025 Security Type Sub -Total Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2020 S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value 3135GOU92 945,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/09/19 01/11/19 944,319.60 2.65 5,512.50 944,590.51 981,052.70 3135GOT45 1,605,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/27/17 06/29/17 1,604,759.25 1.88 14.712.50 1,604,902.48 1,649,517.89 3135GOT45 2,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/08/17 05/09/17 2,485,150.00 2.00 22,916.67 2,493,741.45 2,569,342.50 3135GOW33 2,385,000.00 AA+ Aaa 09/05/19 09/06/19 2,373,623.55 1.54 2,277.34 2,375,743.82 2,435,504.76 3135GOT78 2,635,000.00 AA+ Aaa 04/30/18 04/30/18 2,542,195.30 2.85 25,764.44 2,580,990.62 2,734,357.95 3135GOT94 675,000.00 AA+ Aaa 03/25/19 03/26/19 678,172.50 2.25 3,206.25 677,362.51 710,267.40 3137EAEN5 2,085,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/07/19 01/09/19 2,099,636.70 2.58 16,245.63 2,095,769.46 2,234,940.69 3135GOU43 3,550,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/03/18 12/06/18 3,542,829.00 2.92 5,386.63 3,544,780.93 3,836,062.55 3130AOF70 1,400,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/30/19 01/31/19 1,441,263.45 2.72 14.831.25 1,431,850.88 1,545,538.40 3135GOX24 2,440,000.00 AA+ Aaa 03/04/20 03/05/20 2,529,328.40 0.85 8,921.25 2,528,022.10 2,549,953.72 3137EAEPO 2,650,000.00 AA+ Aaa 02/13/20 02/14/20 2,647,959.50 1.52 5,189.58 2,648,010.86 2,755,989.40 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP CORP 89236TF03 NOTES DTD 01/08/2019 3.050% 01/08/2021 PFM Asset Management LLC 25,455,000.00 25,485,425.40 2.12 137,314.60 25,515,210.39 26,656,927.46 375,000.00 AA- Al 01/03/19 01/08/19 374,775.00 3.08 2,636.98 374,911.91 375,799.50 Page 4 0 PfM Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2020 CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Corporate WELLS FARGO CORP NOTES 949746RS2 965,000.00 A- A2 08/17/16 08/22/16 988,343.35 1.94 1,809.38 969,929.53 968,585.94 DTD 03/04/2016 2.500% 03/04/2021 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP NOTES 89236TEU5 925,000.00 AA- Al 04/10/18 04/13/18 924.630.00 2.96 12,734.17 924,868.88 928,210.68 DTD 04/13/2018 2.950% 04/13/2021 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP 06406FAAl 2,000,000.00 A Al 09/05/17 09/07/17 2,034,600.00 2.00 23,055.56 2,009,642.80 2,010,066.00 (CALLABLE) DTD 02/19/2016 2.500% 04/15/2021 BANK OF AMERICA CORP NOTE 06051GFW4 920,000.00 A- A2 11/01/17 11/03/17 926,826.40 2.40 10,867.50 922,131.89 925,761.96 DTD 04/19/2016 2.625% 04/19/2021 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES 61746BEAO 920,000.00 BBB+ A3 11/02/17 11/06/17 922,392.00 2.42 10,222.22 920,752.75 922,302.76 DTD 04/21/2016 2.500% 04/21/2021 GOLDMAN SACHS GRP INC CORP NT 38141GVU5 920,000.00 BBB+ A3 11/02/17 11/06/17 924,636.80 2.47 10,465.00 921,394.46 921,110.44 (CALLABLE) DTD 04/25/2016 2.625% 04/25/2021 BRANCH BANKING & TRUST (CALLABLE) 05531FAV5 1,500,000.00 A- A3 05/12/16 05/16/16 1,497,810.00 2.08 12,043.75 1,499,493.99 1,497,216.00 NOTE DTD 05/10/2016 2.050% 05/10/2021 CISCO SYSTEMS INC CORP (CALLABLE) 17275RBJO 1,425,000.00 AA- Al 01/14/19 01/16/19 1,388,349.00 2.85 805.52 1,404,558.43 1,436,169.15 NOTES DTD 09/20/2016 1.850% 09/20/2021 CITIGROUP INC CORP (CALLABLE) NOTE 172967LC3 920,000.00 BBB+ A3 11/20/17 11/22/17 926.283.60 2.72 8,374.56 922,632.77 927,977.32 DTD 12/08/2016 2.900% 12/08/2021 IBM CORP BONDS 459200305 2,000,000.00 A A2 02/06/17 02/09/17 2,013,700.00 2.35 8,888.89 2,005,213.74 2,045,488.00 DTD 01/27/2017 2.500% 01/27/2022 WALT DISNEY COMPANY/THE CORP NOTES 25468PCW4 1,075,000.00 A A2 04/03/18 04/05/18 1,041,503.00 3.07 8,420.83 1,055,251.74 1,093,830.78 DTD 11/30/2012 2.350% 12/01/2022 AMAZON.COM INC BONDS 023135AW6 1,750,000.00 AA- A2 04/12/19 04/16/19 1,730,067.50 2.71 4,550.00 1,734,862.92 1,820,640.50 DTD 06/06/2018 2.400% 02/22/2023 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO BONDS 46647PBB1 965,000.00 A- A2 04/02/19 04/04/19 970,336.45 3.06 15,473.78 969,071.89 980,276.92 DTD 03/22/2019 3.207% 04/01/2023 PFM Asset Management LLC Page 5 0 PfM CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP HOME DEPOT INC CORP NOTES DTD 04/05/2013 2.700% 04/01/2023 US BANK NA CINCINNATI CORP NOTES DTD 02/04/2019 3.375% 02/05/2024 PFIZER INC CORP NOTES DTD 03/11/2019 2.950% 03/15/2024 Security Type Sub -Total Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2020 S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value 437076AZ5 1,075,000.00 A A2 04/03/18 04/05/18 1,054,682.50 3.11 14.512.50 1,062,410.80 1,108,850.68 91159HHV5 1,790,000.00 A+ Al 07/22/19 07/24/19 1,875,472.50 2.26 9,397.50 1,863,078.34 1,864,696.70 717081ES8 1,500,000.00 AA- Al 03/25/19 03/27/19 1,522,485.00 2.63 1,966.67 1,518,146.72 1,558,558.50 CANADIAN IMP BK COMM NY FLT CERT 13606BVFO DEPOS DTD 04/10/2018 2.234% 04/10/2020 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA HOUSTON CD 06417GU22 DTD 06/07/2018 3.080% 06/05/2020 WESTPAC BANKING CORP NY CD 96121T4A3 DTD 08/07/2017 2.050% 08/03/2020 BANK OF MONTREAL CHICAGO CERT DEPOS 06370REU9 DTD 08/03/2018 3.190% 08/03/2020 SWEDBANK (NEW YORK) CERT DEPOS 87019U6D6 DTD 11/17/2017 2.270% 11/16/2020 MUFG BANK LTD/NY CERT DEPOS 55379WZT6 DTD 02/28/2019 2.970% 02/26/2021 CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY CERT DEPOS 22535CDU2 DTD 04/04/2019 2.830% 04/02/2021 SOCIETE GENERALE NY CERT DEPOS 83369XDL9 DTD 02/19/2020 1.800% 02/14/2022 NORDEA BANK ABP NEW YORK CERT DEPOS 65558TLL7 DTD 08/29/2019 1.850% 08/26/2022 PFM Asset Management LLC 21,025,000.00 21,116,893.10 2.53 156,224.81 21,078,353.56 21,385,541.83 900,000.00 A-1 P-1 04/06/18 04/10/18 900,000.00 2.78 4,579.70 900,000.00 899,713.80 1,700,000.00 A-1 P-1 06/05/18 06/07/18 1,699,354.00 3.10 16,871.56 1,699,940.89 1,706,103.00 1,615,000.00 A-1+ P-1 08/03/17 08/07/17 1,615,000.00 2.05 4,966.13 1,615,000.00 1,620,967.43 1,800,000.00 A-1 P-1 08/01/18 08/03/18 1,800,000.00 3.23 38,280.00 1,800,000.00 1,814,117.40 1,860,000.00 A-1 P-1 11/16/17 11/17/17 1,860,000.00 2.30 15,833.25 1,860,000.00 1,872,746.58 930,000.00 A-1 P-1 02/27/19 02/28/19 930,000.00 2.99 2,685.38 930,000.00 945,895.56 900,000.00 A-1 P-1 04/03/19 04/04/19 900.000.00 2.85 25.682.25 900.000.00 914,010.30 1,180,000.00 A Al 02/14/20 02/19/20 1,180,000.00 1.80 2,478.00 1,180,000.00 1,147,101.60 1,500,000.00 AA- Aa3 08/27/19 08/29/19 1,500,000.00 1.87 2,697.92 1,500,000.00 1,524,019.50 Page 6 0 PfM CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Managed Account Detail of Securities Held S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost DNB BANK ASA/NY LT CD 23341VZT1 885,000.00 AA- Aa2 12/05/19 12/06/19 885,000.00 2.04 DTD 12/04/2019 2.040% 12/02/2022 Security Type Sub -Total NAROT 2017-C A3 DTD 12/13/2017 2.120% 04/15/2022 HART 2018-A A3 DTD 04/18/2018 2.790% 07/15/2022 TACIT 2018-B A3 DTD 05/16/2018 2.960% 09/15/2022 MBART 2018-1 A3 DTD 07/25/2018 3.030% 01/15/2023 ALLYA 2018-3 A3 DTD 06/27/2018 3.000% 01/15/2023 NAROT 2018-B A3 DTD 07/25/2018 3.060% 03/15/2023 HYUNDAI AUTO RECEIVABLES TRUST DTD 04/10/2019 2.660% 06/15/2023 HAROT 2019-2 A3 DTD 05/29/2019 2.520% 06/21/2023 COPAR 2019-1 A3 DTD 05/30/2019 2.510% 11/15/2023 NAROT 2019-B A3 DTD 05/28/2019 2.500% 11/15/2023 CARMX 2019-2 A3 DTD 04/17/2019 2.680% 03/15/2024 HAROT 2020-1 A3 DTD 02/26/2020 1.610% 04/21/2024 For the Month Ending March 31, 2020 Accrued Amortized Market Interest Cost Value 5,867.55 885,000.00 905,448.81 13,270,000.00 13,269,354.00 2.51 119,941.74 13,269,940.89 13,350,123.98 65478HADO 222,400.53 NR Aaa 12/06/17 12/13/17 222,362.93 2.13 209.55 222,389.86 222,279.37 44891KAD7 329,527.82 AAA Aaa 04/10/18 04/18/18 329,478.19 2.80 408.61 329,500.34 327,233.91 89238TAD5 910,000.00 AAA Aaa 05/09/18 05/16/18 909,986.44 2.96 1,197.16 909,992.17 909,458.55 58772RAD6 640,000.00 AAA Aaa 07/17/18 07/25/18 639,975.42 3.03 861.87 639,984.57 634,172.93 020073AC1 939,184.06 AAA Aaa 06/19/18 06/27/18 939,119.82 3.09 1,252.25 939,144.05 936,560.83 65479GAD1 600,000.00 AAA Aaa 07/17/18 07/25/18 599,980.56 3.06 816.00 599,987.59 604,690.92 44932NAD2 525,000.00 AAA NR 04/03/19 04/10/19 524,930.91 2.67 620.67 524,946.78 521,024.07 43815MACO 610,000.00 NR Aaa 05/21/19 05/29/19 609,977.25 2.52 427.00 609,981.91 604,983.12 14042WAC4 330,000.00 AAA Aaa 05/21/19 05/30/19 329,933.14 2.52 368.13 329,944.93 328,284.69 65479HAC1 650,000.00 NR Aaa 05/21/19 05/28/19 649.853.04 2.51 722.22 649,879.18 640,491.15 14316LAC7 405,000.00 AAA NR 04/09/19 04/17/19 404,958.61 2.90 482.40 404,966.40 408,000.04 43813RAC1 630,000.00 NR Aaa 02/19/20 02/26/20 629,876.52 1.62 281.75 629,879.01 604,617.55 PFM Asset Management LLC Page 7 0 PfM CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Asset -Backed Security TAOT 2020-A A3 89232HAC9 DTD 02/12/2020 1.660% 05/15/2024 CARMX 2020-1 A3 14315XAC2 DTD 01/22/2020 1.890% 12/15/2024 Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending March 31, 2020 S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value 865,000.00 AAA Aaa 02/04/20 02/12/20 864.937.55 1.66 638.18 864,939.67 835,146.86 410,000.00 AAA NR 01/14/20 01/22/20 409,919.56 1.90 344.40 409,922.40 407,719.42 Security Type Sub -Total 8,066,112.41 8,065,289.94 2.56 8,630.19 8,065,458.86 7,984,663.41 Managed Account Sub -Total 118,454,774.88 118,358,420.03 2.22 613,321.06 118,552,921.71 122,484,115.33 Securities Sub -Total $118,454,774.88 $118,358,420.03 2.22% $613,321.06 $118,552,921.71 $122,484,115.33 Accrued Interest $613,321.06 Total Investments PFM Asset Management LLC $123,097,436.39 Page 8 City of Burlingame CERBT Strategy 1 Entity #: SKBO-1429123533-001 Quarter Ended March 31, 2020 Market Value Summary: Beginning Balance Contribution Disbursement Transfer In Transfer Out Investment Earnings Administrative Expenses Investment Expense Other Ending Balance FY End Contrib per GASB 74 Para 22 FY End Disbursement Accrual Grand Total QTD Current Period $21,690,994.57 745,225.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 (3,398,981.38) (2,579.56) (1,886.06) 0.00 $19,032,772.81 0.00 0.00 $19,032,772.81 Fiscal Year to Date $20,285,294.29 745,225.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1,984,442.88) (7,684.95) (5,618.89) 0.00 $19,032,772.81 0.00 0.00 $19,032,772.81 ■ Unit Value Summary: Beginning Units Unit Purchases from Contributions Unit Sales for Withdrawals Unit Transfer In Unit Transfer Out Ending Units Period Beginning Unit Value Period Ending Unit Value APON,, CaIPERS QTD Current Period 1,204,018.872 41,244.994 0.000 0.000 0.000 1,245,263.866 18.015494 15.284129 Fiscal Year to Date 1,204,018.872 41,244.994 0.000 0.000 0.000 1,245,263.866 16.847987 15.284129 Please note the Grand Total is your actual fund account balance at the end of the period, including all contributions per GASB 74 paragraph 22 and accrued disbursements. Please review your statement promptly. All information contained in your statement will be considered true and accurate unless you contact us within 30 days of receipt of this statement. If you have questions about the validity of this information, please contact CERBT4UQcalpers.ca.gov. Page 1 of 2 Statement of Transaction Detail for the Quarter Ending 03/31/2020 City of Burlingame Entity #: SKBO-1429123533-001 Date 02/24/2020 Description Contribution Amount $745,225.24 Unit Value $18.068259 ANON%, CaIPERS Units Check/Wire Notes 41,244.994 CM 3-022420- CERBT Client Contact: CERBT4U@CalPERS.ca.gov If you have any questions or comments regarding the new statement format please contact CERBT4U@Ca1PERS.ca.gov Page 2 of 2 PL.IBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SERVICES PARS CITY OF BURLINGAME Account Report for the Period PARS Post -Employment Benefits Trust 3/l/2020 to 3/31/2020 Carol Augustine Finance Director City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd., 1 st Floor Burlingame, CA 94010 Account Summary Balance as of Balance as of Source 3/1/2020 Contributions Earnings Expenses Distributions Transfers 3/31/2020 PENSION $12,269,859.71 $0.00-$1,071,297.53 $5,290.71 $0.00 $0.00 $11,193,271.47 Totals $12,269,859.71 $0.00-$1,071,297.53 $5,290.71 $0.00 $0.00 $11,193,271.47 Investment Selection Source PENSION City of Burlingame Investment Objective Source PENSION Individual Custom Account Investment Return Annualized Return Source 1-Month 3-Months 1-Year 3-Years 5-Years 10-Years Plan's Inception Date PENSION -8.73%-11.35% -3.95% - - - 10/3/2017 Information as provided by US Bank, Trustee for PARS; Not FDIC Insured; No Bank Guarantee; May Lose Value Past performance does not guarantee future results. Performance returns may not reflect the deduction of applicable fees, which could reduce returns. Information is deemed reliable but may be subject to change. Investment Return: Annualized rate of return is the return on an investment over a period other than one year multiplied or divided to give a comparable one-year return. Account balances are inclusive of Trust Administration, Trustee and Investment Management fees Headquarters - 4350 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 800.540.6369 Fax 949.250.1250 www.pars.org BURL- INGAME AGENDA NO: 9a STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 4, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 4, 2020 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2020-21 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Hold a public hearing in connection with updates to the City's Master Fee Schedule, and 2) Adopt a resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2020-21. BACKGROUND The City Council has traditionally approved a Master Fee Schedule as part of the budget process. Fee adjustments are not automatic; they require an annual review and approval by the City Council. An annual review and update ensures that fees reflect current costs to provide services, allows the addition of fees when applicable for new City services, and provides for the elimination of fees for discontinued services. California law gives cities the ability to impose fees for governmental services when an individual's use of the City service is voluntary, and the fee charged is reasonable to the level of service and the cost of providing the service. In 2018, the City adopted a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy that established guidelines for the amount of cost recovery that is appropriate for the various services for which a fee is charged. Staff recommendations for fees were developed in accordance with these guidelines. The proposed fees were reviewed by the Council on April 6, 2020. In compliance with California Government Code § 66016, the Council established a public hearing for May 4, 2020, notice of the public hearing was duly provided, and the proposed Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2020-21 was posted to the City's web page at: Master Fee Rrharli ila DISCUSSION Fees for Fire services are established by the Central County Fire Department (CCFD). As a separate JPA that is funded by the City of Burlingame, the Town of Hillsborough, and the City of Millbrae, CCFD fees are separately adopted by the CCFD Fire Board. The department's fee schedule for fiscal year 2019-20 was approved by the Board on April 16, 2019. The Board adopted a Wildland Urban Interface Inspection service and its associated fee on September 18, 1 Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2019-20 May 6, 2019 2019. This service replaces the Vegetation Management Inspection previously included in the City's Master Fee Schedule. As the City has not at this time adopted a Wildland Urban Interface program ordinance, the Proposed Master Fee Schedule has been revised to delete the Vegetation Management Inspection fee from the fees included for CCFD services. Although most fees will be effective July 1, pursuant to State law, certain fees associated with development projects (to be charged by the Community Development Department, as well as the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department), cannot become effective until 60 days after adoption of the adjusted fees as delineated in the attached Master Fee Schedule. These fees will be effective July 3, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT Changes to the City's Master Fee schedule should result in some additional revenue in the new fiscal year. However, the actual amounts are difficult to calculate because the use of some services is voluntary, and the volume/demand of each activity varies. Exhibits: • A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame to Amend the Master Fee Schedule for City Services • City of Burlingame Proposed Master Fee Schedule 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE 2020-21 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame regularly reviews the fees that the City charges persons or entities for the use of City facilities, or the provision of City services; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the cost of such services and facilities is borne by the users of said services and facilities in a fair and equitable manner, the City periodically adjusts the fees for services and facility use to ensure that the fees charged reflect the actual costs to the City and the City's taxpayers in providing those services and facilities; and WHEREAS, in 2015, the City engaged the services of Wohlford Consulting to conduct an update of the City's Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) and a comprehensive review of the City's schedule of fees to ensure that the fees charged by the City to the users of City services and facilities do not exceed the actual costs of providing the services or facilities; and WHEREAS, these studies have informed the annual review of the City fee schedule, resulting in numerous adjustments to ensure that the City recovers the full cost of providing services and facilities while at the same time not exceeding the cost of providing those services and facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to keep some fees below the level of full cost recovery to make the related services more readily available to citizens; and WHEREAS, notice of the City's proposed fee schedule and of the May 4, 2020 public hearing in connection therewith, has been duly provided pursuant to the provisions of State law; and WHEREAS, certain fees to be charged by the Planning and Building Divisions of the Community Development Department and the development fees to be charged by the Fire Department and the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department cannot become effective until sixty (60) days after adoption of this Resolution, pursuant to Government Code section 66017; and WHEREAS, all other adjusted fees as delineated in the Master Fee Schedule shall become effective July 1, 2020; and WHEREAS, despite every effort to ensure that all City fees for services are contained in the 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule, there may be some existing fees provided for in the Municipal Code, administrative procedures, or elsewhere that have been omitted from the Master Fee Schedule, and nothing in this resolution or Council action is intended to repeal those fees nor is this resolution or Council action intended to affect in any way any taxes or assessments of any kind. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. All of the facts and assertions recited above, in the staff report, and supporting documentation are true and correct, and the Council relies upon same in adopting the Master Fee Schedule. 