HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2022.05.02City of Burlingame
BURLINGAME
F,
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Council
Monday, May 2, 2022 7:00 PM
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361 which allows a local agency
to meet remotely when:
The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency
2. State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social
distancing
3. Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the
health or safety of attendees
On March 21, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 036-2022 stating that the City
Council and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the
following reasons:
1. There is still a declared state of emergency
2. The State recommends that individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear
masks
3. The City can't maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff,
Councilmembers, and Commissioners, in their meeting spaces
Pursuant to Resolution Number 036-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the
public for the May 2, 2022 City Council Meeting.
Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom Webinar 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.
Note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda. The length of the
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 2, 2022. 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.
Online
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 4/28/2022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 2, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Online
To access the meeting by computer:
Go to www.zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 812 0451 2819
Passcode:202734
To access the meeting by phone:
Dial 1-669-900-6833
Meeting ID: 812 0451 2819
Passcode:202734
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. Proclamation Recognizing the Work of the Bay Area Leos Club on their Plastic Recycling
b. Proclamation Recoanizina Mav 2022 as Mental Health Awareness Month
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M.
Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter
that is not on the agenda.
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion.
Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker
slip for that item in advance of the Council's consideration of the consent calendar.
a. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for the April 4, 2022 Regular Meeting
Attachments: Meeting Minutes
b. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for the April 18, 2022 Closed Session
Attachments: Meeting Minutes
City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 4/28/2022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 2, 2022
C. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for the April 18, 2022 Regular Meeting
Attachments: Meeting Minutes
d. Adoption of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy and Adding the
Policy to the Burlingame Police Department Policy Manual: CEQA Determination: Exempt
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378, 15061(b)(3)
Attachments: Staff Report
Ordinance
Attachment 1 Military Equipment Use Policy
Exhibit A to Policy List of Military Equipment
April 18, 2022 Staff Report
e. Adoption of Resolutions Awardina a Construction Contract to Cratus Inc. in the Amount of
$2,287,000 for the Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements Project; and
Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Coastland Civil Engineering, Inc. in
the Amount of $329,590 for Construction Management Services Related to the Projects;
and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Said Contracts
Attachments: Staff Report
Resolution Awardina Construction Contract
Resolution Aoorovina Professional Services Aareement
Bid Summary
Project Location Map
Construction Contract
Professional Services Agreement
f. Adoption of a Resolution Amendina the Citv of Burlinaame's Conflict of Interest Code to
Revise the List of Designated Officials and Employees
Attachments: Staff Report
Resolution
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
a. Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Burlingame Master
Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachments: Staff Report
poenh ifinn
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 4/28/2022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 2, 2022
b. Public Hearina and Adoption of Broadwav Area Business Improvement Assessments for
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachments: Staff Report
Resolution
Assessment Roll
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
a. Authorize the Mavor to Send a Letter in Response to Letter Received from YIMBY Law
and Greenbelt Alliance Regarding the Housing Element Update
Attachments: Staff Report
Draft Letter
YIMBY Law/Greenbelt Alliance Letter
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
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 the Library Board of
Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees who require assistance, a disability related modification, or language assistance
in order to participate n the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk, by 10:00
a.m. on Monday, May 2, 2022 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. Any
individual who wishes to request an alternate format for the agenda, meeting notice, 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 2, 2022 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Next regular City Council Meeting - Monday, May 16, 2022
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE
http://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 City Clerk Meaghan
Hassel -Shearer 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 4 Printed on 4/28/2022
CITY 0
W
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on April 4, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at
7:01 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Police Chief Matteucci.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Ortiz reviewed upcoming events in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2022 AS NATIONAL POETRY MONTH
Mayor Ortiz read the City's proclamation recognizing April 2022 as National Poetry Month.
City Librarian McCulley introduced Eva Chen, a 16-year-old poet from Burlingame.
Eva Chen thanked the City for recognizing April 2022 as National Poetry Month. She then read the
following poem, that she wrote for the occasion:
1
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
Burlingame, Explain by Poetry
when I first moved from the painted ladies
and cable car city of San Francisco,
to Burlingame, a small corner of the world
tethering at the edge of a peninsula,
the first thing I saw was a tall eucalyptus tree
looming above my house.
Burlingame is a city built on the foundation of poetry.
Because what is more poetic than
a string of a thousand eucalyptus trees,
shooting up from the floor like parachutes,
only to be pulled back by the weight of gravity.
Every fall, I watch cinnamon -brown leaves
spiral to the ground in closed perfect circles,
casting memories of something once green,
belonging to a past summer, now fragile and faded
crumbling at the folds of my fingers, a metaphor that
all things beautiful come as fast as the seasons change,
leaving nothing but the ghosts of them behind
to wither away in city sidewalks.
Burlingame landscape is poetry:
with hills melting into roads like full -mouthed lovers,
curves that match the slope of my mother's smile,
arched, beautiful, and rounded like a butterfly's wings
as it opens for flight — the sun -baked limbs of this
city that hugs the spine of the ocean shoreline is poetry.
Burlingame people is poetry -
each body molded from stardust
and similes, blessed by rhymes taken
from the heavens, united under one margin
is poetry.
At the end of this city,
where the horizon bleeds into the sunset,
where the sea washes into a swollen corpse of the sand,
where there is only half -bay moons and lost shadows,
2
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
is a world left behind by tidal waves and monsoon winds,
now home to a mosaic of people, who named it sanctuary,
Burlingame.
The Council thanked Eva Chen for her poem and asked that it be published in the City's enews.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA
There were no public comments.
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ortiz asked if any his colleagues or members of the public wanted to pull an item from the Consent
Calendar. Councilmember Colson pulled item 81. A member of the public pulled item 8e.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8f, 8g, 8h, 8i, 8j, and 8k; seconded by
Councilmember O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 16, 2022 MID-
YEAR BUDGET STUDY SESSION
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the March 16,
2022 Mid -Year Budget Study Session.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 21, 2022
CLOSED SESSION
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the March 21,
2022 Closed Session.
c. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 21, 2022
REGULAR MEETING
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the March 21,
2022 Regular Meeting.
d. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.20.010 OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD STOP SIGNS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN
THE CITY; CEOA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEO
GUIDELINES SECTION 15378 AND 15061(B)(3)
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 2004.
3
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A $1,413,978 CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT TO RADIUS EARTHWORK, INC. FOR THE 2022 STREET RESURFACING
PROGRAM, CITY PROJECT NO.86220, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Manito Velasco asked several questions about how streets were selected for the 2022 Street Resurfacing
Program. (comment submitted via publiccommentgburlin ag me.org).
DPW Murtuza stated that these streets were selected in the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program.
Councilmember Beach thanked DPW Murtuza for keeping TSPC and BPAC involved in these processes.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 027-2022; seconded by Councilmember
Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 2021 STREET RESURFACING
PROGRAM BY G. BORTOLOTTO & CO. INC., CITY PROJECT NO.85860
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 028-2022.
g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM
MANAGER TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT AND SECURE
CALRECYCLE GRANT PAYMENTS
Finance Director Yu -Scott requested Council adopt Resolution Number 029-2022.
h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY BROADWAY AREA
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 AND
SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 2, 2022, AND APPROVING THE DISTRICT'S
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2021-22
Finance Director Yu -Scott requested Council adopt Resolution Number 030-2022.
i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE 2022-23 FISCAL YEAR, SET THE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR SUCH AMENDMENT FOR MAY 2, 2022
Finance Director Yu -Scott requested Council adopt Resolution Number 031-2022.
4
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A $830,314 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TO JJR CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE 2022 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM, CITY
PROJECT NO.86250, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
CONTRACT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 032-2022.
k. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OPPOSING INITIATIVE 21-0042A1, THE TAXPAYER
PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER OF OPPOSITION
City Manager Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 033-2022.
1. AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF AB 1814
(GRAYSON), TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION: COMMUNITY CHOICE
AGGREGATORS
This item was pulled by Councilmember Colson because AB 1814 died in committee.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME ADJUSTING THE STORM DRAINAGE FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
BY 2.0% BASED ON THE CPI — SAN FRANCISCO AREA AS PUBLISHED ON MARCH 10
2022
Finance Director Yu -Scott explained that each year, the City is allowed to adjust the storm drainage rate by
CPI, not to exceed 2%. She noted that the CPI report for February 2022 indicated a CPI increase of 5.2%.
Finance Director Yu -Scott proposed a 2% increase in the storm drainage fee. She noted that this would raise
the rate charged per square foot of impervious area from 5.269 cents to 5.374 cents effective July 1, 2022.
The increase is estimated to produce an additional $62,520, for estimated revenue of approximately $3.2
million in fiscal year 2022-23.
Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 034-2022; seconded by Councilmember
O'Brian Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
5
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. CONSIDERATION OF THREE APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
City Manager Goldman stated that there were three impending vacancies due to the expiring terms of
Commissioner Loftis, Commissioner Terrones, and Commissioner Tse. She explained that the City received
seven applications as of the March 4, 2022 deadline. However, because Commissioner Loftis and
Commissioner Terrones elected not to reapply, the deadline was extended an additional two weeks. She
noted that this resulted in three additional applications as of the extended deadline of March 18, 2022.
City Manager Goldman stated that the Council interviewed the following nine applicants (one of the original
seven applicants withdrew from the process) via Zoom on March 30, 2022: Victor Aenlle, Chris Horan, Uma
Krishan, Sean Lowenthal, Patrick Martin, Charlotte Payton, Zachary Rozlen, Audrey Tse, and Bobba
Venkatadri.
City Manager Goldman noted that the appointee terms will be for four years, ending on April 7, 2026.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
Mr. Torres voiced his support for Victor Aenlle and Uma Krishan. (comment submitted via
publiccomment(aburlin ag me.org).
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer asked the Council to text her their votes.
Mayor Ortiz thanked Commissioner Loftis and Commissioner Terrones for their service to the community.
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the Council votes.
Congratulations to Commissioner Tse on her re -appointment.
Congratulations to Sean Lowenthal and Chris Horan on their appointment to the Planning Commission.
b. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON POTENTIAL TAX MEASURES
City Manager Goldman began with a review of the difference between a general tax and a special tax:
• A general tax is a tax imposed for general governmental purposes, the proceeds of which are
deposited into the General Fund. A majority vote of the electorate is required to impose, extend,
or increase any general tax. An election for a general tax must be consolidated with a regularly
scheduled general election of City Councilmembers.
11
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
• A special tax is a tax that is collected and earmarked for a specific purpose and deposited into a
separate account of the General Fund. A two-thirds vote of the electorate is required to impose,
extend, or increase any special tax. Special taxes do not need to be consolidated with a regularly
scheduled general election of City Councilmembers.
City Manager Goldman explained that on September 20, 2021, the Council held a study session on potential
tax measures, with an eye toward the possible placement of one or more measures on the November 2022
ballot. She stated that the Council directed staff to explore a few of the options discussed at the study session
and return to Council with additional information. The potential tax measures included a business license
tax, a cannabis tax, and a tax measure similar in structure to the City of East Palo Alto's Measure HH to
address sea level rise, the Broadway Grade Separation project, or another large infrastructure project.
City Manager Goldman discussed the City's business license tax. She explained that the City levies a flat
rate business tax on all businesses. She explained that this means that a small mom-and-pop business pays
the same amount, $100, as a large business such as an auto dealer, the Apple store, or Facebook. She added
that many of the City's neighboring jurisdictions, in contrast, levy a gross receipts tax.
City Manager Goldman discussed the following chart:
City Name
Population
Estimated
Number of
Businesses in
FY 2018-19
Tax Type
Estimated
Revenue FY
2018-19
Last Revision
Belmont
26,941
3,074
Employee and
Flat Rate
$880,000
1993
Burlingame
30,889
5,897
Flat Rate
$589,737
2001
Foster City
33,693
3,714
Gross Receipts
$1,764,875
2013
Menlo Park
34,138
5,491
Gross Receipts
$2,295,367
1975
Millbrae
22,394
2,385
Employee and
Gross Receipts
$381,177
2004
Redwood City
85,319
16,175
Employee
$2,697,658
2018
San Bruno
42,807
4,060
Gross Receipts
$2,176,473
2019
San Carlos
30,185
4,245
Employee
$1,020,000
2003
San Mateo
104,570
21,337
Gross Receipts
$6,265,284
1984
South San
Francisco
67,789
5,590
Employee and
Flat Rate
$1,805,595
2008
City Manager Goldman noted that she believes that Belmont was considering a business license tax measure
that would be based on gross receipts.
City Manager Goldman stated that staff worked with HdL Companies to review the City's business license
tax and determine alternative models. She stated that at the February 22, 2022 study session, HdL presented
7
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
the City with three alternate business license tax structures: one flat rate model and two gross receipts
models. She noted that the flat rate model would not address the City's existing equity issue. However, the
two gross receipt models would inject more fairness into the City's business license tax structure. She stated
that the Council was concerned that Model 3 would have too great an impact on many of the City's
businesses.