2. The City Council approves the 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule, attached and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 3. The 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule shall become effective on July 1, 2020, except for development related fees pursuant to Government Code section 66017, which cannot become effective until sixty (60) days after adoption of this Resolution. Emily Beach, Mayor I, Meagan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 4th day of May, 2020, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meagan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk BU \oq A DRATED JUNE City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule EFFECTIVE ON J U LY 1, 2020 Updated fees charged in connection with the filing, accepting, reviewing, approving or issuance of an application, permit or entitlement will be effective on July 3, 2020. CITY BURLINGAME <o Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule CITY-WIDE FEES SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Returned Check Resolution No. 31-2003 $30.00 Copying of Routine Document Gov't Code § 6253(b) $0.25 per page (Copies of sizes other than 8- %" by 11" or 8 - %" by 14" or 11" by 17 or color copies will be charged at cost) To be paid in advance Copies of Reports/Statements Gov't Code § 81008 $0.10 per page filed pursuant to Political Reform Act Audio tape copies (except for Police) If blank tape supplied Resolution No. 32-2009 $18.00 per tape If no tape supplied Resolution No. 32-2009 $18.00 per tape plus purchase costs of tape Page 1 CITY G BURLINGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE BUILDING PERMIT FEES BASED ON TOTAL VALUATION $1.00 to $500.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $37.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $37.00 for the first $500.00 plus $5.28 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof up to and including $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $116.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $22.15 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof up to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $625.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $16.30 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof up to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,032.00 for the first $100,000.00 $50,000.00 plus $11.07 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof up to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 to Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,585.00 for the first $500,000.00 $100,000.00 plus $9.40 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof up to and including $500,000.00 Page 2 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE $500,001.00 to Resolution No 27-2011 $5,345.00 for the first $1,000,000.00 $500,000.00 plus $8.57 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof up to and including $1,000,000.00 More than $1,000,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $9,630.00 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $5.80 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof OTHER BUILDING PERMIT FEES Building inspections Resolution No. 27-2011 $256.00 per hour (minimum outside normal business charge of 2 hours hours Re -inspection fees Resolution No. 27-2011 $256.00 per hour (minimum — one hour) Energy Upgrade California Resolution No. 27-2011 Basic Package $238.00 Advanced Package $476.00 Page 3 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE General fire inspections Resolution No. 27-2011 Determined by CCFD — pass - for new building and through costs tenant remodels limited to building permits of commercial or multi- family residential PLAN REVIEW FEES Basic Fee — Building Resolution No. 104-2002 65% of Building Permit Fee Division Energy Plan Check Fee Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of Building (where applicable; Permit Fee includes review of Green Points Checklist) Disabled Access Plan Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 35% of Building Check Fee (where Permit Fee applicable) Review of Request for Resolution No. 27-2011 $312.00 per hour Alternate Materials and Methods Review of Unreasonable Resolution No. 27-2011 $312.00 per hour Hardship Request Page 4 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Planning Department Plan Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of Building Check Fee (where Permit Fee applicable) Minimum fee of $80.00 Plan Revisions for Resolution No. 27-2011 $312.00 per hour Planning Department Plan Revisions Resolution No. 27-2011 $312.00 per hour plus cost of Subsequent to Permit any additional review Issuance Engineering Division Plan Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of Building Review (where Permit Fee applicable) Imaging Fee Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 5% of Building Permit Fee with minimum fee of $5.00 Arborist Review Resolution No. 33-2008 $253.00 PLUMBING PERMIT FEES *These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies. For issuance of each Resolution No. 27-2011 $46.00 plumbing permit Page 5 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE "The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee: New Residential Building - Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.13 per square foot of habitable area including all plumbing fixtures, connections and gas outlets for new single - and multi -family buildings Fixtures and vents Resolution No. 27-2011 $20.00 For each plumbing fixture or trap (including water and waste piping and backflow prevention) Sewer and interceptors Resolution No 27-2011 $71.00 For each building sewer For each industrial waste Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 pretreatment interceptor (except kitchen -type grease traps) Water Piping and Water Heaters For installation alteration Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 or repair of water piping or water -treatment equipment For each water heater Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 including vent Page 6 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Gas Piping Systems For each gas piping Resolution No. 27-2011 $39.00 system of one to five outlets For each additional outlet Resolution No. 33-2008 $8.00 over five Irrigation Systems and Backflow Prevention Devices Irrigation systems Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 including backflow device(s) Other backf low prevention devices: 2 inches (50.8 mm) Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 and smaller Over 2 inches (50.8 Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 mm) Swimming Pools For each swimming pool or spa, all plumbing: Public pool Resolution No. 27-2011 $242.00 Public spa Resolution No. 27-2011 $182.00 Private pool Resolution No. 27-2011 $242.00 Private spa Resolution No. 27-2011 $182.00 Page 7 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Miscellaneous For each appliance or Resolution No. 27-2011 $39.00 fixture for which no fee is listed Inspections outside Resolution No. 27-2011 $256.00 per hour (minimum normal business hours charge of 2 hours) Re -inspection fees Resolution No. 27-2011 $256.00 per hour (minimum — one hour) Inspections for which no Resolution No. 27-2011 $256.00 per hour fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge is one- half hour) Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of plumbing permit fee with minimum fee of $5.00 Plan review (where Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of plumbing applicable) permit fee MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES *These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies Basic Permit Issuance Fee Resolution No. 27-2011 $46.00 For issuance of each mechanical permit** Page 8 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE "The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee: New Residential Building Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.11 per square foot of habitable area including all mechanical work including appliances, exhaust fans, ducts, and flues Furnaces To and including 100 Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 MBTU Over 100 MBTU Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 Boilers, compressors, absorption systems To and including 100 Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 MBTU or 3HP Over 100 MBTU or 3 HP Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 Air Conditioners Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 Air Handlers To 10,000 CFM including Resolution No. 27-2011 $39.00 each ducting Over 10,000 CFM Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 each Page 9 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Ventilation and Exhaust Each ventilation fan Resolution No. 27-2011 $20.00 each attached to a single duct Each hood including ducts Resolution No. 27-2011 $31.00 each Miscellaneous For each appliance or Resolution No. 27-2011 $31.00 each piece of equipment not specifically listed above Inspections outside Resolution No. 27-2011 $248.00 per hour (minimum normal business hours charge of 2 hours) Re -inspection fees Resolution No. 27-2011 $248.00 per hour (minimum charge is one hour) Inspections for which no Resolution No. 27-2011 $248.00 per hour fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge is one- half hour) Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of mechanical permit fee with minimum fee of $5.00 Plan review (where Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of mechanical applicable) permit fee Page 10 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES *These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies **The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee: For issuance of each Resolution No. 27-2011 $46.00 electrical permit" New Residential Building - Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.11 per square foot of including all wiring and habitable area electrical devices in or on each building, including service SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE Swimming Pools Public swimming pools Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 and spas including all wiring and electrical equipment Private pools for single- Resolution No. 27-2011 $185.00 family residences Page 11 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Temporary Power Temporary service pole Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 including all attached receptacles Temporary power pole Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 and wiring for construction sites, Christmas tree lots, etc. UNIT FEE SCHEDULE Receptacle, switch and light outlets First 20 units Resolution No. 27-2011 $59.00 Each additional Resolution No. 32-2009 $4.00 Residential Appliances Resolution No. 32-2009 $10.00 each For fixed residential appliances including cook tops, ovens, air conditioning, garbage disposals, and similar devices not exceeding 1 HP in rating (For other types of air conditioners or other motor -driven appliances having larger ratings, see Power Apparatus below) Page 12 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Nonresidential Appliances Resolution No. 32-2009 $10.00 each Self-contained factory- wired non-residential appliances not exceeding 1 HP, KW, or kVA in rating including medical and dental devices; food, beverage and ice cream cabinets; illuminated showcases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; etc. (For other types of devices having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus below) Page 13 CITY G BURLINGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Power Apparatus For motors, generators, air conditioners and heat pumps and commercial cooking devices as follows (ratings in horsepower, kilowatts, kilovolt - amperes, or kilovolt - amperes -reactive): Up to 10 Resolution No 27-2011 $31.00 Over 10 to and including Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 100 Over 100 Resolution No. 27-2011 $120.00 Notes: For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays, and other related control equipment. Page 14 CITY G BURLINGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Photo voltaic systems Residential systems Permit Resolution No. 32-2009 No Charge Plan Check Resolution No. 32-2009 No Charge Commercial Systems Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $385.00 Plan Check Resolution No. 27-2011 $312.00 per hour Busways For trolleys and plug-in Resolution No. 27-2011 $31.00 for each 100 feet type busways (30,500 mm) or fraction thereof Signs, Outline Lighting Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 each and Marquees Permits Signs, outline lighting, or marquees supplied from one circuit For additional branch Resolution No. 32-2009 $20.00 each circuits within the same sign, outline lighting, or marquee Page 15 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Services 600 volts or less and not Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 each over 200 amperes in rating 600 volts or less, over 200 Resolution No. 27-2011 $91.00 each amperes to 1,000 amperes Over 600 volts or over Resolution No 27-2011 $121.00 each 1,000 amperes Miscellaneous For apparatus, conduits, Resolution No. 27-2011 $39.00 and conductors for which a permit is required but for which no fee is set forth Inspections outside Resolution No. 27-2011 $256.00 per hour normal business hours (minimum charge of 2 hours) Re -inspection fees Resolution No. 27-2011 $256.00 per hour (minimum charge is one hour) Inspections for which no Resolution No 27-2011 $256.00 per hour fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge is one- half hour) Page 16 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of electrical permit fee with minimum fee of $5.00 Plan review (where Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of electrical applicable) permit fee GENERAL FEES Building Moving Resolution No. 32-2009 $384.00 (Section 18.07.030) Page 17 Fiscal Year 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule CITY CLERK & ELECTIONS SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Video recording of City Resolution No. 32-2009 $88.00 per VHS tape plus photo Council meeting or other service charge proceeding that has been video recorded — to be Resolution No. 32-2009 $88.00 per DVD plus photo service paid in advance of charge copying recording Audiotape of City Council Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 per tape if tape is supplied meeting or other City by requestor proceeding that has been taped — to be paid in Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 per tape if tape is not advance of copying tape supplied plus purchase cost of tape All Certifications Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 each Filing of Nomination Burlingame Municipal $25.00 per candidate Papers Code section 2.20.020 (Ordinance No. 1703 (2003) Page 18 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Minor (no excavation involved) $245.00 Sewer Lateral Test Resolution No. 32- $438.00 — If fail, one time free 2009 retest. Sewer Lateral Replacement Resolution No. 32- $450.00 (with Sidewalk fee) 2009 Storm Service Connection (with $450.00 sidewalk fees) Water Service Connection (with Resolution No. 32- $589.00 Sidewalk fee) 2009 Fire System Connection (with Resolution No. 32- $589.00 Sidewalk Add No. 5) 2009 Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200 Resolution No. 32- $424.00 plus $1.00 for each S.F. (Includes Curb Drain) 2009 square foot over 200 Sections 12.10.030/12.08.020/ *Fee waived for owners who 12.04.030 undertake stand-alone sidewalk trip hazard repairs (Section 12.12.070) Sidewalk Closure/Pedestrian Resolution No. 32- $423.00 Protection 2009 Traffic Control Resolution No. 33- $345.00 2008 Page 19 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Block Party (includes up to 6 Resolution No. 27- $57.00 plus $5.00 for each add'I barricades) 2006 barricade over 6 Commercial Areas and $219.00 plus $10.00 space per Construction Purposes (i.e. day or meter rates Dumpsters/Containers) Moving Only Purposes $35.00 processing fee plus (Residential Areas) $10.00 per space per day Page 20 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE GENERAL FEES Demolition Permit (in addition Resolution No. 32- $1,617.00 to any Building Department- 2009 issued Demolition or Construction Permit) Includes sewer, water and sidewalk replacement Add fire line Resolution No. 32- $86.00 2009 Add curb drain Resolution No. 32- $231.00 2009 Add sidewalk closure Resolution No. 32- $231.00 2009 Add PG&E Resolution No. 32- $231.00 2009 Address Change Resolution No. 32- $336.00 2009 Single Trip -Transportation Fee Senate Bill SB 372 $16.00 (Fixed rate set by Caltrans) Page 21 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Leaf Blower Testing Certification Ord. No. 1871 (2012) $34.00 for up to 5 leaf blowers Fee $5.00 for certification decal if certified by manufacturer Creek Enclosures Resolution No. 32- $3,134.00 2009 Section 18.24.020 Abandonment of Public Utility $5,140.00 Easement Hauling Permit Section 13.60.080 $251.00 application fee plus 10 cents per ton per mile Inspection/Investigation Fee Section 12.10.070 $245.00 per hour Page 22 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Subsurface Shoring Systems that encroach into the public right- of-way • Per 10'-20' deep tieback $2,000.00 each • Per >20' deep tieback $1,000.00 each • For permanent area used 50% of appraised land value per (i.e. shoring wall) square foot (sf) multiplied by the area (sf) of encroachment Permanent structures, such as Resolution No. 32- $2,727.00 retaining walls, fences 2009 Section 12.10.020 Non -permanent installations, Resolution No. 32- $1,600.00 such as tables, chairs, planters 2009 Section 12.10.020 DEPOSITS OR BONDS FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WORK Openings in Public Right -of -Way Resolution No. 33- $1,000.00 Minimum (in (not in sidewalk or street) 2007 easement area) $10.00/sf for area excavated Openings in Public Right -of -Way Resolution No. 33- $30.00 per square foot in in sidewalk (not in street) 2007 sidewalk area, $1,000.00 minimum Page 23 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Street Roadway Opening (AC Resolution No. 33- $15.00 per square foot in paved Pavement Restoration) 2007 area, $2,500.00 minimum Section 12.10.025 including curb replacement Water Main Modification Resolution No. 33- $10,000.00 per connection (refundable bond) 2007 Sewer Main & Storm Drain Resolution No. 33- $10,000.00 per connection Modification (refundable bond) 2007 SUBDIVISION MAPS Lot Line Adjustment Resolution No. 32- $2,752.00 (application fee) + 2009 (Section actual City consultant costs 26.24.090) Lot Combination Resolution No. 32- $2,752.00 (application fee) + 2009 actual City consultant costs Section 26.24.090 Subdivision Map Resolution No. 32- $4,085.00 plus deposit, plus 2009 Sections $249.00 for each additional lot 26.24.090/ 26.16.151 in excess of 5 lots; plus actual City consultant costs City Benchmark Maintenance Applies to $3,000 per map action development projects (parcel or final map) that require a map action by Council Page 24 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Condominium Map Resolution No. 32- $3,322.00, plus $625.00 for 2009 Sections each additional unit over 4 26.24.090/ 26.16.151 units, plus actual City consultant costs STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ** The fees represent the labor cost to inspect and security deposit Type 1 Project: Single family $188.00 plus $1,500.00 security dwellings with 1st or 2"d floor deposit additions on a 10,000 sf lot or smaller Type 2 Project: Multi -family $376.00 plus $3,000.00 security dwellings or commercial deposit additions (excluding tenant improvements) that are on a 10,000 sf lot or smaller Type 3 Project: Any project $753.00 plus $5,000.00 security 10,000 sf up to an acre lot deposit Type 4 Project: Any project $1,506.00 plus $10,000 security greater than one acre in size deposit Page 25 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEWS Single Family Dwelling (Addition) $489.00 Single Family Dwelling (New) $977.00 Multi -family $1,953.00 Commercial/Industrial $1,953.00 Environmental Review $1,573.00 Traffic and Parking Studies $3,712.00 GRADING PERMIT 1-100 cubic yards $1,318.00 101— 1,000 cubic yards $1,990.00 1,001-10,000 cubic yards $2,327.00 Over 10,000 cubic yards $3,166.00 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Stormwater Inspection for Industrial/Commercial Facilities $144.00 per hour Page 26 Fiscal Year 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule FINANCE SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Duplicate business license Section 6.04.120 $10.00 Application for first business Section 6.04.170 $35.00 license Submittal of surety bond for Resolution No. 27-2006 $150.00 for every 15 