City Manager Goldman stated that after the February 22, 2022 study session, staff met with HdL to
brainstorm alternate models that would address the Council's concerns about the initial models. She
explained that HdL will review four new models for the Council's consideration. She stated that all of the
models will result in varying levels of increased revenues for the City.
City Manager Goldman discussed the four models. She explained that the first model contains two options:
• Flat rate business tax would rise to either $125, $150, or $175 across the board
• Tax would rise to $150, $200, or $300, with the amount levied based on gross receipts
She stated that models 2, 3, and 4 are all variations of gross receipts -based models.
• Model 2 includes classification -based rates, which spread the burden of an increase across
multiple business types.
• Models 3 and 4 are both single gross receipts rates, with Model 4 capping the maximum payment
at various levels
City Manager Goldman discussed a cannabis retail delivery tax. She explained that in February 2021, the
Council adopted an ordinance allowing cannabis retail delivery from businesses located within the city
limits. She stated that Council expressed an interest in levying a cannabis delivery tax, which a
representative for a cannabis delivery company noted could bring in approximately $1 million annually from
his company alone. She noted that according to HdL, one way to address the cannabis tax is to include it as
a subsection under the business license tax ordinance. She stated that this would avoid the need for a
separate tax measure.
City Manager Goldman discussed the City of East Palo Alto's Measure HH parcel tax. She explained that
the City of East Palo Alto put a parcel tax measure on the November 2018 ballot. The parcel tax was for
commercial office space of 25,000 square feet or more at the rate of $2.50 per square foot. She noted that
the measure was estimated at the time to raise $1.675 million annually for housing and career programs.
City Manager Goldman stated that Councilmembers expressed an interest in pursuing a measure similar to
Measure HH. She noted that Council wanted to use the funds to help with sea level rise projects or to pay
the City's share of the Broadway Grade Separation project. She added that HdL's presentation includes a
slide showing the estimated revenue from levying such a tax in Burlingame on commercial office buildings
25,000 square feet and above, 50,000 square feet and above, and 100,000 square feet and above.
City Manager Goldman stated that at the February 2022 study session, Councilmember O'Brien Keighran
requested that staff research other tax measures that may appear on the November 2022 ballot. She
8
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
explained that at the time of the meeting, there were four initiatives cleared for signature gathering at the
State level:
• An initiative to increase the tax on personal income over $2 million to fund programs to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
• An initiative to increase the tax on personal income over $5 million to fund pandemic detection
and prevention activities.
• Two similar initiatives that would increase taxes on high value properties over $4 million to
increase the portion of a homeowner's property value that is exempt from property tax from
$7,000 to $200,000 and provide up to a $2,000 supplemental income tax credit for renters
City Manager Goldman noted that the County is working diligently on a measure that seems similar to the
City of East Palo Alto's parcel tax.
City Manager Goldman explained that the City has until the second week of August to put a measure on the
November 2022 ballot. She added that because of the Council's summer break, the City would need to take
all necessary steps by the first meeting in July.
HdL representative Josh Davis gave the Council a presentation on potential business license taxes.