days bond transient occupancy after is late expiration of bond Special business license for Section 6.08.085 5% of gross receipts long-term parking Page 27 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) is governed by the Fire Board, and as such, its fees are enacted via a process that is separate from that of the City of Burlingame. The following fees were approved, and effective as of July 1, 2019. SERVICE REFERENCE FEE CARE FACILITIES INSPECTION Pre -inspection of licensed community care facility Health & Safety Code § 13235 $146.00 per hour Residential Care Facility for Elderly serving 6 or fewer persons — fire inspection enforcement Health & Safety Code § 1569.84 No Charge Residential Care Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $301.00 Large Family Day Care Resolution No. 33-2008 $163.00 Skilled Nursing Facility Resolution No. 33-2008 $577.00 Hospital/Institution Resolution No. 33-2008 $2,230.00 RE -INSPECTIONS Second re -inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $114.00 per inspection Third and subsequent re -inspections Resolution No. 33-2008 $207.00 per inspection Page 28 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE CONSTRUCTION FEES General Fire & Life Safety 12% of Building Permit fees for Services Commercial and Multi -Family • Consultation & Residential Research • Pre -application meetings & Design Review • Property Survey • General Construction Inspections • Processing, Scheduling, and Record Keeping Building or Planning Plan Resolution No. 33-2008 $157.00 per hour Check Expedite Building or Resolution No. 33-2008 $314.00 per hour Planning Check Fees (2 hour minimum) Consultation and Planning Resolution No. 33-2008 $229.00 per hour Alternate Means of Resolution No. 33-2008 $229.00 per hour Protection Review Page 29 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Fire Alarm Systems Permit for Monitoring Resolution No. 33-2008 $176.00 System Permit for Manual System Resolution No. 33-2008 $176.00 Permit for Automatic System Resolution No. 33-2008 $313.00 Permit for Combination Resolution No. 33-2008 $452.00 System Multi -Residential or $107.00 Commercial Fire Alarm Remodel or Repair (Device relocation/adjustment) Fixed Fire Extinguishing Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 System Permit Standpipe System Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $313.00 Storage Tank (above or Resolution No. 33-2008 $176.00 below ground) Permit Page 30 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS One or two Family Dwelling Resolution No. 33-2008 $452.00 - flat fee including 2 Fire Sprinkler System (NFPA inspections (additional inspections 13D) will be charged at the hourly rate of the staff who actually perform each inspection) Fire Pump Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $176.00 Multi -Residential or Resolution No. 33-2008 $727.00 flat fee including 2 Commercial Fire Sprinkler inspections (additional inspections System (NFPA 13 or 13R) will be charged at the hourly rate of the staff who actually perform Permit — Single Story (incl. each inspection) T.I.) Permit - Multi -story Multi -Residential or Resolution No. 33-2008 $107.00 Commercial Fire sprinkler Remodel & Repair (Sprinkler Head relocation/adjustment only) Fire Service Line Inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $176.00 Emergency Responder Radio §510, CFC $335.00 Coverage System Permit Title 24 Part 9 MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND PERMITS Labor Rate for Mechanic $110.00 Services Page 31 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Change of Use Inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $108.00 (usually triggered by new business license) Accounts referred to +47% of original invoice Collection Agencies Photographs from Resolution No. 61-2004 Cost of reproduction investigations Fire Incident Reports (not Resolution No. 33-2008 $10.00 including photographs) Work without a construction Resolution No. 33-2008 Up to 10 times the permit fees permit Emergency Response Costs Govt. Code §53150-58 Costs according to Personnel for Driving under the Schedule below plus apparatus Influence (Billing upon cost of $91.00 per hour as set by conviction) State False Alarms Resolution No. 33-2007 $441.00 for 3 to 5 $630.00 for 6 or more Page 32 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Hazardous Materials Clean- Resolution No. 33-2008 Costs according to Personnel up/Response Schedule below plus apparatus costs of $91.00 per hour as set by State Page 33 CITY G BURLINGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE STANDBY SERVICE Firefighter Resolution No. 33-2008 $88.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) Fire Captain Resolution No. 33-2008 $103.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) Battalion Chief Resolution No. 33-2008 $117.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) Engine Company Resolution No. 33-2008 $315.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) plus apparatus costs of $91.00 per hour as set by State Page 34 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE PERSONNEL COSTS Personnel Costs by Job Class Resolution No. 33-2008 $ 61.00 per hour Administration Firefighter $ 88.00 per hour Fire Captain $103.00 per hour Fire Administrative Captain $103.00 per hour Fire Prevention Specialist $ 82.00 per hour Fire Inspector $138.00 per hour Deputy Fire Marshal $144.00 per hour Battalion Chief $117.00 per hour Division Chief or Fire $177.00 per hour Marshal Deputy Fire Chief $188.00 per hour Fire Chief $205.00 per hour GENERAL PERMITS Aerosol Products Resolution No. 33-2008 $163.00 Amusement Buildings Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Apartments, Hotels and Resolution No. 33-2008 $140.00 Motels —10 or less units Apartments, Hotels and Resolution No. 33-2008 $166.00 Motels —11 to 25 units Apartments, Hotels and Resolution No. 33-2008 $192.00 Motels — 26 or more units Apartments Assigned to $219.00 Prevention Page 35 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Aviation Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $473.00 Battery System Resolution No. 33-2008 $473.00 Carnivals and Fairs Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Christmas Tree Lot Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Combustible Fiber Storage Resolution No. 33-2007 $267.00 Combustible Material Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Commercial Occupancy Assigned to Prevention Resolution No. 33-2008 $200.00 Commercial Rubbish- Handling Operation Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Compressed Gases Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Cryogens Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Dry Cleaning Plants Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Dust -Producing Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Exhibits & Trade Shows — Display Booth Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Exhibits & Trade Shows — With Open Flame Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Exhibits & Trade Shows — Display Fuel Powered Equipment Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Page 36 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Explosives or Blasting Agents Resolution No. 33-2008 $473.00 Fire Hydrants and Water Control Valves Resolution No. 33-2008 $265.00 Fireworks Resolution No. 33-2008 $473.00 Flammable or Combustible Liquids Resolution No. 33-2008 $473.00 Hazardous Materials Resolution No. 33-2008 $473.00 High -Piled Combustible Storage — 20,000 square feet or less Resolution No. 33-2008 $481.00 High -Piled Combustible Storage — more than 20,000 square feet Resolution No. 33-2008 $549.00 Highrise H&S§13214(b) $316.00 Hot -Work Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Liquefied Petroleum Gasses Resolution No. 33-2008 $473.00 Liquid- or gas -fueled Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly Buildings Resolution No. 33-2008 $473.00 Live Audiences Resolution No. 33-2008 $473.00 Lumber Yards storing in excess of 100,000 board Feet Resolution No. 33-2008 $370.00 Magnesium Working Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Page 37 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Motor Vehicle Fuel- Dispensing Stations Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Open Burning Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Organic Coating Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Ovens, Industrial Baking and Drying Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Parade Floats Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Places of Assembly Resolution No. 33-2008 $439.00 Production Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $439.00 Pyrotechnical and Special Effects Material Resolution No. 33-2008 $473.00 Radioactive Materials Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Refrigeration Equipment Resolution No. 33-2008 $370.00 Repair Garage Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Spraying and Dipping Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Tents, Canopies, and Temporary Membrane Structures Resolution No. 33-2008 $402.00 Tire Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Wood Products Resolution No. 33-2008 $267.00 Page 38 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule LIBRARY SERVICE REFERENCE FEE CITY OF BURLINGAME FEES Photocopies — Black and White $0.15 per page at vending machine Photocopies - Color $0.45 per page at vending machine Internet /Database copies or Resolution No. 27-2011 First 3 pages free printouts — Black and White $0.15 per page Internet /Database copies or Resolution No. 27-2011 First page free $0.45 per page printouts —Color Page 39 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule LIBRARY SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Facilities Rental Lane Community Room rental Resolution No. 32-2009 $130.00 Tech Media Lab rental $90.00 first 4 hours. $10.00 each additional hour Laptop set-up/breakdown $50.00 flat fee U.L. Meeting Room rental $70.00 first 4 hours. $10.00 each additional hour Outside System Book Loan Resolution No. 27-2011 $5.00 + additional fee from lending library if applicable Photo/filming fee (only for $50.00/hour shoots requiring staff oversight during closed hours) Page 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule LIBRARY SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Passport: Acceptance/US State Set by US State $35.00 (as of April 2, 2018) Department Fee Department Passport Photo Fee $15.00 Express Mail Service to Current USPS Priority Mail Passport Processing Center Express Rate PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM CONSORTIUM CONTROLLED FEES Lost Book Replacement Fee Peninsula Library System Costs of replacement of item Page 41 CITY G BURLINGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Group Classifications for Purposes of Parks & Recreation Facilities Usage: Group A: City of Burlingame, Burlingame School District Group A-1: Recognized Burlingame based non-profit youth sports groups (for field use only) Group B: Non-profit groups or organizations with IRS Section 501c(3) tax exempt status Group C: Private parties, commercial, business, and profit -making organizations School District Fees: Fees shall be applied to the district and affiliated organizations (examples: PTA, Boosters, Foundations) as follows: A. San Mateo Union High School District a. Unless otherwise specified in an adopted facility use agreement, indoor and athletic facility fees shall be calculated administratively to be comparable to the SMUHSD fee schedule as it pertains to City use of similar SMUHSD facilities. b. Picnic and special park facility fees, and staffing fees charged to SMUHSD shall be at the rates described in other sections of the fee schedule. B. Burlingame School District a. Unless otherwise specified in an adopted facility use agreement, indoor and athletic facility fees shall be calculated administratively to be comparable to the BSD fee schedule as it pertains to City use of similar BSD facilities. b. Picnic and special park facility fees, and staffing fees charged to BSD shall be at the rates described in other sections of the fee schedule. Pool fees for BSD use shall be charged at the non-profit rate. Page 42 CITY G BURLINGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Temporary Recreation Facilities Group A I I No Charge Group B: Burlingame Residents $121.00 1st hour $61.00 /add'I hour Non -Residents $132.00 1st hour $65.00/add'I hour Burlingame Non -Profit I I $24.00 per hour Meetings Non Resident Non -Profit I I $26.00 per hour Meetings Group C: Burlingame Residents $157.00 1st hour $81.00/add'I hour Non -Residents $171.00 1st hour $86.00/add'I hour Page 43 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Facility Room Deposit 1 1 $200.00 Per Room In conjunction with Room Rental Additional Rental Charges: Tables/Chairs-up to 50 $20.00 Tables/Charis-51 to 100 Tables/Chairs-over 100 Coffee Pots Resolution No. 33- 2008 $29.00 $45.00 $15.00 per pot CITY G BURLINGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Building Attendant* Resolution No. 33- $40.00 per hour 2008 Weekend Custodian Resolution No. 27- $102.00 per event 2006 Weekday Custodian Resolution No. 31- $32.00 per hour 2003 Extra, Non -Scheduled Hours Resolution No. 27- $268.00 per hour 2006 Wine/beer to be served Resolution No. 31- $33.00 additional 2003 *Building Attendant will be on duty 30 minutes prior to and 30 minutes after duration of activities at Recreation Center. Page 45 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION OUTDOOR FACILITIES Field Attendant Large Special Event Deposit for Athletic Fields: Less than 100 in attendance More than 100 in attendance Group A-1: Field Use per Season by Burlingame -based non-profit youth sports group. Fields used by Accredited Burlingame -based non-profit youth sports groups Resolution No. 41- $40.00 per hour 2008 $250.00 per event Resolution No. 27- 2011 $500.00 per event $16.00 per Resident $85.00 per Non -Resident plus $3.00 per hour per field for Resident groups, $9.00 per hour per field for groups less than 50% Resident Security Deposit $500.00 Page 46 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Bayside Ball Fields #1 and #2 Group A Resolution No. 31- No Charge 2003 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $23.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $34.00 per hour 2008 Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31- $34.00 per hour 2003 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $55.00 per hour 2008 Bayside Field Lights Resolution No. 24- $38.00 per hour 2010 Page 47 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Bayside Ball Fields #3,#4 or #5 for Softball or Baseball Group A Resolution No. 31- No Charge 2003 Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $19.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $29.00 per hour 2008 Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $29.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $44.00 per hour 2008 Bayside Field Lights Resolution No. 24- $38.00 per hour 2010 Page 48 Bayside Soccer Fields Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Bayside Field Lights Cuernavaca Park Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents g CITY o Rk1NGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 24- 2010 Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 33- 2008 No Charge $23.00 per hour $34.00 per hour $34.00 per hour $55.00 per hour $38.00 per hour No Charge $23.00 per hour $34.00 per hour $34.00 per hour $55.00 per hour Murray Field Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Murray Field Lights Ray Park Ball Fields #1 or #2 Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents g CITY o Rk1NGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 24- 2010 Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 33- 2008 No Charge $59.00 per hour $80.00 per hour $80.00 per hour $101.00 per hour $38.00 per hour No Charge $23.00 per hour $34.00 per hour $34.00 per hour $55.00 per hour Page 50 CITY G BURLINGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Washington Park Main Ball Field for Baseball Group A Resolution No. 41- No Charge 2008 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 41- $34.00 per hour 2008 Non-residents Resolution No. 41- $55.00 per hour 2008 Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 41- $55.00 per hour 2008 Non-residents Resolution No. 41- $77.00 per hour 2008 Washington Park Lights Resolution No. 24- $38.00 per hour 2010 Grandstands I I $20 per hour + Field attendant $150 cleaning fee Page 51 Washington Park Bullpen Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Washington Park Main Ball field Outfield for Soccer Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Washington Park Lights g CITY o Rk1NGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2007 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 24- 2010 No Charge $18.00 per hour $23.00 per hour $34.00 per hour $44.00 per hour No Charge $34.00 per hour $55.00 per hour $55.00 per hour $78.00 per hour $38.00 per hour Page 52 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Washington Park Small Ball Field Group A Resolution No. 31- No Charge 2003 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $18.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $29.00 per hour 2008 Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $29.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $44.00 per hour 2008 Washington Small Lights Resolution No. 24- $38.00 per hour 2010 Tennis Courts Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31- $36.00 for 4 hours/per court 2003 Non-residents Resolution No. 61- $58.00 for 4 hours/per court 2006 For Profit Rental Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 103- $21.00 per hour/per court 2009 Non-residents Resolution No. 103- $25.00 per hour/per court 2009 Page 53 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION PICNIC PERMITS West -end of Washington Park Resolution No. 27- $458.00 Permit Fee (for Burlingame residents and 2011 $500.00 Deposit non-profit groups only) Electrical Service Hook-up at Resolution No. 32- $81.00 West -end of Washington Park 2009 Oak Tree Playground Picnic Area Burlingame Residents $170 Permit Fee No Deposit Non -Residents $204 Permit Fee No Deposit Redwood Grove Picnic Area Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 24- $223.00 Permit Fee No Deposit 2010 Non -Residents Resolution No. 24- $280.00 Permit Fee No Deposit 2010 Non-profit Group Picnic Fees: Resolution No. 103- $106.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Cuernavaca & Ray Parks 2009 Both Washington Park Picnic Areas (Redwood Grove +Oak Tree) Burlingame Residents $315.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Non -Residents $410.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Page 54 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Olive Tree Picnic Area Burlingame Residents Non -Residents $113.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $151.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Washington Park Sports Court Washington Park Basketball $17 per hour Court $100 fee if returned damaged Rental of Pickleball Net $200 fee if returned beyond repair $3/each Purchase of Outdoor Pickleball ball Washington Park Bocce Ball Courts (reservations) Burlingame Residents Resolution 34-2013 $28.00/hour per court Non -Residents No Deposit $33.00/hour per court Rental of Bocce Ball and No Deposit Horseshoes Resolution 34-2013 $10.00 Flat Rate + $40.00 Refundable deposit Page 55 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Washington Park Horseshoe Pits (reservations) Burlingame Residents Resolution 34-2013 $28.00/hour per court No Deposit Non -Residents Resolution 34-2013 $33.00/hour per court No Deposit Rental of Park Space for Private Classes (Exercise Boot Camps, Stroller Exercise Classes & Other Private Uses) Burlingame residents Resolution No. 103- $19.00 per hour 2009 Non-residents Resolution No. 103- $23.00 per hour 2009 Village Park Picnic Fee (3 tables Burlingame residents Resolution 24-2010 $112.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Non-residents Resolution 24-2010 $151.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Page 56 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Offsite: Non -Profit Community Resolution No. 32- $20.00 per table/per day Groups Equipment Rental Fees Collapsible Picnic Table 2009 Tables $6.00 per table/per day Chairs $3.00 per chair/per day Tents $25.00 per tent/per day Risers — without wheels Risers — with wheels Inflatable Jump House Washington Park Resolution No. 27- $112.00 Permit Fee No Deposit 2011 (Must be done in conjunction with a picnic permit) Wedding Ceremony Washington Park Rose Garden Resolution No. 27- $112.00 residents 2011 $168.00 non-residents With Temp Facility Rental Resolution No. 27- $56.00 residents 2011 $112.00 non-residents Page 57 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Photo Shoots in Parks Application Fee Resolution No. 27- $55.00 non-refundable fee 2011 Rental Fee Per Day Resolution No. 27- $140.00 per day 2011 Student Photo Shoot No Charge Film Shoot in Parks Application Fee $320.00 non-refundable fee Commercial or Corporate $447.00 per day Feature Film/Documentary $671.00 per day Community Garden Annual Fee $85/year per plot Annual Fee for Non -Residents $100/year per plot Deposit $100 deposit Page 58 CITY G BURLINGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Brochure Ads Resolution No. 27- 1 issue/4 issues (1 year - 20% 2011 Discount) 1/8 page $78.00/$249.00 1/4 page $155.00/$497.00 1/2 page $312.00/$999.00 Full page $623.00/$1,994.00 Full Page Inside Front Cover $839.00/$2,685.00 Full Page Inside Back Cover $783.00/$2,505.00 Full Page Back Cover $933.00/$2,985.00 Layout $80.00 per hour Discount for Non -Profits 25% resident groups 0% non-resident groups CLASSES Class Fees Resolution No. 31- To be set based on class provider 2003 and materials/facilities provided Registration Fees Resolution No. 24- $12.00 2010 Non-resident Fee on Classes Resolution No. 31- Add 20% to class fee rounded to 2003 nearest dollar Page 59 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Senior discount — Burlingame Resolution No. 103- 25% off class fee on classes held at residents age 65 and over 2009 Temporary Facilities Senior discount — non-residents Resolution No. 31- Waive non-resident fee age 65 and over 2003 Registration cancellation Resolution No. 33- $8.00 per class or event charge 2008 TREE AND PARKS FEES Memorial tree plantings Resolution No. 33- $300.00/$500.00 15 gallon/24" box size 2008 Memorial Bench Resolution No. 27- $3,000.00 2011 Additional street tree plantings Resolution No. 32- $101.00/$266.00 15 gallon/24" box size 2009 Protected Tree Removal Application Fee Resolution No. 33- $100.00 2008 Failure to Meet Replanting $1,200.00 Requirements of Permit Arborist's plan review for Resolution No. 33- $253.00 landscaping requirements on 2008 planning applications (See also planning fee schedule) Page 60 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Arborist check of construction Resolution No. 33- $253.00 plans and inspection of 2008 landscape requirements on building permit submittals Appeal to City Council from Resolution No. 33- $468.00 Beautification Commission 2008 decision (does not include noticing costs) Noticing, City Council Appeal Resolution No. 33- $106.00 2008 Street Banner Hanger Resolution No. 24- $200.00 2010 Private Tree Emergency Work $80.00 per hour Business Hours (M-F; 7-3:30) After Hours (Weekends & $102.00 per hour Holidays) Page 61 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE PRE -APPLICATIONS Preliminary Plan Check, New Resolution No. 27-2011 $905.00 Construction* Preliminary Plan Check, Remodel* Resolution No. 27-2011 $453.00 Zoning Verification/Property Profile $106.00 Letter APPLICATIONS Ambiguity/Determination Hearing Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,512.00 before Planning Commission (applies to Planning, Fire, and Building requests) Amendment/Extension of Permits Resolution No. 27-2011 $815.00 Antenna Exception Fee Section 18.18.040 $3,195.00 Appeal to Planning Commission of Resolution No. 33-2008 $969.00 administratively approved permits/appeal to City Council of Planning Commission decisions Noticing to be charged separately *Fifty percent (50%) of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete application. Page 62 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Legal Review -Substantive work by Resolution No. 48-2015 $198.00/hour City Attorney for development projects requiring discretionary review before the Planning Commission under Title 25 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $2,005.00 Condominium Permit, 10 Units or Resolution No. 33-2008 $3,570.00 Fewer Condominium Permit, 11 Units to Resolution No. 33-2008 $4,193.00 25 Units Condominium Permit, 26 Units to $4,921.00 50 Units Condominium Permit, 51 Units to $5,779.00 100 Units Condominium Permit, 101 Units and $6,785.00 Greater Design Review, Addition Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,285.00 Design Review, Amendment Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,110.00 Design Review Deposit" Resolution No. 27-2006 $1,448.00 Design Review — Handling Fee Resolution No. 33-2008 $563.00 Minimum deposit. Formula for ultimate calculation is design review consultant fee times hours spent. Project not set for hearing until actual time paid. Page 63 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Minor "FYI" Amendment to $428.00 Approved Project —Applicant Initiated As -Built "FYI" Variation from $1,578.00 Approved Project Design Review, New Construction — Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,284.00 Single Family Residential Design Review, New Construction — $1,926.00 Multifamily Family Residential 25 Units or Fewer Design Review, New Construction — $2,568.00 Multifamily Family Residential 26 Units or Greater Design Review, New Construction — $1,284.00 Commercial, 5,000 Gross Square Feet or Less Design Review, New Construction — $1,926.00 Commercial, 5,001-10,000 Gross Square Feet Design Review, New Construction — $2,568.00 Commercial, 10,001 Gross Square Feet or Greater Fence Exception Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,129.00 Minor Modification Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,438.00 Page 64 g CITY o Rk1NGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE Hillside Area Construction Permit Accessory Dwelling Unit Reasonable Accommodation General Plan Amendment/Re- zoning Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty Permit, Building Official Inspection Deposit Special Use Permit Variance Wireless Communications Administrative Use Permit Plan Recheck Fee More than two revisions to plans Major redesign of project plans Environmental, Categorical Exemption Environmental, Negative Declaration (R-1 and R-2) REFERENCE Resolution No. 27-2011 $2,364.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $731.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $461.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 1 $7,689.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 1 $532.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $4,388.00 Resolution No 27-2011 $4,587.00 Municipal Code Chapter $2,038.00 25.77 Resolution No. 32- 2009 1 $744.00 Resolution No. 32- 2009 1 $896.00 ENVIRONMENTAL Resolution No. 27-2011 1 $125.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 1 $6,464.00 FEE Page 65 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Environmental, Initial Resolution No. 27-2011 Pass -through of actual Study/Mitigated Negative contractor cost, plus 10% of Declaration and/or with a contract handling fee, Responsible Agency deposit to be determined by Director of Community Development Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. 31-2003 Pass -through of actual contractor cost, plus 20% of contract handling fee, deposit to be determined by Director of Community Development Environmental Posting Fee, Resolution No. 27-2011 $884.00 Mitigated Negative Declaration and EIR Fish & Game Fee for Negative Fish & Game Code § $2,406.75 Declaration, whether mitigated or 711.4 not (pass -through fee) Fish & Game Fee for Environmental Fish & Game Code § $3,343.25 Impact Report (pass -through fee) 711.4 County Clerk Processing Fee for Fish Fish & Game Code § $50.00 & Game (pass -through fee) 711.4 PARKS Arborist Review (when required) Resolution No. 33-2008 $253.00 Page 66 g CITY o Rk1NGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE Noticing, R-1 and R-2 Noticing, All Other Districts Noticing, R-1 Design Review, Residential Noticing, R-1 Design Study, Residential Noticing, Design Review, all other districts Noticing, Minor Modifications, Hillside Area Construction Permits Noticing, General Plan Amendment — Re -zoning Noticing, Environmental Impact Report Noticing, City Council Appeal Noticing, Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty Permit Noticing — Wireless Communications Noticing — Replacement of Posted Sign REFERENCE NOTICING Resolution No. 27-2011 $682.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $682.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $948.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 1 $948.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 1 $948.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 1 $792.00 Resolution No. 33-2008 1 $1,418.00 Resolution No. 33-2008 1 $1,418.00 Resolution No. 33-2008 $106.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 $68.00 Municipal Code Chapter $624.00 25.77.120 $355.00 FEE Fiscal Year 2020-21Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Noticing — Design Review Yard Sign $581.00 SIGNS 50 square feet or less Resolution No 27-2011 $266.00 Over 50 SF and less than 200 square feet Resolution No. 27-2011 $379.00 Over 200 square feet Resolution No. 27-2011 $436.00 Sign Variance Resolution No. 27-2011 $3,226.00 Removal of Illegal Sign Resolution No. 33-2008 $129.00 PUBLICATIONS Zoning Map Resolution No. 32-2009 $5.00 Page 68 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) The Bayfront Development Fee is charged to all new construction/development within the Bayfront Specific Plan Area on the east side of US 101. One-half of the fee is payable before issuance of a building permit and the balance is payable when certificate of occupancy is requested. Ordinance No. 1739 (2004), as amended, provides for annual adjustment based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1 of each year. Adjustments to these fees will be included in the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule based on any change in the construction cost index as of July 1, 2020. SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Bayfront Development Fee Office Ord. No. 1739 (2004) $2,781.00/TSF Restaurant $11,197.00/TSF Hotel $991.00/room Hotel, Extended Stay $886.00/room Office, Warehouse, $4,216.00/TSF Manufacturing Retail — Commercial $10,236.00/TSF Car Rental $64,962.00/acre Commercial Recreation $20,161.00/acre All Other $2,240.00 per p.m. peak hour trip as detailed by traffic study Page 69 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) North Burlingame & Rollins Road Development Fees are charged to all new construction and development within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area. One-half of the fee is payable before issuance of a building permit and the balance is payable when certificate of occupancy is requested. Ordinance No. 1751 (2005) provides for annual adjustment beginning in 2006, based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1 of each year. Adjustments to these fees will be included in the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule based on any change in the construction cost index as of July 1, 2020. SERVICE REFERENCE FEE North Burlingame & Rollins Road Development Fee Rollins Road Area of Benefit Ord. No. 1751 (2005) $0.63 per square foot of building El Camino North Area of Benefit Ord. No. 1751 (2005) $0.63 per square foot of Multiple family dwelling or duplex building Any use other than multiple family Ord. No. 1751 (2005) $0.80 per square foot of dwelling or duplex building The Public Facilities Impact Fee is a general category of fees based on the uses, number of dwelling units Page 70 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) and/or amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of a development project. The fees are committed to public improvement, public services, and community amenities affected by new development (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.80). The purpose of the fee is established upon approval of a permit for construction or reconstruction, and is intended for improvements in one or more of the following categories: • General Facilities & Equipment • Streets & Traffic • Libraries • Fire • Police • Storm Drainage • Parks & Recreation Single Family Multifamily Commercial Office Industrial Fee per Dwelling Unit Fee per Dwelling Unit Fee per 1,000 sq.ft. of Building Fee per 1,000 sq.ft. of Building Fee per 1,000 sq.ft. of Building General $ 2,756 $ 1,636 $ 640 $ 930 $ 305 Library $ 2,383 $ 1,415 $ 478 $ 695 $ 228 Police $ 437 $ 259 $ 102 $ 147 $ 48 Parks $ 590 $ 350 $ 118 $ 172 $ 56 Traffic/Streets $ 1,573 $ 1,105 $ 1,810 $ 7,285 $ 1,146 Fire $ 642 $ 381 $ 248 $ 360 $ 118 Storm Drainage $ 781 $ 391 $ 442 $ 717 $ 628 Total Impact Fee: $ 9,162 $ 5,537 $3,838 $10,306 $2,529 The establishing ordinance provides no annual escalator for the Public Facilities Impact Fee. Page 71 CITY G BURLINGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) Burlingame Avenue Parking In Lieu Fees are applicable only to commercial properties within Downtown Burlingame and are collected in those instances where a land -use requires additional parking, but the site cannot physically accommodate additional spaces. The fee is based upon a per - space, or portion thereof that is not being provided on the property. The funds are to remain in the City's Parking fund to help defray the cost of building a City -owned and operated parking structure. The fees are updated annually based on the February Consumer Price Index — Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the San Francisco Area. SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Burlingame Avenue Parking in Lieu Resolution 48-2000 $57,291.43 Fees Page 72 CITY G BURLINGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) Commercial Affordable Housing Linkage Fees were adopted by the City Council in 2017-2018 to provide a dedicated source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame. • Retail - $7.00 per square foot ($5.00 w/ prevailing wages) • Hotel - $12.00 per square foot ($10.00 w/ prevailing wages) 0 Office projects of 50,000 square feet or less - $18.00 per square foot ($15.00 w/ prevailing wages) • Office projects greater than 50,000 square feet - $25.00 per square foot ($20.00 w/ prevailing wages) Residential Impact Fees are scheduled to be adopted by the City Council on April 1, to be effective June 1, 2019. The fees are to be used to increase, improve, and/or protect the supply of housing affordable to moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households. An "in -lieu" option is available where the developer chooses to provide an affordable unit or units on site. Impact Fee — Per Square Foot Base With Prevailing / Area Wage Rental Multifamily — 11 units and above Up to 50 du/ac $17.00 / sq ft $14.00 / sq ft 51-70 du/ac $20.00 / sq ft $17.00 / sq ft 71 du/ac and above $30.00 / sq ft $25.00 / sq ft For Sale Multifamily Condominiums — 7 units and above $35.00 / sq ft $30.00 / sq ft Notes: 1. Rental Multifamily with total of 10 units or fewer are exempt. 2. For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) with total of 6 units or fewer are exempt. 3. Rental projects that convert to condominiums within 10 years of completion of construction would be subject to the fee differential as a condition of conversion. The fee differential shall be based on the fee structure in place at the time of conversion to condominiums, minus the fees originally submitted at the time of construction. Page 73 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Vehicle Release Resolution No.32-2009 $160.00 Police Reports Resolution No.32-2009 $0.25 per page Report Copies Gov't Code § 6253(b) Fingerprint Rolling Fee Live scan Fee Set by $35.00 plus appropriate State State of California Dept. of Justice and/or Federal Department of Justice processing fee CD's/DVD's Containing Digital Resolution No.32-2009 $99.30 per CD/DVD Files Clearance Letter Resolution No. 32-2009 $29.00 Repossessed Vehicle Gov't Code § 41612 $15.00 Preferential Parking Permits (Residential Permit Parking Program) Issuance (up to 2 permits for Resolution No. 22-2008 $59.00 same address) (Section 13.36.070) Annual renewal (up to 2 Resolution No. 22-2008 $59.00 permits for same address) (Section 13.36.070) Charge for replacement of lost Resolution No. 22-2008 $59.00 permit (Section 13.36.070) Page 74 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Burlingame Avenue Section 13.32.020 $60.00/month Downtown Area Parking Permits Driving Under Influence (DUI) Resolution No. 32-2009 $237.00 per hour Fees Resolution No. 33-2007 $138.00 per blood test Resolution No. 33-2007 $51.00 per breath or urine test Resolution No. 33-2007 $138.00 per refused blood test Security Service (Outside Resolution No. 33-2008 $149.00 per hour Detail) (minimum charge of four hours) Alarm Permit Application Fee Resolution No. 116-2003 $18.00 (Section 10.10.110) Alarm Permits (Annual Resolution No. 116-2003 $32.00 per year Renewal) (Section 10.10.110) False Alarm Charge 1 to 2 false alarms No Charge 3 to 5 false alarms Resolution No. 116-2003 $50.00 each (Section 10.10.090) 6 or more false alarms Resolution No. 116-2003 $100.00 each Any false alarm for which no (Section 10.10.090) $50.00 (includes cost of alarm alarm permit has been Resolution No. 28-2006 permit plus $18.00 initial issued application fee) Page 75 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Live Entertainment Permit Resolution No. 32-2009 $617.00 (Sections 6.16.030) Single Event Entertainment (Section 6.16.090) $106.00 Permit Peddlers and Solicitors Resolution No. 41-2008 $657.00 for investigation plus (Section 6.24.030) fingerprinting fees Curb Painting Resolution No. 33-2007 $60.00 for investigation Tanning Salon Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $1,005.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.42.060) Sale or Transfer Resolution No. 41-2008 $920.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.42.120) Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 $690.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.42.160) Massage Operator Application Resolution No. 32-2009 $1,300.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.40.060) Sale or Transfer Resolution No. 32-2009 $1,300.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.40.120) Renewal Resolution No. 32-2009 $815.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.40.160) Page 76 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Model/Escort Service Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $1,103.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.41.040) Sale or Transfer Resolution No. 41-2008 $1,006.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.41.100) Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 $690.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.41.130) Private Patrol Company Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $370.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.44.050) Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 $185.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.44.080) Taxi Operator Application Section 6.36.050 Business license fee plus fingerprinting fees Renewal Section 6.36.190 Business license fee plus fingerprinting fees Taxi Driver Application Section 6.36.050 $74.50 plus fingerprinting fees Renewal Section 6.36.190 $66.00 plus fingerprinting fees Taxicab Annual Inspection Section 6.36.120 $85.00 per vehicle Valet Parking Resolution No. 41-2008 $713.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.30.040) Page 77 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Concealed Weapon Resolution No. 32-2009 $1,203.00 for investigation Fortune Teller Resolution No. 41-2008 $713.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Set by Section 6.38.060) Unruly Gathering Section 10.70.070 Cost of Hours of Officer Response Special Events & Street Resolution No. 32-2009 Closing: Application and Permit $106.00 Sidewalk Closure $106.00 per parcel/per day Road Closure $212.00 per parcel/per day Verification of non-resident Resolution No. 90-2009 No Charge "proof -of -correction" citations Page 78 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule SEWER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE SEWER CONNECTION FEES Single-family and Duplex Section 15.08.020 $282.00/unit Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/20 Multi -family Section 15.08.020 $215.00/unit Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/20 Commercial/Retail Section 15.08.020 $449.00/thousand square feet (TSF) Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/20 Office Section 15.08.020 $98.00/TSF Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/20 Warehouse Section 15.08.020 $126.00/TSF Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/20 Restaurant Section 15.08.020 $1,110.00/TSF Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/20 Page 79 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule SEWER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Hotel with Restaurant Section 15.08.020 $708.00/room Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/20 Hotel without Restaurant Section 15.08.020 $438.00/room Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/20 INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE FEES The fee covers two (2) samples; additional samples charged according to the Analytical Processing Fee Schedule below. Light Discharger, Annual Ord. No. 1786 $606.00 (2006) Moderate Discharger, Ord. No. 1786 $1,660.00 Annual (2006) Heavy Discharger, Ord. No. 1786 $2,318.00 Annual (2006) Non -Conventional Ord. No. 1786 $1,239.00 Discharger, Annual (2006) Groundwater Discharger Ord. No. 1786 Non -conventional Fee plus $6.98 per 1000 (2006) gallons discharged Application Processing Ord. No. 1786 $160.00 Fee (2006) Page 80 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule SEWER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE ANALYTICAL FEES In-house Testing Ord. No. 1786 Cost (2006) Contract Lab Testing Ord. No. 1786 Cost plus 15% (2006) BIMONTHLY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES Single-family or duplex Ord. No. 1844-2010 $12.25 per thousand gallons. Minimum Section 15.08.070 charge $24.50 (Effective 1/1/2012) Multi -family residential Ord. No. 1844-2010 $11.45 per thousand gallons Section 15.08.070 (Effective 1/1/2012) Restaurant, other Ord. No. 1844-2010 $32.59 per thousand gallons commercial food -related Section 15.08.070 uses (Effective 1/1/2012) Heavy strength Ord. No. 1844-2010 $21.97 per thousand gallons commercial Section 15.08.070 (Effective 1/1/2012) Page 81 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule SEWER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Light strength Ord. No. 1844-2010 $13.53 per thousand gallons commercial Section 15.08.070 (Effective 1/1/2012) Institutional Ord. No. 1844-2010 $4.80 per thousand gallons Section 15.08.070 (Effective 1/1/2012) NEW CUSTOMERS IN SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEX CLASSIFICATION Number of Residents 1 Section 15.08.072 $47.63 2 (Effective 1/1/2012) $59.26 3 $72.52 4 $85.78 5 $97.94 6 $101.44 7 $110.30 8 $128.46 9 or more $150.60 Page 82 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule WATER Water fees are set via a three year rate -setting cycle with an effective date of January 1. The following rates are effective January 1, 2019. SERVICE REFERENCE FEE BI-MONTHLY CHARGE FOR METERS 5/8" and 3/4" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $84.03 1" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $140.05 1 - %" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $280.10 2" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $448.16 3" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $840.30 4" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $1,400.50 6" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $2,801.00 8" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $4,481.60 Page 83 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule WATER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE WATER CONSUMPTION Single Family Residential Tiers Ord. No. 1880 (2017) Rates per thousand gallons Tier 1 (0-4,000 gal): $9.79 Tier 2 (4,001-8,000 gal): $10.98 Tier 3 (8,001-16,000 gal): $12.18 Tier 4 (16,001-24,000 gal): $13.38 Tier 5 (24,001 gal & above): $14.58 Commercial/Multi- Ord. No. 1880 (2017) Effective Jan 1, 2019: $11.46 per Family/Duplex/Other thousand gallons Water Service Turn -On Ord. No. 1880 (2012) 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday No Charge thru Friday 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., $20.00 Monday thru Friday 3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., $60.00 Monday thru Friday Saturday/Sunday/Holiday $60.00 Page 84 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule WATER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Penalty Fee (Past Due) Not paid within 30 days of Ord. No. 1880 (2012) 1.5% penalty billing Service Renewal 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $35.00 thru Friday 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., $45.00 Monday thru Friday 3:31 p.m. to 4:50 p.m., $60.00 Monday thru Friday Maintenance of Water in Fire Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $1.00 per month per inch of pipe Protection System diameter, with $2.00 minimum charge Flow Test 5/8" through 1" Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $50.00 1 - %" and 2" $80.00 Over 2" $100.00 minimum (if over $100.00, cost of testing plus 15%) Page 85 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule WATER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Temporary Water Service Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $750.00 deposit Meter charges (does not $43.00 per month for 1-inch meter include water consumption) $85.00 per month for three-inch meters Water Service Turn -on Deposit Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $50.00 or 2 months estimated if Delinquent on City Water consumption, whichever is greater Account in Previous 12 months Work on City Water System Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $60.00 permit $1,500.00 bond or deposit Fire Flow Test Section 15.04.030 $242.00 per hydrant Page 86 CITY G BURLINGAME 40 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule WATER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Water Line Installation 5/8" bypass meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $350.00 3/4" service with meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $4,100.00 1" service with meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $4,135.00 1- % " service with meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $5,280.00 2" service with meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $5,420.00 If larger than 2" or a length of Ord. No. 1805 (2006) Cost plus 15% more than 60 feet Meter Upgrade To 3/4" meter or 1" meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $254.00 (meter only) Page 87 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL The City's agreement with San Mateo County requires that animal control fees reflect the fees adopted by the County Board of Supervisors (S.M.0 Ordinance No. 04628, approved July 24, 2012). These fees are subject to changes based on any future action by the County of San Mateo, and are available on-line at https://Iibrary.municode.com/ca/san mateo county/codes/code of ordinances?node1d=TIT6AN#! Page 88 BURL- iNAGENDA NO: 10a STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 4, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 4, 2020 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Distribution of $250,000 in Funding, Plus Associated Fees, to Nonprofit Agencies Assisting Individuals and Families in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency and Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute any Necessary Agreements with the Nonprofit Agencies RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing the distribution of $250,000 in funding, plus associated fees, to nonprofit agencies assisting individuals and families in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency and authorizing the City Manager to execute any associated agreements with the nonprofit agencies. 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. At the April 20 City Council meeting, the Council approved $250,000 in funding for the "Kickstart Burlingame" debit card program, which has since been renamed Burlingame Cares. This program, the details of which are being finalized, will provide $250 debit cards to eligible low- income residents. At the same meeting, the City Council also discussed additional ways to support low-income residents and gave direction to provide funding to Samaritan House ($100,000), HIP Housing ($100,000), and CALL Primrose ($50,000). nisi i.qsinm Samaritan House Funding: Samaritan House is the Core Service Agency serving Burlingame. Several cities, including Menlo Park, San Carlos, and San Mateo, have contracted or are in the process of contracting with Samaritan House to provide rental assistance 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. These programs generally provide a limit on 1 Financial Assistance for Individuals and Families May 4, 2020 the amount of the grant that an individual or family can receive and specify that the grants can only be used for rental payments. Because Samaritan House requires the City to develop criteria for the distribution of funds, staff suggests the following parameters: • Funding shall not exceed $5,000 per household. • Funding may only be used for rent payment. • Eligibility for funds will be based on a household's inability to pay rent due to economic conditions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, with sufficient evidentiary support to the satisfaction of Samaritan House. • Households must have an income at 120% or below of the Area Median Income for San Mateo County. • Households must occupy a legal unit located in incorporated Burlingame. • Households must have a current, valid lease agreement with the landlord. These criteria will be included in an agreement that staff will negotiate with Samaritan House. In order to manage this program on the City's behalf, Samaritan House requires a 12% fee. HIP Housing: After the April 20 City Council meeting, staff contacted HIP Housing to determine whether the agency is able to restrict assistance to Burlingame residents with City -provided funding and how many Burlingame residents HIP Housing currently serves. According to Laura Fanucchi, Associate Executive Director, HIP Housing has 12 Burlingame households in the Home Sharing program and two Burlingame families with children in the Self Sufficiency Program, with one more possibly moving into a unit in Burlingame. The Self Sufficiency Program provides housing assistance and support services to low-income parents or emancipated foster youth who are in school to increase their earning power and help them become financially self-sufficient within one to five years. Participants receive subsidized rent while they complete an education or job training program and find employment in their field. Because of the low number of Burlingame families currently served by HIP Housing, the agency requested that the City consider providing $20,000, rather than $100,000, to their program. CALL Primrose: As discussed at the April 20 meeting, CALL Primrose is unable to ensure that City dollars are spent only on Burlingame residents. Nevertheless, there are significant food insecurity issues throughout San Mateo County. (Second Harvest recently reported that over 35,000 families received grocery boxes the week of April 13, as compared to 10,000 families the week of March 16.) With the extension of the County's shelter -in -place order through the end of May, it is likely that even more families, both in Burlingame and in nearby communities, will need help meeting their food needs. Options: Since HIP Housing does not need the full $100,000 that the City Council agreed to on April 20, there are several options for the Council's consideration. 1. The Council could return the $80,000 to the General Fund for use in general City operations. 2. The Council could give the entire $80,000 to either Samaritan House or CALL Primrose. 3. The Council could split the funding between the two agencies, either 50/50 or in some other way. 2 Financial Assistance for Individuals and Families May 4, 2020 4. The Council could direct staff to explore providing funding for another agency that receives City contributions through the annual Community Groups Funding process (FY 2019-20 list attached). FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of this action ranges between $182,000 and $271,600. The actual amount depends on which option is selected. The lower end of the range is the fiscal impact if the $80,000 is returned to the General Fund. The higher end of the range is the fiscal impact if the entire $80,000 is provided to Samaritan House for a rental assistance program and includes the agency's 12% administrative fee. Funds for this purpose will be drawn from the General Fund's unassigned fund balance. In the future, the Council may wish to reimburse the General Fund from the Affordable Housing Fund (which currently contains no monies) for the rental -assistance activities. Exhibit: • Resolution • Community Groups Funding Fiscal Year 2019-20 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE DISTRIBUTION OF $250,000 IN FUNDING, PLUS ASSOCIATED FEES, TO CERTAIN NONPROFIT AGENCIES ASSISTING INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY AGREEMENTS WITH THE NONPROFIT AGENCIES WHEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, at the April 20 City Council meeting, the Council approved $250,000 in funding for the "Kickstart Burlingame" debit card program, which has since been renamed Burlingame Cares, and will provide $250 debit cards to eligible low-income residents; and WHEREAS, at the same meeting, the City Council also discussed additional ways to support low-income residents and gave direction to provide funding to Samaritan House ($100,000), HIP Housing ($100,000), and CALL Primrose ($50,000); and WHEREAS, Samaritan House is the Core Service Agency serving Burlingame and is able to serve as the administrator for a program to provide rental assistance to Burlingame households that have suffered a loss of income due to COVID-19 and would charge the City a fee of 12%; and WHEREAS, HIP Housing currently has 12 Burlingame households in its Home Sharing program and two Burlingame families with children in its Self Sufficiency Program, with one more possibly moving into a unit in Burlingame, and therefore requests $20,000 rather than $100,000 in funding; and WHEREAS, there are significant food insecurity issues throughout San Mateo County, and CALL Primrose is prepared to serve Burlingame families as well as families in nearby communities facing difficulties because of the COVID-19 public health emergency; and WHEREAS, since HIP Housing does not need the full $100,000 that the City Council agreed to on April 20, the Council could: • Return the $80,000 to the General Fund for use in general City operations. • Give the entire $80,000 to either Samaritan House or CALL Primrose. • Split the funding between the two agencies, either 50/50 or in some other way. • Direct staff to explore providing funding for another agency that receives City contributions through the annual Community Groups Funding process. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES RESOLVE THAT: 1. The City authorizes funding in the amount of $100,000, plus a 12% fee, for Samaritan House for a rental assistance program targeted to Burlingame individuals and families. 2. The City Council authorizes funding in the amount of $20,000 for HIP Housing to be used to support Burlingame individuals and families in the Home Sharing Program and/or the Self Sufficiency Program. 3. The City Council authorizes funding in the amount of $50,000 for CALL Primrose to assist individuals and families in Burlingame and nearby cities. 4. The City Council authorizes: returning the remaining $80,000 to the General Fund; or distributing the entire amount to Samaritan House or to CALL Primrose; or distributing the funds to both agencies equally or according to some other formula; or directs staff to explore providing the funds to another nonprofit agency serving Burlingame residents. 5. The City Council appropriates funding in the amount of $182,000 to $271,600 from the FY 2019-20 unassigned fund balance. 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 on the 4th day of May, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk Community Group Funding Fiscal Year 2019-20 Name Awarded Amount Burlingame Historical Society $2,075.00 Burlingame Neighborhood Network $3,100.00 CALL Primrose Center $6,515.00 Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities $535.00 Citizens Environmental Council - Burlingame $2,465.00 Community Gatepath $4,025.00 CORA $3,580.00 County of San Mateo Jobs for Youth $1,085.00 Hillbarn Theatre, Inc. $345.00 HIP Housing $5,410.00 Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County $760.00 Life Steps Foundation $355.00 LifeMoves $6,315.00 Mission Hospice & Home Care $720.00 Music at Kohl Mansion $740.00 Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County, Inc. $385.00 PARCA $1,085.00 Peninsula Choral Association DBA Peninsula Girls Chorus $160.00 Peninsula Museum of Art $2,170.00 Samaritan House - Core Services $5,290.00 Samaritan House/Safe Harbor/Winter Shelter $4,925.00 Star Vista $1,500.00 Sustainable San Mateo County $1,460.00 $55,000.00 STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council May 4, 2020 AGENDA NO: 10b MEETING DATE: May 4, 2020 yed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: City Council Direction Regarding a Pilot Program to Prioritize Local Streets for Neighborhood Pedestrian and Bicycle Activities During the Coronavirus Pandemic Period RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding a pilot program to prioritize local streets for neighborhood pedestrian and bicycle activities during the Coronavirus (COVID- 19) pandemic period. BACKGROUND On April 13, 2020, the Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) submitted a request to the City Council to consider closing off certain streets to through traffic and prioritizing them for pedestrian and bicycle activities during the Shelter -In -Place Order as a result of COVID- 19. (Please see the attached request from BPAC) The intent of the request is to support safe physical activity for residents by creating additional space for physical distancing. At the April 20, 2020 City Council meeting, Mayor Beach proposed this matter be brought before the Council for discussion, and Councilmember Brownrigg concurred. Recently, the cities of Boston and Minneapolis have prioritized certain streets in their downtown, high density and scenic areas for pedestrians and bicyclists, by closing them off to through traffic. The City of Oakland adopted a similar measure, called the `Slow Streets' program, to prioritize certain streets including Class 3 bicycle routes for bicycle/pedestrian activities only. The City closed these streets to traffic, excluding emergency vehicles and local traffic that must use the streets to access their final destination. On the Peninsula, San Mateo and Redwood City approved a similar program, while Foster City closed one lane of a stretch of northbound Beach Park Boulevard adjacent to the levee. DISCUSSION Staff has reviewed BPAC's request and consulted with staff from other cities that have implemented street closure programs. Staff believes a street closure program similar to the ones in San Mateo and Oakland can be implemented provided there is support from the affected residents on the street/block, and there is no risk of crowding of streets as recently occurred at 1 Council Direction Regarding a Pilot Program to Prioritize May 4, 2020 Local Streets for Neighborhood Use During the Coronavirus Pandemic County parks and beaches. If the Council wishes to consider implementing such a program, staff can develop a simple pilot in relatively short order. The general program details and process are: • Staff designates a list of streets that are eligible for closure to through traffic; local traffic for residents of the affected street, deliveries, emergency access, and garbage trucks would still be allowed. Staff's designation of streets would be based on traffic circulation needs, engineering assessments, logistics, safety, and best practices. For the pilot program, staff proposes the following streets for consideration: o Quesada Way: between Trousdale Drive and Davis Drive o Paloma Avenue: between Oak Grove Avenue and Palm Drive o Carolan Avenue: between Oak Grove Avenue and North Lane o Anita Road: between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue* o Balboa Avenue: between Ray Drive and Adeline Drive* * A portion of the block has residences on both sides of the street. • Each "eligible street" designates a block sponsor or block captain who is responsible for providing the neighbors on the block with informational flyers about the program (via email, phone, or in -person distribution from a safe distance). These flyers would include guidelines and restrictions of the program, as well as contact information in case of violations (see below). The block sponsor would also be responsible for the return of the signs and barricades after the Shelter -In -Place Order is lifted. • With the pilot program in place, each eligible street would have the following restrictions: o The street will be closed to auto through traffic (residents, emergency vehicles, essential visitors, and delivery vehicles will be allowed). o All non -auto traffic would be welcome, which means cyclists, pedestrians, joggers, scooters, skateboards, wheeled vehicles, etc. People from other neighborhoods will be allowed on the closed streets. o The speed limit would be lowered to 15 MPH for local essential neighborhood traffic (although unenforceable). o Residents agree to park off-street in driveways/garages as much as possible. o Residents agree to maintain safe social distancing and comply with County Health Orders. • The street closure will be terminated if: o The people using the street for recreation purposes do not comply with the County Health Order (social distancing and face coverings), and; o If the City receives three or more shut -down requests from residents of the closed street. • When the Shelter -In -Place is lifted, the block sponsor is responsible for returning barricades and signage to the Public Works Corporation Yard. 2 Council Direction Regarding a Pilot Program to Prioritize May 4, 2020 Local Streets for Neighborhood Use During the Coronavirus Pandemic • If Council wishes to pursue the pilot program as mentioned above, staff would create a webpage explaining the program and conduct outreach to the community through the eNews. As part of the pilot program implementation, staff would work closely with BPAC to: o Create and post a standardized PDF flyer on the City website that block sponsors can download and distribute to every neighbor on the block explaining what the voluntary block shut down is. o Prepare and install `Road Closed to Through Traffic' signage. o Field questions and track complaints/shut-down requests by address and communicate the nature of the complaint to the block sponsor so that they have an opportunity to remedy the problem. • The Police Department would occasionally patrol the participating blocks to monitor social distancing and the overall closure. Public Works staff would periodically review the program to ensure it is working as intended and not causing problems, and modify the program as warranted. If staff receives three requests from residents on a given block to terminate the pilot program, then the City will revoke the road closure and notify the block sponsor. If the program is successful, it can be expanded or terminated based on the results of the pilot program. FISCAL IMPACT If approved, the pilot program will require signage installation and staff time to develop and implement the program. This can be absorbed in the Public Works Department's operating budget. Exhibit: • BPAC Request to Consider Street Closures 3 PW/ENG-Stephanie Brewer To: COUNCIL -Emily Beach; lesley beatty; GRP-Council Cc: MGR-Lisa Goldman; PW/ENG-Syed Murtuza; PW/ENG-Andrew Wong; PW/ENG- Michael Tsai; GRP-TSP Commissioners; ATTY-Kathleen Kane Subject: Prioritize our streets for neighborhood use during COVID-19 From: lesley beatty Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:54 PM To: GRP-Council Cc: MGR-Lisa Goldman; PW/ENG-Syed Murtuza; PW/ENG-Andrew Wong; PW/ENG-Michael Tsai; GRP-TSP Commissioners Subject: Prioritize our streets for neighborhood use during COVID-19 Hello Mayor Beach, City Council members and city staff, I hope you are all well, and a heartfelt thanks for your hard work keeping our city running so smoothly during this time. Like many Burlingame residents, I've been out and about in my neighborhood every day for fresh air and exercise complying with the San Mateo County order that all such activities take place locally. It's crowded out there! The sidewalks are packed with other residents doing the same and in order to maintain proper social distance, many are spilling into the streets, or walking down the middle of them. Additionally, the streets are filled with cyclists, many of them new cyclists and families. At the same time, car traffic is down. However, statistics show that reckless driving is up. Accordingly, BPAC requests: That the city of Burlingame close certain Burlingame streets across the city to all but local auto traffic - thereby giving people safe options to get exercise and fresh air in their neighborhoods, both from a social distancing and traffic safety perspective. That the city of Burlingame look to other cities who have recently done this as a response to COVID-19 (Boston, Minneapolis, Denver, Oakland) for examples of how a program like this can be implemented so that it creates a network of streets where people can walk/bike safely but are not encouraged to congregate together. • That the city consider allowing residents to easily obtain street closure permits in order to reduce the stress on our city government - we know you guys are already stretched very thin. Thank you for any consideration and support you can give this request. Here's some background on the topic, as well as a recommended list of 5 streets to start with, and a more expanded list if a trial goes well. best, Lesley Beatty BPAC chair "Rebalancing Streets for People" Gwen Shaw and Jeremy Chrzan, Toole Design Wednesday, April S, 12pm-1pm CAM+ Metropolitan iranspo+tation Commission i DP.. design & pro What is "Quick Build". 0 REVERSIBLE, ADJUSTABLE 0 INCREMENTAL, LOW- 0 BUILDABLE WITHIN DAYS, WEEKS, 0 DESIGN TESTING AND AND/OR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC COST, RAPID MONTHS (DEMO, PILOT, INTERIM) PROTOTYPING: CAN BE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLATION UNDONE! e .::._ 006� Bike NWA Pilot Projects: Bella Vista, Rogers, and Bentonville, AR 40 CMI MetropolitanTransportalion Commission Public Plaza and Parking Lot Access Improvements, Santa Monica Quick Build Iebinar Goals • Initiate discussions on how this method can enhance social distancing in all neighborhoods in the Bay Area Support quick build as a project delivery method • Introduce best practices CFAT Metropolitan TranspartaUan COMMIS9inn Quick Build Webinar Goals • Facilitate conversations with local agencies • Acknowledge that City staff are resource -constrained right now during this public health crisis • Conduct a survey for needs assessment C^%* Metropolitan Traosportation Commission ►Tam' M F iiA'l-�iTi lqmqwq ; 14 Credit: Sergio Ruiz, tlickr A v A "' ri XL .'.M � " 4�2 rt..Z' Credit AFP via Getty Images 0 a � i sr7+:1w r 1111 Riding A Bike - Not Concelled Taking Hikes - No# Conn-elled Walking The Dog - No+ Conceded Chalking Your Sidewalk - No+ Goncelled Enjoying The Breeze - Not Cancelled Watching A Sunset - No+ Goncelled Let's embrace what we can do outdoors 4V Sligo Creek Parkway * April, Friday to Sunday Piney Branch Road to New Hampshire Avenue Closed to vehicles + Open for pedestrians f + 111!, "0.40 Respect the Radius: Keep six feet or more between you and others at all times. Traffic Data Implications ■ Traffic volumes are down ■ 30% drop In VMT in Bay Area ■ Peak hour volumes even louver Speeding is u ■ Bike crashes (in NYC) up 43% though motorist and pedestrian crashes down across the country TOOLE DESIGM SPEED DEMONS: The Scourge of Reckless Driving is Allay Worse Than We Thought By Gersh Xuntzman Apr 5, 2020 ! People are driving recklessly. Photo. Gush Kuntxman Think big — but also think small please maintain physical distancing ry.lp u� II- do -4ad nl CM- lA • TOOLE Credit- Brian Patterson DESIGN Lower Volume Streets — Local Traffic Only Ideas & Considerations �r7l ■ Prioritized for people walking 1 and biking ■ Minimal cones or barricades ■ Potential for DfY closures with online permitting ■ Maintain access for local trips ■ An important strategy where sidewalks are narrow and parking will not be removed TOOLE DE SIGN Jonathan Fertig 4rightle9pegged 42m IV "The only conflict that anyone has noticed in the 48 hours or so the roads have been closed to cars has been pedestrians yelling at drivers who they believe are not complying wl the road closure signs.'' I watched a dad pushing a stroller chew out a driver Denver's closed streets bring out people eager to break coronavirus qu... Street closures were put into place Saturday as a way of providing some relief to city parks that are getting heavy use from urban dwellers ... L' denverpost.com Photo credit @bblytherss, City of Winnipeg, @a rightlegpegged No Push Buttons Ideas & considerations - . 7cmiL-10-1 v 11"T me DO NOT PUSH THE BUTTON PEDESTRIAN CROSSING NOW AUTOMATED PLEASE WAIT Fog WA SIGNAL BEFORE CROSSING ■ Put signals on pedestrian recall r#. C!1 Rr — 040w�� paM'T PUSH THE BUTTON! PEOESTRIAN CROS�,NG NOW AUTOMATED WAIT FOR WALK SIGNAL BEFORE CROSSING Planning Considerations & Messaging ■ Routes aren't destinations ■ intended to provide space to move, not gather ■ Consider localized loops with the messaging that 1 loop is a 30-minute walk and 4 loops is a 30-minute bike ride @ 12mph ■ Consider access t❑ essential services ■ Providing active transportation routes can provide space for people to disperse in parks TOOLE DESIGN Planning Considerations and Messaging ■ Rebalance the Park Frontage Roads ■ Communicate the purpose and intended operations ■ Light exercise, not time trials ■ Consider space for pedestrians TOOLE DESIGN Photo credit: [7a StreetsblogMASS @a BCGP Community Engagement ■ How do you ensure the public has a voice in any decisions ■ Transparency around decisions ■ Solicit public input ■ Apply changes consistently across communities l'00LE DESIGN AARP Livable Communities 4AARPUvable • Aar 31 An important point that highlights the value of quality open and public spaces for people of all ages, of all demographics, and in all communities. #age'riendly 40 Salud America! 0 @SaludAmerica Mar 31 Walking and Biking Are Way Up During #COV!D19, Revealing Big Inequities in Open Spaces sa!ud.tolcovidwalk #healthequity . 4. Rapid Implementation Strategies for the Future ■ Requires Public Engagement ■ Not a complex, multi -step design process ■ Limited capital required ■ Can be done as part of resurfacing projects ■ Complete networks quickly ■ Support for permanent projects for the future TOOLE DESIGN Planning for the Future ■ This toe shall pass, but when? ■ This may be cyclical ■ A return to normal will likely be more gradual ■ Some people may telecommute more ■ Monitor use of temporary facilities and traffic as conditions change ■ Prepare for the future 100OLE DESIGN Social Distancing Might Stop. And Start. And Stop. And Start. Until We Have A Vaccine. "We need to figure out how we are going to live in a time of plague," said one doctor. Uau Vergauo j But:Feed News Rapo+ser Pasted on kpnl 1, 2020, at 4:15 p.m ET *`.u, r.nanNAVIRUS HFAI1w A SCIENCE The race for a COVID-19 vaccine: Fast, but fast enough? Atwainewithin11to18monthsis probnbltFi+otgoiifgtoltappetf. w gars a o B UP L IN C4 n'•: rs enay San vI F ryow + .: -- M IIa Pm naula Mr 1 Me Sol MILenler ft \I alai It oAi Frerciaw Alrym &ykh9LeEwjL MI It It It WUY It Y a,� 'Q'. oFnfEu�agd cy�� no cl V Broa yGnll Inc aei4k W M' �` 4 oNP oo� 6 0 st sa ,ryea`aa ,n �aa NP dt can y � A 40 /si'.e 1 4 q� _qJi, — oa Ira` tII o io JO tteIllu lgam w aem I of Pei me aEb% (—�-� Val /youlp Stone } sa7 7 NORTH SIDE OF BURLINGAME Terminal 1 ry� Bay Lanc±' el R Ir RI � Cf, ::efi Gri � Lun di's Oa High Scho Hyatt Regency man BURLINGAh'Fnncisc° Airpor+ VI Ile Mills-Peninsuia •� - l Medical Cent • •• •� 4 S Suitl �, • 9d�6 � � r,, 10 ' 1 . r�nciscoAir C e 01 d • • 4Zf it - -, tot � � Braat�wtly — sp • �d� • + t!z + En[buQga/ Ch • q Bran y GrKt Inc / 1 4 s • E • Mon:y High Sch&t [�a �4° �QfO4 * • Q� C G'a '7cs s4k Lo Ills Canyon w t 4 r ■ Sl SOUTH SIDE OF BURLINGAME/LYON HOAG/DOWNTOWN ��� f r f anG7�Si 7'til l� L 12 -51". San Mates I r '41 S- Leaflet I Alta PI BURL- INGAME AGENDA NO: 10c STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 4, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 4, 2020 From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director — (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment of the City Attorney's Employment Agreement to Provide a Salary Increase, and Approving the City of Burlingame Pay Rates and Ranges (Salary Schedule) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to City Attorney Kathleen Kane's employment agreement to increase her salary by 3% effective with her anniversary date with the City and amend the provision regarding termination, and authorizing the City of Burlingame pay rates and ranges for employees (salary schedule). BACKGROUND City Attorney Kathleen Kane began her service with the City of Burlingame on April 1, 2013. On April 20, 2020, the City Council met with Ms. Kane in closed session to review her performance after her seventh year in office. Per Paragraph 7, Employment Benefits, of the Employment Agreement, Ms. Kane receives the same benefits provided to City Department Heads. DISCUSSION Following their evaluation of her performance, Ms. Kane left the closed session, and the Council thereafter discussed her compensation. In recognition of Ms. Kane's positive performance evaluation, the City Council discussed at the April 20 closed session a proposal to increase the City Attorney's salary by 3%, the same percentage increase that the Department Heads and Unrepresented Employees received. In order to increase her salary, Section 5 of the employment agreement must be amended to increase the monthly salary from $19,376.88 per month to $19,958.19 per month effective with her anniversary date with the City. The Council also considered an amendment to Ms. Kane's employment agreement regarding termination. Paragraph 12, Termination of Agreement by City, reads "Pursuant to the Burlingame Municipal Code, the City may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, pursuant to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code." The parties agree to amend this language to read: 1 City Attorney Employment Agreement Amendment May 4, 2020 The City may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, pursuant to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code. However, the City may not terminate this Agreement within three months of the certification of results for a Council election, except for cause as defined in subparagraph (b), provisions (i) through (iv), below. If the City terminates this Agreement for any of the reasons outlined in provisions (ii)-(iv) of this subparagraph, the City shall provide written notice of such termination, which shall contain the factual basis upon which the City has made its determination. Ms. Kane is entitled to, and may elect to request, a public hearing before the Council on the City's determination as described in its termination notice. The proposed increase requires the City Council to authorize a new salary schedule that, once approved, will be made available to the public via the City of Burlingame website. FISCAL IMPACT The financial impact of this increase is approximately $14,400 per year, with an increase for the remainder of the current fiscal year of $2,500. The City Attorney's Office budget can absorb the increase using existing funds for the remainder of the current fiscal year. Exhibits: • Resolution • Seventh Amendment to City Attorney's Employment Agreement • City of Burlingame Salary Schedule 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A COST OF LIVING SALARY INCREASE OF 3%, AND REVISIONS TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SALARY SCHEDULE WHEREAS, City Attorney Kathleen Kane began her service with the City on April 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted performance evaluations for Ms. Kane upon completion of each year with the City, all of which have been positive; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined, following its evaluation on April 20, 2020, that a salary increase of 3% was warranted in recognition of Ms. Kane's successful performance, effective with her anniversary date with the City; and WHEREAS, paragraph 12, Termination of Agreement by City, has been amended to read: The City may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, pursuant to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code. However, the City may not terminate this Agreement within three months of the certification of results for a Council election, except for cause as defined in subparagraph (b), provisions (i) through (iv), below. If the City terminates this Agreement for any of the reasons outlined in provisions (ii)-(iv) of this subparagraph, the City shall provide written notice of such termination, which shall contain the factual basis upon which the City has made its determination. Ms. Kane is entitled to, and may elect to request, a public hearing before the Council on the City's determination as described in its termination notice; and WHEREAS, all other terms and conditions of Ms. Kane's employment are to remain as provided in her original employment agreement together with its applicable amendments; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Salary Schedule has been revised in accordance with this action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Burlingame authorizes the Mayor to execute the attached Seventh Amendment to Ms. Kane's City Attorney Employment Agreement, to increase Ms. Kane's gross salary by 3%, effective with her anniversary date with the City, and to amend the language of Paragraph 12, Termination of Employment by City, and leaving all other terms and conditions of employment as provided in the City Attorney Employment Agreement, and authorizes and adopts the City of Burlingame Salary Schedule. 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 4th day of May, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND KATHLEEN KANE FOR EMPLOYMENT AS CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME This amendment is entered into this day of May, 2020, by and between the City of Burlingame, a Municipal Corporation existing under the laws of the State of California, herein called the "City," and Kathleen Kane ("Ms. Kane"), as follows: RECITALS: A. Ms. Kane is currently serving as City Attorney for the City of Burlingame pursuant to that contract denominated "Agreement Between the City of Burlingame and Kathleen Kane for Employment as City Attorney of the City of Burlingame" ("Employment Agreement"), entered into on March 4, 2013. B. Ms. Kane has successfully completed her seventh year with the City. Based on her successful completion of her seventh year, the City Council determined that her salary should be increased by 3.0%, from $19,376.88 per month to $19,958.19 per month, effective with her anniversary date with the City. C. Paragraph 12, Termination of Agreement by City, is replaced with the following: The City may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, pursuant to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code. However, the City may not terminate this Agreement within three months of the certification of results for a Council election, except for cause as defined in subparagraph (b), provisions (i) through (iv), below. If the City terminates this Agreement for any of the reasons outlined in provisions (ii)-(iv) of this subparagraph, the City shall provide written notice of such termination, which shall contain the factual basis upon which the City has made its determination. Ms. Kane is entitled to, and may elect to request, a public hearing before the Council on the City's determination as described in its termination notice. D. Both parties are amenable to these changes and desire that all other terms and conditions of the existing Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect. AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: Paragraph 5, Monthly Compensation, of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to provide that the City shall pay Ms. Kane a salary of $19,958.19 per month. 2. Paragraph 12, Termination of Agreement by City, is amended as provided above. 3. All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Ms. Kane have executed this Amendment as of the date indicated above. CITY OF BURLINGAME Emily Beach, Mayor Attest: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk KATHLEEN KANE City of Burlingame Salary Schedule Amended 6/22/20* Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E A109 ACCOUNTANT I MONTHLY 6,906.32 7,249.43 7,604.13 7,988.98 8,387.73 BIWEEKLY 3,187.53 3,345.89 3,509.60 3,687.22 3,871.26 HRLY.RATE 39.84 41.82 43.87 46.09 48.39 A104 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT I MONTHLY 4,720.13 4,958.92 5,206.98 5,455.04 5,717.01 BIWEEKLY 2,178.52 2,288.73 2,403.22 2,517.71 2,638.62 HRLY.RATE 27.23 28.61 30.04 31.47 32.98 A160 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT II MONTHLY 5,206.98 5,455.04 5,717.01 5,981.30 6,275.73 BIWEEKLY 2,403.22 2,517.71 2,638.62 2,760.60 2,896.49 HRLY.RATE 30.04 31.47 32.98 34.51 36.21 A102 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT III MONTHLY 5,981.30 6,275.73 6,584.07 6,915.59 7,261.02 BIWEEKLY 2,760.60 2,896.49 3,038.80 3,191.81 3,351.24 HRLY.RATE 34.51 36.21 37.99 39.90 41.89 A103 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN MONTHLY 6,597.98 6,929.50 7,274.93 7,634.27 8,016.80 BIWEEKLY 3,045.22 3,198.23 3,357.66 3,523.51 3,700.06 HRLY.RATE 38.07 39.98 41.97 44.04 46.25 D202 ACTING POLICE CHIEF MONTHLY $16,580.49 $17,406.32 BIWEEKLY $7,652.53 $8,033.69 HRLY.RATE $95.66 $100.42 A105 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I MONTHLY 5,703.10 5,999.85 6,301.23 6,611.89 6,929.50 BIWEEKLY 2,632.20 2,769.16 2,908.26 3,051.64 3,198.23 HRLY.RATE 32.90 34.61 36.35 38.15 39.98 A100 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II MONTHLY 6,275.73 6,584.07 6,910.95 7,235.52 7,583.27 BIWEEKLY 2,896.49 3,038.80 3,189.67 3,339.47 3,499.97 HRLY.RATE 36.21 37.99 39.87 41.74 43.75 D502 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MONTHLY $12,333.09 $12,949.75 $13,597.23 $14,277.08 $14,990.92 BIWEEKLY $5,692.20 $5,976.81 $6,275.65 $6,589.42 $6,918.89 HRLY.RATE $71.15 $74.71 $78.45 $82.37 $86.49 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ D106 ADMIN. SVCS. DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,335.33 $13,986.39 $14,688.10 $15,415.18 $16,195.41 BIWEEKLY $6,154.77 $6,455.26 $6,779.12 $7,114.70 $7,474.81 HRLY.RATE $76.93 $80.69 $84.74 $88.93 $93.44 A605 ASSISTANT ENGINEER MONTHLY 8,093.30 8,487.42 8,890.81 9,356.79 9,829.73 BIWEEKLY 3,735.37 3,917.27 4,103.45 4,318.52 4,536.80 HRLY.RATE 46.69 48.97 51.29 53.98 56.71 B421 ASSISTANT PARKS SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,681.75 $8,065.85 $8,469.13 $8,892.59 $9,337.25 BIWEEKLY $3,545.42 $3,722.70 $3,908.83 $4,104.27 $4,309.50 HRLY.RATE $44.32 $46.53 $48.86 $51.30 $53.87 A111 ASSISTANT PLANNER MONTHLY 6,904.00 7,249.43 7,606.45 7,986.66 8,387.73 BIWEEKLY 3,186.46 3,345.89 3,510.67 3,686.15 3,871.26 HRLY.RATE 39.83 41.82 43.88 46.08 48.39 ASSISTANT TO THE CITY D300 MANAGER MONTHLY $9,392.61 $9,861.22 $10,353.61 $10,872.47 $11,417.81 BIWEEKLY $4,335.05 $4,551.33 $4,778.59 $5,018.06 $5,269.76 HRLY.RATE $54.19 $56.89 $59.73 $62.73 $65.87 A608 ASSOCIATE ENGINEER MONTHLY 8,900.08 9,335.93 9,781.05 10,298.04 10,817.34 BIWEEKLY 4,107.73 4,308.89 4,514.33 4,752.94 4,992.62 HRLY.RATE 51.35 53.86 56.43 59.41 62.41 A112 ASSOCIATE PLANNER MONTHLY 7,708.46 8,093.30 8,499.01 8,930.22 9,377.66 BIWEEKLY 3,557.75 3,735.37 3,922.62 4,121.64 4,328.15 HRLY.RATE 44.47 46.69 49.03 51.52 54.10 ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC B600 WORKS MONTHLY $13,051.73 $13,709.30 $14,369.45 $15,105.26 $15,861.97 BIWEEKLY $6,023.88 $6,327.37 $6,632.05 $6,971.66 $7,320.91 HRLY.RATE $75.30 $79.09 $82.90 $87.15 $91.51 S607 AUTOMOTIVE MECHANIC MONTHLY 6,355.25 6,666.95 6,998.84 7,350.92 7,727.66 BIWEEKLY 2,933.19 3,077.06 3,230.24 3,392.73 3,566.61 HRLY.RATE 36.66 38.46 40.38 42.41 44.58 A705 BUILDING ATTENDANT MONTHLY 3,804.39 3,989.85 4,196.18 4,407.15 4,620.44 BIWEEKLY 1,755.87 1,841.47 1,936.70 2,034.07 2,132.51 HRLY.RATE 21.95 23.02 24.21 25.43 26.66 A706 BUILDING ATTENDANT- CS MONTHLY 5,007.60 BIWEEKLY 2,311.20 HRLY.RATE 28.89 A603 BUILDING INSPECTOR I MONTHLY 7,655.14 8,016.80 8,436.42 8,835.17 9,259.42 BIWEEKLY 3,533.14 3,700.06 3,893.73 4,077.77 4,273.58 HRLY.RATE 44.16 46.25 48.67 50.97 53.42 A613 BUILDING INSPECTOR II MONTHLY 8,037.66 8,417.87 8,858.35 9,275.65 9,723.09 BIWEEKLY 3,709.69 3,885.17 4,088.47 4,281.07 4,487.58 HRLY.RATE 46.37 48.56 51.11 53.51 56.09 BUILDING MAINTENANCE A101 WORKER MONTHLY 5,807.43 6,115.76 6,363.83 6,697.67 7,026.87 BIWEEKLY 2,680.35 2,822.66 2,937.15 3,091.23 3,243.17 HRLY.RATE 33.50 35.28 36.71 38.64 40.54 5603 CCTV LEADWORKER MONTHLY 6,379.91 6,702.83 7,036.97 7,398.01 7,770.26 BIWEEKLY 2,944.58 3,093.62 3,247.83 3,414.47 3,586.28 HRLY.RATE 36.81 38.67 40.60 42.68 44.83 B604 CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL MONTHLY $11,186.10 $11,741.87 $12,321.15 $12,926.49 $13,568.39 BIWEEKLY $5,162.81 $5,419.33 $5,686.69 $5,966.07 $6,262.34 HRLY.RATE $64.54 $67.74 $71.08 $74.58 $78.28 D102 CITY ATTORNEY* MONTHLY $19,958.19 *Amended 41112020 BIWEEKLY $9,211.47 HRLY.RATE $115.14 D109 CITY CLERK MONTHLY $9,153.45 $9,552.65 $10,022.36 $10,505.06 $11,021.70 BIWEEKLY $4,224.67 $4,408.91 $4,625.71 $4,848.49 $5,086.94 HRLY.RATE $52.81 $55.11 $57.82 $60.61 $63.59 B602 CITY ENGINEER MONTHLY $12,041.19 $12,652.03 $13,262.79 $13,944.45 $14,639.79 BIWEEKLY $5,557.47 $5,839.40 $6,121.29 $6,435.90 $6,756.83 HRLY.RATE $69.47 $72.99 $76.52 $80.45 $84.46 D801 CITY LIBRARIAN MONTHLY $13,790.19 $14,520.79 $15,253.98 $16,018.55 $16,798.69 BIWEEKLY $6,364.70 $6,701.90 $7,040.30 $7,393.18 $7,753.24 HRLY.RATE $79.56 $83.77 $88.00 $92.41 $96.92 D200 CITY MANAGER MONTHLY $21,343.20 BIWEEKLY $9,850.70 HRLY.RATE $123.13 B103 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER MONTHLY $7,558.46 $7,934.80 $8,332.86 $8,747.33 $9,186.33 BIWEEKLY $3,488.52 $3,662.21 $3,845.93 $4,037.23 $4,239.84 HRLY.RATE $43.61 $45.78 $48.07 $50.47 $53.00 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER D110 AND SENIOR RISK ANALYST MONTHLY $8,003.28 $8,369.74 $8,790.33 $9,225.67 $9,688.06 0.9 FTE (36 hours/week) BIWEEKLY $3,693.82 $3,862.96 $4,057.08 $4,258.00 $4,471.41 HRLY.RATE $46.17 $48.29 $50.71 $53.23 $55.89 COMMUNICATION T900 DISPATCHER I COMMUNICATION T901 DISPATCHER II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D108 DIRECTOR D100 COUNCIL MEMBER A106 CUSTODIAN MONTHLY $6,205.74 $6,485.24 $6,794.55 $7,112.04 $7,462.11 BIWEEKLY $2,864.19 $2,993.19 $3,135.95 $3,282.48 $3,444.05 HRLY.RATE $35.80 $37.41 $39.20 $41.03 $43.05 MONTHLY $6,512.36 $6,797.28 $7,133.74 $7,462.11 $7,844.66 BIWEEKLY $3,005.70 $3,137.21 $3,292.50 $3,444.05 $3,620.61 HRLY.RATE $37.57 $39.22 $41.16 $43.05 $45.26 MONTHLY $13,904.99 $14,596.44 $15,329.65 $16,096.79 $16,897.87 BIWEEKLY $6,417.69 $6,736.82 $7,075.23 $7,429.29 $7,799.02 HRLY.RATE $80.22 $84.21 $88.44 $92.87 $97.49 MONTHLY BIWEEKLY HRLY.RATE MONTHLY BIWEEKLY HRLY.RATE $590.04 $272.33 $3.40 4,761.86 2,197.78 27.47 4,979.78 2,298.36 28.73 5,227.84 2,412.85 30.16 5,503.72 2,540.18 31.75 5,786.56 2,670.72 33.38 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC B603 WORKS OPERATIONS MONTHLY $11,948.13 $12,548.16 $13,172.86 $13,835.86 $14,520.79 BIWEEKLY $5,514.52 $5,791.46 $6,079.78 $6,385.78 $6,701.90 HRLY.RATE $68.93 $72.39 $76.00 $79.82 $83.77 B107 DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY $10,630.30 $11,162.61 $11,721.01 $12,302.86 $12,921.30 BIWEEKLY $4,906.29 $5,151.98 $5,409.70 $5,678.24 $5,963.68 HRLY.RATE $61.33 $64.40 $67.62 $70.98 $74.55 D501 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY MONTHLY $8,842.75 $9,284.90 $9,749.15 $10,236.58 $10,748.42 BIWEEKLY $4,081.27 $4,285.34 $4,499.61 $4,724.57 $4,960.81 HRLY.RATE $51.02 $53.57 $56.25 $59.06 $62.01 D600 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY $14,703.45 $15,436.65 $16,211.60 $17,020.51 $17,873.77 BIWEEKLY $6,786.21 $7,124.61 $7,482.27 $7,855.62 $8,249.43 HRLY.RATE $84.83 $89.06 $93.53 $98.20 $103.12 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A451 AND HOUSING SPECIALIST MONTHLY 8,417.87 8,839.81 9,282.61 9,746.27 10,233.12 BIWEEKLY 3,885.17 4,079.91 4,284.28 4,498.28 4,722.98 HRLY.RATE 48.56 51.00 53.55 56.23 59.04 B605 ELECTRICAL SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $8,529.22 $8,916.38 $9,369.03 $9,829.85 $10,323.38 BIWEEKLY $3,936.56 $4,115.25 $4,324.17 $4,536.85 $4,764.64 HRLY.RATE $49.21 $51.44 $54.05 $56.71 $59.56 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS/FIRE A301 EDUCATION SPECIALIST MONTHLY 6,516.84 6,827.49 7,168.29 7,536.90 7,898.56 BIWEEKLY 3,007.77 3,151.15 3,308.44 3,478.57 3,645.49 HRLY.RATE 37.60 39.39 41.36 43.48 45.57 A604 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II MONTHLY 6,491.33 6,820.54 7,168.29 7,520.67 7,891.61 BIWEEKLY 2,996.00 3,147.94 3,308.44 3,471.08 3,642.28 HRLY.RATE 37.45 39.35 41.36 43.39 45.53 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY COMPLIANCE A625 MANAGER MONTHLY 7,316.66 7,678.32 8,067.80 8,466.55 8,890.81 BIWEEKLY 3,376.92 3,543.84 3,723.60 3,907.64 4,103.45 HRLY.RATE 42.21 44.30 46.55 48.85 51.29 D105 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT MONTHLY $6,695.49 $7,000.74 $7,360.85 $7,728.77 $8,117.53 BIWEEKLY $3,090.22 $3,231.11 $3,397.31 $3,567.12 $3,746.55 HRLY.RATE $38.63 $40.39 $42.47 $44.59 $46.83 FACILITIES AND FLEET B900 DIVISION MANAGER MONTHLY $9,085.46 $9,540.80 $10,017.98 $10,519.69 $11,043.24 BIWEEKLY $4,193.29 $4,403.45 $4,623.68 $4,855.24 $5,096.88 HRLY.RATE $52.42 $55.04 $57.80 $60.69 $63.71 FACILITIES & FLEET B611 SUPERVISOR MONTHLY 7,999.00 8,398.16 8,822.00 9,263.77 9,723.48 BIWEEKLY 3,691.85 3,876.08 4,071.69 4,275.59 4,487.76 HRLY.RATE 46.15 48.45 50.90 53.44 56.10 5704 FACILITIES LEADWORKER MONTHLY 6,379.91 6,702.83 7,036.97 7,398.01 7,770.26 BIWEEKLY 2,944.58 3,093.62 3,247.83 3,414.47 3,586.28 HRLY.RATE 36.81 38.67 40.60 42.68 44.83 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE S703 WORKER MONTHLY 5,805.83 6,108.57 6,370.94 6,702.83 7,025.75 BIWEEKLY 2,679.62 2,819.34 2,940.44 3,093.62 3,242.66 HRLY.RATE 33.50 35.24 36.76 38.67 40.53 D103 FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY $14,570.35 $15,298.36 $16,057.66 $16,866.55 $17,706.76 BIWEEKLY $6,724.78 $7,060.78 $7,411.23 $7,784.56 $8,172.35 HRLY.RATE $84.06 $88.26 $92.64 $97.31 $102.15 B606 FLEET MANAGER MONTHLY $8,880.93 $9,330.85 $9,794.38 $10,282.46 $10,795.06 BIWEEKLY $4,098.89 $4,306.55 $4,520.48 $4,745.75 $4,982.34 HRLY.RATE $51.24 $53.83 $56.51 $59.32 $62.28 A805 GRAPHICARTIST MONTHLY 5,761.06 6,048.53 6,349.92 6,667.53 7,001.37 BIWEEKLY 2,658.95 2,791.63 2,930.73 3,077.32 3,231.40 HRLY.RATE 33.24 34.90 36.63 38.47 40.39 A614 GREEN BUILDING SPECIALIST MONTHLY 6,667.53 7,001.37 7,356.07 7,717.73 8,104.89 BIWEEKLY 3,077.32 3,231.40 3,395.11 3,562.03 3,740.72 HRLY.RATE 38.47 40.39 42.44 44.53 46.76 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST D107 II MONTHLY $7,840.95 $8,234.98 $8,628.98 $9,069.95 $9,526.59 BIWEEKLY $3,618.90 $3,800.76 $3,982.60 $4,186.13 $4,396.89 HRLY.RATE $45.24 $47.51 $49.78 $52.33 $54.96 HUMAN RESOURCES D805 DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,717.09 $14,445.09 $15,170.48 $15,929.78 $16,712.59 BIWEEKLY $6,330.97 $6,666.97 $7,001.76 $7,352.21 $7,713.50 HRLY.RATE $79.14 $83.34 $87.52 $91.90 $96.42 HUMAN RESOURCES D400 TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,965.93 $6,247.14 $6,553.67 $6,880.44 $7,240.18 BIWEEKLY $2,753.51 $2,883.30 $3,024.77 $3,175.59 $3,341.62 HRLY.RATE $34.42 $36.04 $37.81 $39.69 $41.77 INSTRUMENTATION 5610 MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN MONTHLY 6,379.91 6,702.83 7,036.97 7,398.01 7,770.26 BIWEEKLY 2,944.58 3,093.62 3,247.83 3,414.47 3,586.28 HRLY.RATE 36.81 38.67 40.60 42.68 44.83 IRRIGATION REPAIR S404 SPECIALIST MONTHLY 5,781.17 6,052.51 6,355.25 6,666.95 6,998.84 BIWEEKLY 2,668.23 2,793.47 2,933.19 3,077.06 3,230.24 HRLY.RATE 33.35 34.92 36.66 38.46 40.38 A606 JUNIOR ENGINEER MONTHLY 7,349.12 7,699.19 8,093.30 8,487.42 8,890.81 BIWEEKLY 3,391.90 3,553.47 3,735.37 3,917.27 4,103.45 HRLY.RATE 42.40 44.42 46.69 48.97 51.29 S605 LABORER MONTHLY 5,191.39 5,453.76 5,758.74 6,027.84 6,317.12 BIWEEKLY 2,396.03 2,517.12 2,657.88 2,782.08 2,915.60 HRLY.RATE 29.95 31.46 33.22 34.78 36.44 5608 LEAD EQUIPMENT MECHANIC MONTHLY 6,673.48 6,998.82 7,349.40 7,717.62 8,113.59 BIWEEKLY 3,080.06 3,230.23 3,392.03 3,561.98 3,744.74 HRLY.RATE 38.50 40.38 42.40 44.53 46.81 A801 LIBRARIAN I MONTHLY 6,041.58 6,333.69 6,625.80 6,964.27 7,295.80 BIWEEKLY 2,788.42 2,923.24 3,058.06 3,214.28 3,367.29 HRLY.RATE 34.86 36.54 38.23 40.18 42.09 A800 LIBRARIAN II MONTHLY 6,651.30 6,982.82 7,318.98 7,676.00 8,077.07 BIWEEKLY 3,069.83 3,222.84 3,377.99 3,542.77 3,727.88 HRLY.RATE 38.37 40.29 42.22 44.28 46.60 B801 LIBRARIAN III MONTHLY $8,185.59 $8,594.64 $9,009.09 $9,475.38 $9,938.90 BIWEEKLY $3,777.97 $3,966.76 $4,158.04 $4,373.25 $4,587.19 HRLY.RATE $47.22 $49.58 $51.98 $54.67 $57.34 A804 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I MONTHLY 4,627.39 4,866.18 5,107.29 5,341.44 5,621.96 BIWEEKLY 2,135.72 2,245.93 2,357.21 2,465.28 2,594.75 HRLY.RATE 26.70 28.07 29.47 30.82 32.43 A803 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II MONTHLY 5,162.93 5,392.44 5,682.24 5,937.25 6,229.36 BIWEEKLY 2,382.89 2,488.82 2,622.57 2,740.27 2,875.09 HRLY.RATE 29.79 31.11 32.78 34.25 35.94 A802 LIBRARY ASSISTANT III MONTHLY 5,763.38 6,025.35 6,340.64 6,655.94 6,968.91 BIWEEKLY 2,660.02 2,780.93 2,926.45 3,071.97 3,216.42 HRLY.RATE 33.25 34.76 36.58 38.40 40.21 LIBRARY CIRCULATION B803 SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $6,456.88 $6,762.28 $7,081.28 $7,452.12 $7,795.67 BIWEEKLY $2,980.10 $3,121.05 $3,268.28 $3,439.44 $3,598.00 HRLY.RATE $37.25 $39.01 $40.85 $42.99 $44.98 B805 LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER MONTHLY $9,543.54 $10,031.59 $10,527.85 $11,056.87 $11,629.46 BIWEEKLY $4,404.71 $4,629.96 $4,859.01 $5,103.17 $5,367.44 HRLY.RATE $55.06 $57.87 $60.74 $63.79 $67.09 5606 MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN MONTHLY 7,119.94 7,476.50 7,857.72 8,250.16 8,667.26 BIWEEKLY 3,286.13 3,450.69 3,626.64 3,807.77 4,000.28 HRLY.RATE 41.08 43.13 45.33 47.60 50.00 B610 MANAGEMENT ANALYST MONTHLY $8,275.57 $8,653.50 $9,089.81 $9,539.99 $10,017.96 BIWEEKLY $3,819.49 $3,993.92 $4,195.30 $4,403.07 $4,623.67 HRLY.RATE $47.74 $49.92 $52.44 $55.04 $57.80 A120 MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT MONTHLY 6,880.81 7,226.25 7,583.27 7,965.79 8,362.23 BIWEEKLY 3,175.76 3,335.19 3,499.97 3,676.52 3,859.49 HRLY.RATE 39.70 41.69 43.75 45.96 48.24 A107 OFFICE ASSISTANT I MONTHLY 4,532.34 4,761.86 5,000.65 5,237.12 5,522.27 BIWEEKLY 2,091.85 2,197.78 2,307.99 2,417.13 2,548.74 HRLY.RATE 26.15 27.47 28.85 30.21 31.86 A670 OFFICE ASSISTANT II MONTHLY 4,963.55 5,190.75 5,450.40 5,721.65 5,983.62 BIWEEKLY 2,290.87 2,395.73 2,515.57 2,640.76 2,761.67 HRLY.RATE 28.64 29.95 31.44 33.01 34.52 PARK MAINTENANCE 5401 LEADWORKER MONTHLY 6,379.91 6,702.83 7,036.97 7,398.01 7,770.26 BIWEEKLY 2,944.58 3,093.62 3,247.83 3,414.47 3,586.28 HRLY.RATE 36.81 38.67 40.60 42.68 44.83 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER S407 I MONTHLY 5,213.81 5,453.76 5,758.74 6,027.84 6,317.12 BIWEEKLY 2,406.38 2,517.12 2,657.88 2,782.08 2,915.60 HRLY.RATE 30.08 31.46 33.22 34.78 36.44 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER 5406 II MONTHLY 5,453.76 5,758.74 6,027.84 6,317.12 6,628.83 BIWEEKLY 2,517.12 2,657.88 2,782.08 2,915.60 3,059.46 HRLY.RATE 31.46 33.22 34.78 36.44 38.24 PARKING ENFORCEMENT A201 OFFICER MONTHLY 5,065.56 5,306.67 5,568.64 5,851.47 6,143.58 BIWEEKLY 2,337.95 2,449.23 2,570.14 2,700.68 2,835.50 HRLY.RATE 29.22 30.62 32.13 33.76 35.44 A200 PARKING SYSTEM TECHNICIAN MONTHLY 5,503.72 5,786.56 6,053.17 6,347.60 6,665.21 BIWEEKLY 2,540.18 2,670.72 2,793.77 2,929.66 3,076.25 HRLY.RATE 31.75 33.38 34.92 36.62 38.45 PARKS & RECREATION D705 DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,790.19 $14,520.79 $15,253.98 $16,018.55 $16,798.69 BIWEEKLY $6,364.70 $6,701.90 $7,040.30 $7,393.18 $7,753.24 HRLY.RATE $79.56 $83.77 $88.00 $92.41 $96.92 PARKS SUPERINTENDENT/CITY B410 ARBORIST MONTHLY $9,873.62 $10,385.02 $10,891.25 $11,441.81 $12,034.12 BIWEEKLY $4,557.06 $4,793.09 $5,026.73 $5,280.84 $5,554.21 HRLY.RATE $56.96 $59.91 $62.83 $66.01 $69.43 B420 PARKS SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $8,199.25 $8,616.43 $9,049.99 $9,505.38 $10,091.61 BIWEEKLY $3,784.27 $3,976.82 $4,176.92 $4,387.10 $4,657.67 HRLY.RATE $47.30 $49.71 $52.21 $54.84 $58.22 PARKS SUPERVISOR/CITY B430 ARBORIST MONTHLY $8,398.32 $8,831.88 $9,268.14 $9,728.96 $10,328.82 BIWEEKLY $3,876.15 $4,076.25 $4,277.60 $4,490.29 $4,767.15 HRLY.RATE $48.45 $50.95 $53.47 $56.13 $59.59 A114 PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR MONTHLY 6,906.32 7,249.43 7,604.13 7,988.98 8,387.73 BIWEEKLY 3,187.53 3,345.89 3,509.60 3,687.22 3,871.26 HRLY.RATE 39.84 41.82 43.87 46.09 48.39 A609 PERMIT TECHNICIAN MONTHLY 6,062.44 6,361.51 6,688.39 7,015.28 7,363.03 BIWEEKLY 2,798.05 2,936.08 3,086.95 3,237.82 3,398.32 HRLY.RATE 34.98 36.70 38.59 40.47 42.48 A108 PLANNER MONTHLY 7,708.46 8,090.98 8,503.65 8,900.08 9,356.79 BIWEEKLY 3,557.75 3,734.30 3,924.76 4,107.73 4,318.52 HRLY.RATE 44.47 46.68 49.06 51.35 53.98 D104 PLANNING DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,646.68 $14,319.88 $15,045.24 $15,593.20 $16,574.32 BIWEEKLY $6,298.47 $6,609.18 $6,943.96 $7,196.86 $7,649.69 HRLY.RATE $78.73 $82.61 $86.80 $89.96 $95.62 B111 PLANNING MANAGER MONTHLY $10,812.96 $11,353.09 $11,916.67 $12,514.22 $13,143.05 BIWEEKLY $4,990.60 $5,239.89 $5,500.00 $5,775.80 $6,066.02 HRLY.RATE $62.38 $65.50 $68.75 $72.20 $75.83 POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE A205 SERVICES COORDINATOR MONTHLY 5,914.07 6,208.50 6,514.52 6,822.86 7,149.74 BIWEEKLY 2,729.57 2,865.46 3,006.70 3,149.01 3,299.88 HRLY.RATE 34.12 35.82 37.58 39.36 41.25 M200 POLICE CAPTAIN MONTHLY $13,145.75 $13,784.25 $14,386.52 $15,095.20 $15,828.79 BIWEEKLY $6,067.27 $6,361.96 $6,639.93 $6,967.02 $7,305.60 HRLY.RATE $75.84 $79.52 $83.00 $87.09 $91.32 D201 POLICE CHIEF MONTHLY $15,887.33 $16,679.44 $17,511.43 $18,377.92 $19,302.96 BIWEEKLY $7,332.62 $7,698.20 $8,082.20 $8,482.12 $8,909.06 HRLY.RATE $91.66 $96.23 $101.03 $106.03 $111.36 A202 POLICE CLERK I MONTHLY 4,720.13 4,958.92 5,206.98 5,455.04 5,717.01 BIWEEKLY 2,178.52 2,288.73 2,403.22 2,517.71 2,638.62 HRLY.RATE 27.23 28.61 30.04 31.47 32.98 A203 POLICE CLERK II MONTHLY 5,206.98 5,455.04 5,717.01 5,981.30 6,275.73 BIWEEKLY 2,403.22 2,517.71 2,638.62 2,760.60 2,896.49 HRLY.RATE 30.04 31.47 32.98 34.51 36.21 A204 POLICE CLERK III MONTHLY 7,226.25 BIWEEKLY 3,335.19 HRLY.RATE 41.69 M202 POLICE LIEUTENANT MONTHLY $11,248.62 $11,808.33 $12,401.11 $13,019.87 $13,671.69 BIWEEKLY $5,191.67 $5,450.00 $5,723.59 $6,009.17 $6,310.01 HRLY.RATE $64.90 $68.13 $71.54 $75.11 $78.88 P200 POLICE OFFICER MONTHLY $7,774.61 $8,202.07 $8,572.85 $9,023.93 $9,453.75 BIWEEKLY $3,588.28 $3,785.57 $3,956.70 $4,164.89 $4,363.27 HRLY.RATE $44.85 $47.32 $49.46 $52.06 $54.54 P201 POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE MONTHLY $7,481.26 BIWEEKLY $3,452.89 HRLY.RATE $43.16 M201 POLICE SERGEANT MONTHLY $9,444.31 $9,890.66 $10,381.89 $10,910.90 $11,465.89 BIWEEKLY $4,358.91 $4,564.92 $4,791.64 $5,035.80 $5,291.95 HRLY.RATE $54.49 $57.06 $59.90 $62.95 $66.15 B201 POLICE SERVICES MANAGER MONTHLY $9,480.82 $9,954.88 $10,452.62 $10,975.25 $11,524.02 BIWEEKLY $4,375.77 $4,594.56 $4,824.29 $5,065.50 $5,318.78 HRLY.RATE $54.70 $57.43 $60.30 $63.32 $66.48 A711 PROGRAM COORDINATOR MONTHLY 4,124.32 4,328.33 4,541.62 4,766.49 5,007.60 BIWEEKLY 1,903.53 1,997.69 2,096.13 2,199.92 2,311.20 HRLY.RATE 23.79 24.97 26.20 27.50 28.89 PROJECT MANAGER/GIS A610 COORDINATOR MONTHLY 11,359.83 BIWEEKLY 5,243.00 HRLY.RATE 65.54 A611 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR MONTHLY 7,631.95 8,007.52 8,413.23 8,832.85 9,280.29 BIWEEKLY 3,522.44 3,695.78 3,883.03 4,076.70 4,283.21 HRLY.RATE 44.03 46.20 48.54 50.96 53.54 A701 RECREATION COORDINATOR MONTHLY 5,951.16 6,236.32 6,530.75 6,855.31 7,196.11 BIWEEKLY 2,746.69 2,878.30 3,014.19 3,163.99 3,321.28 HRLY.RATE 34.33 35.98 37.68 39.55 41.52 RECREATION B710 SUPERINTENDENT MONTHLY $9,543.54 $10,034.33 $10,527.85 $11,062.32 $11,632.19 BIWEEKLY $4,404.71 $4,631.23 $4,859.01 $5,105.69 $5,368.70 HRLY.RATE $55.06 $57.89 $60.74 $63.82 $67.11 B711 RECREATION MANAGER MONTHLY $8,812.96 $9,276.80 $9,765.05 $10,279.00 $10,820.00 BIWEEKLY $4,067.52 $4,281.60 $4,506.95 $4,744.15 $4,993.85 B700 RECREATION SUPERVISOR B106 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT SENIOR BUILDING A602 INSPECTOR/PLAN CHECKER B601 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER A113 SENIOR PLANNER HRLY.RATE $50.84 $53.52 MONTHLY $8,035.64 $8,452.83 BIWEEKLY $3,708.76 $3,901.31 HRLY.RATE $46.36 $48.77 MONTHLY $7,539.20 $7,933.80 BIWEEKLY $3,479.63 $3,661.75 HRLY.RATE $43.50 $45.77 $56.34 $59.30 $62.42 $8,842.77 $9,306.30 $9,769.85 $4,081.28 $4,295.22 $4,509.16 $51.02 $53.69 $56.36 $8,356.18 $8,792.46 $9,256.57 $3,856.70 $4,058.06 $4,272.26 $48.21 $50.73 $53.40 MONTHLY 8,587.11 9,011.36 9,437.94 9,938.70 10,439.46 BIWEEKLY 3,963.28 4,159.09 4,355.97 4,587.09 4,818.21 HRLY.RATE 49.54 51.99 54.45 57.34 60.23 MONTHLY $11,465.85 $12,038.48 $12,643.80 $13,273.66 $13,941.71 BIWEEKLY $5,291.93 $5,556.22 $5,835.60 $6,126.31 $6,434.64 HRLY.RATE $66.15 $69.45 $72.95 $76.58 $80.43 MONTHLY $9,539.94 $10,012.88 $10,511.32 $11,037.59 $11,593.99 BIWEEKLY $4,403.05 $4,621.33 $4,851.38 $5,094.27 $5,351.07 HRLY.RATE $55.04 $57.77 $60.64 $63.68 $66.89 SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS A607 INSPECTOR MONTHLY 8,475.83 8,900.08 9,335.93 9,781.05 10,298.04 BIWEEKLY 3,911.92 4,107.73 4,308.89 4,514.33 4,752.94 HRLY.RATE 48.90 51.35 53.86 56.43 59.41 B608 STREET & SEWER SUPERVISOR MONTHLY 7,999.00 8,398.16 8,822.00 9,263.77 9,723.48 BIWEEKLY 3,691.85 3,876.08 4,071.69 4,275.59 4,487.76 HRLY.RATE 46.15 48.45 50.90 53.44 56.10 STREET, SEWER & DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE S604 WORKER MONTHLY 5,453.76 5,758.74 6,027.84 6,317.12 6,628.83 BIWEEKLY 2,517.12 2,657.88 2,782.08 2,915.60 3,059.46 HRLY.RATE 31.46 33.22 34.78 36.44 38.24 STREET, SEWER AND 5601 DOWNTOWN LEADWORKER MONTHLY 6,379.91 6,702.83 7,036.97 7,398.01 7,770.26 BIWEEKLY 2,944.58 3,093.62 3,247.83 3,414.47 3,586.28 HRLY.RATE 36.81 38.67 40.60 42.68 44.83 STREETS, STORM DRAINS, AND B607 SEWER DIVISIONS MANAGER MONTHLY $9,085.46 $9,540.80 $10,017.98 $10,519.69 $11,043.24 BIWEEKLY $4,193.29 $4,403.45 $4,623.68 $4,855.24 $5,096.88 HRLY.RATE $52.42 $55.04 $57.80 $60.69 $63.71 SUSTAINABILITY A115 COORDINATOR MONTHLY $8,291.36 $8,706.99 $9,141.14 $9,599.11 $10,078.31 BIWEEKLY $3,826.78 $4,018.61 $4,218.99 $4,430.36 $4,651.53 HRLY.RATE $47.83 $50.23 $52.74 $55.38 $58.14 TRAFFIC SIGN & PAINT S602 LEADWORKER MONTHLY 6,379.91 6,702.83 7,036.97 7,398.01 7,770.26 BIWEEKLY 2,944.58 3,093.62 3,247.83 3,414.47 3,586.28 HRLY.RATE 36.81 38.67 40.60 42.68 44.83 A601 TRAFFIC -CIVIL ENGINEER MONTHLY 8,487.42 8,890.81 9,356.79 9,829.73 10,325.86 BIWEEKLY 3,917.27 4,103.45 4,318.52 4,536.80 4,765.78 HRLY.RATE 48.97 51.29 53.98 56.71 59.57 A600 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER MONTHLY 9,785.69 10,279.49 10,794.16 11,329.70 11,904.64 BIWEEKLY 4,516.47 4,744.38 4,981.92 5,229.09 5,494.45 HRLY.RATE 56.46 59.30 62.27 65.36 68.68 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM A612 MANAGER MONTHLY 9,915.51 10,416.27 10,928.62 11,480.39 12,053.02 BIWEEKLY 4,576.39 4,807.51 5,043.98 5,298.64 5,562.93 HRLY.RATE 57.20 60.09 63.05 66.23 69.54 S405 TREE LEADWORKER MONTHLY 6,379.91 6,702.83 7,036.97 7,398.01 7,770.26 BIWEEKLY 2,944.58 3,093.62 3,247.83 3,414.47 3,586.28 HRLY.RATE 36.81 38.67 40.60 42.68 44.83 5409 TREE MAINTENANCE WORKER MONTHLY 5,590.55 5,908.99 6,178.09 6,476.34 6,794.78 BIWEEKLY 2,580.26 2,727.23 2,851.43 2,989.08 3,136.05 HRLY.RATE 32.25 34.09 35.64 37.36 39.20 5411 TREE WORKER MONTHLY 5,769.95 6,041.30 6,346.28 6,657.98 6,994.36 BIWEEKLY 2,663.06 2,788.29 2,929.05 3,072.92 3,228.17 HRLY.RATE 33.29 34.85 36.61 38.41 40.35 UTILITIES S400 INSPECTOR/LOCATOR MONTHLY 6,379.91 6,702.83 7,036.97 7,398.01 7,770.26 BIWEEKLY 2,944.58 3,093.62 3,247.83 3,414.47 3,586.28 HRLY.RATE 36.81 38.67 40.60 42.68 44.83 B500 WATER DIVISION MANAGER MONTHLY $9,085.46 $9,540.80 $10,017.98 $10,519.69 $11,043.24 BIWEEKLY $4,193.29 $4,403.45 $4,623.68 $4,855.24 $5,096.88 HRLY.RATE $52.42 $55.04 $57.80 $60.69 $63.71 WATER MAINTENANCE S501 LEADWORKER MONTHLY 6,379.91 6,702.83 7,036.97 7,398.01 7,770.26 BIWEEKLY 2,944.58 3,093.62 3,247.83 3,414.47 3,586.28 HRLY.RATE 36.81 38.67 40.60 42.68 44.83 WATER MAINTENANCE S503 WORKER MONTHLY 5,453.76 5,758.74 6,027.84 6,317.12 6,628.83 BIWEEKLY 2,517.12 2,657.88 2,782.08 2,915.60 3,059.46 HRLY.RATE 31.46 33.22 34.78 36.44 38.24 S502 WATER METER REPAIRER MONTHLY 5,507.58 5,772.20 6,048.02 6,350.76 6,666.95 BIWEEKLY 2,541.96 2,664.09 2,791.40 2,931.12 3,077.06 HRLY.RATE 31.77 33.30 34.89 36.64 38.46 B501 WATER OPERATIONS SUPERVIS MONTHLY 7,999.00 8,398.16 8,822.00 9,263.77 9,723.48 BIWEEKLY 3,691.85 3,876.08 4,071.69 4,275.59 4,487.76 HRLY.RATE 46.15 48.45 50.90 53.44 56.10 WATER QUALITY AND METER S508 LEAD WORKER MONTHLY 6,379.91 6,702.83 7,036.97 7,398.01 7,770.26 BIWEEKLY 2,944.58 3,093.62 3,247.83 3,414.47 3,586.28 HRLY.RATE 36.81 38.67 40.60 42.68 44.83 WATER QUALITY AND METER S507 TECHNICIAN MONTHLY 5,758.74 6,045.78 6,348.52 6,666.95 6,998.84 BIWEEKLY 2,657.88 2,790.36 2,930.09 3,077.06 3,230.24 HRLY.RATE 33.22 34.88 36.63 38.46 40.38 B503 WATER QUALITY SUPERVISOR MONTHLY 7,999.00 BIWEEKLY 3,691.85 HRLY.RATE 46.15 8,398.16 3,876.08 48.45 8,822.00 4,071.69 50.90 WATER SERVICE & S505 OPERATIONS TECHNICIAN MONTHLY 6,379.91 6,702.83 7,036.97 BIWEEKLY 2,944.58 3,093.62 3,247.83 HRLY.RATE 36.81 38.67 40.60 A110 ZONING TECHNICIAN MONTHLY 6,579.43 6,897.04 7,237.84 BIWEEKLY 3,036.66 3,183.25 3,340.54 HRLY.RATE 37.96 39.79 41.76 NOTES All positions are 40-hour week, unless otherwise noted Effective 6/26/2017 612612017 3% salary increase for all AFSCME bargaining unit positions, per applicable MOUs 9,263.77 9,723.48 4,275.59 4,487.76 53.44 56.10 7,398.01 7,770.26 3,414.47 3,586.28 42.68 44.83 7,606.45 7,977.39 3,510.67 3,681.87 43.88 46.02 Amended 7110117 FY2017-18 budget classification and compensation revisions Amended 8121117 classification and compensation revisions Amended 9118117 classification and compensation revisions Amended 12125117 3% salary increase Department Head and Unrepresented Unit, Teamsters, AFSCME BAMM, 2% salary increase POA, Police Sergeants, Police Sergaeants, Police Administrators Units, per applicable MOUs 3% salary increase City Manager, per employment agreement Amended 612512018 3% salary increase for AFSCME Admin and Maint bargaining unit, per applicable MOUs 3% salary increase City Attorney, per employment agreement Amended 9117118 classification and compensation revisions Amended 121241187 3% salary increase Department Head and Unrepresented Unit, AFSCME BAMM, 5% salary increase POA, Police Sergeants, Police Sergeants, Police Administrators Units, per applicable MOUs 4% salary increase City Manager, per employment agreement Amended 1121119 4.5% salary increase Teamsters Unit, effective 1212412018 Amended 3113119 classification and compensation revisions Amended 6117119 adding Environmental Regulatory Compliance Manager Amended 6117119 4.5% salary increase AFSCME Admin Unit, effective 6124119 per applicable MOU Amended 8119119 4.5% salary increase AFSCME Maintenance Unit, effective 8119119 per applicable MOU Amended 12123119 3% salary increase Department Head and Unrepresented Unit 2.5% Teamsters, per applicable MOU 4% salary increase POA, Police Sergeants, Police Administrators, per applicable MOUs 4.5% AFSCME BAM, per applicable MOU Amended 11612020 3% salary increase City Manager, effective 12123119 Amended 211812020 to include new classifications Amended 612212020 2.5% salary increase for AFSCME Admin and Maint bargaining unit, per applicable MOUs 3% salary increase City Attorney, per employment agreement (effective 41112020) Adding new classifications 11a BIJRLIfVGANlE Memorandum To: City Council Date: May 4, 2020 From: Mayor Emily Beach Subject: Committee Report Thursday, 4/17-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. Each 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 Thursday,4/16 Commute.org Board of Directors Meeting Shuttle service reduced to align with 45% reduction in Caltrain service, SO% reduction BART service Shuttles still considered essential service, so riders appreciate availability Bike to Work Week rescheduled for 9/24 San Mateo County Labor Council Union Food Distribution Grab & Go 300 boxes of food distributed on Rollins Road for unemployed Union members Thank you Burlingame Police for managing the traffic control so effectively! SMC Express Lanes Meeting regarding $100m SMCTA loan to fund construction Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting • 400 recreation program participants made donations of the remainder of their fees directly to instructors, rather than requesting refunds • Parks staff monitoring parks & playground social distancing • 30 recreation programs operating virtually for spring enrollment; staff operating virtual recreation center • Staff working hard to move out of recreation center by May 1st for construction • Challenge: summer programing unknown; will respond to evolving Shelter in Place orders. Difficult for staff to plan camps that provide childcare. Beach Committee Report May 4, 2020 Friday. 4/17 Constituent meetings: concern about wireless small -cell infrastructure Safe Streets Brainstorm with constituents County Elected Call Monday, 4/20 City Council Meeting • Special thanks to colleagues (Brownrigg/Colson/Ortiz) for their hard work preparing for and leading our small business support discussion County Elected Call Tuesday, 4/21 Discussion Burlingame -wide Graduation Celebration Hosted Virtual Constituent Coffee & Conversation (Q&A) Weekly Event Hot topics included • Construction violations • Garden restrictions • Restaurants claiming parking for their take-out customers only • Safe streets/ social distancing request mask distribution Attended Burlingame Library Trustee Meeting • Staff / regional library Directors thinking through when time comes to re -open, how to keep public safe and clean high -touch materials • Virtual/phone hub/reference desk supporting our community • Many e-books being used • Speaker series on hold • Library printing 3D masks for Health Care workers Wednesday, 4/22 Participated in Thank You Appreciation Event for Healthcare Heroes at Mills Hospital with Councilmember Colson Attended Earth Day Celebration with Committee for Green Foothills featuring reflections from 1972 Earth Day Co -Chair, Congressman McCloskey County Elected Call Thursday, 4/23 League of California Cities State-wide Board of Directors Meeting 2 Beach Committee Report May 4, 2020 Burlingame Graduation Celebration Coordination Meeting Friday, 4/24 County Elected Call San Mateo County Express Lanes meeting regarding SMCTA Loan Monday, 4/27 Congestion Management and Environmental Quality Committee Meeting (CMEQ) • Discussed joint C/CAG SMCTA Call for Shuttles. Supported recommendations with requirements for safe health protocols, and willingness to re-evaluate routes based on new ridership as COVID-19 situation evolves. • Supported Rideshare to Transit Pilot Program from Air Quality Board, but Committee insisted only if rideshare companies provide appropriate benefits/safety net to Labor and worker safety protocols. Uber and Lyft have not demonstrated this capacity. Taxis or companies like Via may be better partners. Watch impact on SamTrans routes. County Elected Call Interviewed by Daily Journal about Burlingame Neighborhood Network Tuesday, 4/28 Particularly extensive constituent communications email/phone Hosted Virtual Constituent Coffee & Conversation (Q&A) Weekly Event Hot topics included • Frustration with Shelter -In -Place extension • Face coverings • Garden services Perception of car break-ins on the rise, I shared data that shows they've declined during SIP (down apx. 40% compared to January) Wednesday, 4/28 City Council Agenda Meeting with City Manager and City Attorney San Mateo County Express Lanes meeting regarding $100m SMCTA construction loan County Elected Call - sorry forgot to forward my notes to City Manager due to constituent demands. Below are a few additional highlights from yesterday's elected call: 3 Beach Committee Report May 4, 2020 Assemblymember Chiu, State Update • State 1,809 COVID-19 fatalities • Disproportionate COVID-19 cases among communities of color, State exploring reasons why and how to improve those statistics Unemployment assistance EDD State Hotline now available • Open 8-8PM 7 days week • Geared to helping self-employed, gig economy workers receive benefits • If constituent claims not processed 48 hours, recommend calling State legislative reps (Hill/Mullin) State Budget • Expected will be laser -focused on COVID-19 • Likely will be cuts in August, maybe in June • Beyond COVID-19, likely only wildfire defense may get funding Rep. Speier update • Congress now working on CARES#2 Act • Congress working on possible remote voting • Constituents may visit IRS website "get my payment" feature if missing stimulus checks • "Non -filer" portal also available for stimulus checks • PPP program now has $250b more dollars • Small business owners may watch video of Congresswoman Speir's Small Business Town Hall yesterday, 4/30 which included District Director of SBA providing tutorial for Federal Grant Applications • Under new Federal guidance, large companies advised to return grant dollars by 5/7 if they have other opportunities for Capital by 5/7. Publicly traded companies already returned $170m, still $800m outstanding • Most of County's local hospitals have good PPE resources County's Behavioral Health / Mental Health Services • Crisis call volume up 10% • Many patients converted to telehealth: 90% youth, 78% adult • Regional Mental Health Clinics open for emergencies E 11b BURL[[YGAN4E Memorandum To: City Council Date: May 4, 2020 From: Councilmember Donna Colson Subject: Committee Report Peninsula Clean Energy - We are zooming our meetings and they are great. • PCE adopted our first ever Strategic Plan helped by Anne Gallagher Consulting. It was a group effort including board, staff, advisory committee and other stakeholders. The document provides a framework for future business endeavors and to guide staff work in an organized mission driven fashion. I was happy to chair this committee and believe the work is a strong foundation for the future of PCE and clean energy in San Mateo County. You can find the plan here on page 19. https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-23-PCE-BOD-Agenda-Packet-updated.pdf • PCE also began a robust campaign to share our Community Impact Report and it was featured in newspapers, media and city information portals. The response has been great. To read a copy click here: https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/community-impact- report-2020/ • PCE has also finalized and announced the Fitch Rating of BBB+ and you can read about this here. We are excited to be in such a strong financial position. https://www.publicpower. org/periodical/article/fitch-cites-peninsula-clean-energys-strong= financial -profile -assigning bbb • Finally, new rates went into effect after May 1. The demand load during SIP has increased about 13% mainly form commercial and industrial demand. Residential is only up about 1 %. • The Burlingame opt -out rate remains at 2.21 %, one of the lowest on the Peninsula. • The PCE budget review process will begin next month and we are looking at negative impacts of increase PCIA charges that will flatten the net operating revenues - this is not a problem, but means we will have few dollars to invest in future programs. Meeting is May 11 for the executive committee and finance. • The $3.1 million rebate to CARE and other low-income families was a huge help during the SIP. Burlingame had about 850 families that received the one time $100 reduction in their energy bill. SAMCEDA Small Business Grant Program The portal opened on Monday. Lisa Goldman has supplied the results, but over 2,500 businesses applied. We are waiting to hear from SAMCEDA about the number and composition of Burlingame businesses that applied so we can determine our deficit and develop a plan to fairly allocated by region and business type. Colson Committee Report May 4, 2020 Have had over 100 calls from local businesses to help them complete the forms and follow up with data that was missing. It was a difficult process due to overload, but the information has been secured and SAMCEDA has followed up with every single business to make sure they have a complete lie and are considered. Sitting in on numerous calls regarding the CARES Act - Have volunteered to be a coach to small and minority/women owned businesses through local Ureeka group (HQed here, but global platform) that are applying to CARES etc. and will be a volunteer judge on the global FACEBOOK awards. Thanks to our Council who all contributed to the San Mateo Daily Journal advertisement for SAMCEDA - it was a nice way to spread the word and support our local newspaper that is facing unprecedented times as well. Sea Level Rise - Both the FSSLR Board and the C/CAG climate advisory teams suspended meetings, but will resume in May. Housing - Housing meetings will resume next month as well. There was a survey out that you should have received about spending new federal housing money that is being granted during SIP. The conversations are clearly changing with homelessness and support for all tenants and property owners a concern. Various meetings with constituents on construction issues, permitting, planning, business openings, street closures, SIP orders, financial concerns, graduation events, the farmers market, etc. Supporting Local Non -Profits and Education (Usually not included but I thought you might be interested) • Working several times a week at Samaritan House which has been overwhelmed with food delivery demands. • Also pitching in at Mid -Peninsula Boys and Girls Club which is also providing Friday meals and grocery bags for their clients. • Developing with staff a plan to open Filoli during the parks opening to coordinate with the County plans. Includes PPE, online ticket sales to limit guests, a one way circulation path and other important safety measures for the guests and staff. General public will be open mid -May. • Working with Haas UC Berkeley to understand how online learning and the new financial reality will impact students and academics. Meeting on Friday so can report more on that next time. 2