Mr. Davis reviewed the different business tax models for the Council to consider:
Business Tax Model 1: Change Annual Rate
Model LA — By Rate Change
Number of
Businesses
Estimated FY
2021-22 Revenue
25% Increase
50% Increase
75% Increase
5,836
$583,600
$729,500
$875,400
$1,021,300
Model LB — By Business Type
Gross Receipts
Number of Businesses
Annual Rate
Total Estimated
Amount
Projected Revenue
Small Business (less
3,712
$150
$556,800
than $250,000
Medium Business (over
1,769
$200
$353,800
$250,000 - $1,000,000
Large Business (over
355
$300
$106,500
$1,000,000
TOTAL
$1,017,100
01
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
Mr. Davis then reviewed the impact these two models would have on different business types:
Hypothetical Business/
City's Current Rates
Model LA Overall
Model LB Rate
Employee Count/
Rate Increase of 50%
Increase by Business
Annual Gross Receipts
Type
Total
Auto Service Business/
$100
$150
$200
5 employees/ $400,000
in gross receipts
Casual Dining
$100
$150
$200
Restaurant/ 10
employees/ $350,000 in
gross recei is
Contractor/ 3
$100
$150
$150
employees/ $200,000 in
gross receipts
Boutique Retail Store/
$100
$150
$300
12 employees/ $2
million in gross receipts
Fine Dining Restaurant/
$100
$150
$200
8 employees/ $850,000
in gross receipts
Retail Goods and
$100
$150
$200
Clothing Store/ 10
employees/ $600,000 in
gross receipts
Business Tax Model 2: Gross Receipts — Classification — Based Rates — Reduce
Categories
Base Rate
Gross Receipts Tax Rate
General Commerce/Retail
$50 Flat Rate per Business for the
first $50,000 in Gross Receipts
0.0005 x Gross Receipts
Rental (commercial and
residential
0.0001 x Gross Receipts
Service
0.0001 x Gross Receipts
Professional
0.0015 x Gross Receipts
Administrative/ Research and
Development
0.0015 x Gross Receipts
Contractors
0.001 x Gross Receipts
10
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
Mr. Davis stated that this option has the benefit of spreading the burden of an increase across multiple
business types. He showed how this would play out:
Business Type
Number of
Estimated
Base Rate $50 per
Total Estimated
Accounts
Taxable Gross
Business
Annual Gross
Receipts
Receipts Tax
Contractors
1,377
$146,205,301
$68,850
$77,355
General
712
$669,835,011
$35,600
$317,118
Commerce/Retail
Service
2,004
$862,416,375
$100,200
$762,216
Administrative/
77
$63,364,633
$3,850
$89,272
Research and
Development
Rental
70
$36,338,070
$3,500
$32,838
(commercial and
residential
Professional
1,596
$594,920,527
$79,800
$772,681
5,836
$2.3 billion
$291,800
$2,051,480
TOTAL
$2,343,280
Mr. Davis reviewed what the impact of this model would be on different business types:
Hypothetical Business/
City's Current Rates
Model 2 — Gross Receipt
Employee Count/ Annual Gross
Classification Based — First
Receipt Total
$50,000
Auto Service Business/ 5
$100
$400
employees/ $400,000 in gross
receipts
Casual Dining Restaurant/ 10
$100
$200
employees/ $350,000 in gross
receipts
Contractor/ 3 employees/
$100
$200
$200,000 in gross receipts
Boutique Retail Store/ 12
$100
$1,075
employees/ $2 million in gross
receipts
Fine Dining Restaurant/ 8
$100
$450
employees/ $850,000 in gross
receipts
Retail Goods and Clothing Store/
$100
$325
10 employees/ $600,000 in gross
receipts
11
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
Business Tax Model 3: Single Gross Receipts Rate — Reduced Rates
Model 3.A — Gross Receipts Total over $25,000
Number of
Taxable Gross
Base Rate at $50
Tax Amount
Tax Amount
Accounts
Receipts
per Account
$0.50/thousand
$0.75/thousand
over $25,000
over $25,000
5,836
$2.38
$291,800
$1,113,590
$1,670,385
TOTAL
$1,405,390
$1,962,185
Model 3.B — Gross Receipts Total over $50,000
Number of
Taxable Gross
Base Rate at $50
Tax Amount
Tax Amount
Accounts
Receipts
per Account
$0.50/thousand
$0.75/thousand
over $50,000
over $50,000
5,836
$2.38
$291,800
$1,040,640
$1,560,960
TOTAL
$1,332,440
$1,852,760
Model 3.0 — Gross Receipts Total over $75,000
Number of
Taxable Gross
Base Rate at $50
Tax Amount
Tax Amount
Accounts
Receipts
per Account
$0.50/thousand
$0.75/thousand
over $75,000
over $75,000
5,836
$2.38
$291,800
$967,690
$1,451,535
TOTAL
$1,259,490
$1,743,335
Mr. Davis compared the impact on these models on different business types:
Hypothetical
City's
Model 3.A —
Model 3.B —
Model 3.0 — Single
Business/ Employee
Current
Single Gross
Single Gross
Gross Receipt —
Count/ Annual
Rates
Receipt —
Receipt —
Threshold Increased:
Gross Receipt Total
Threshold
Threshold
$0.50/thousand over
Increased:
Increased:
$75,000
$0.50/thousand
$0.50/thousand
over $25,00
over $50,000
Auto Service
$100
$238
$225
$213
Business/ 5
employees/ $400,000
ingross receipts
Casual Dining
$100
$213
$200
$188
Restaurant/ 10
12
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
employees/ $350,000
in gross receipts
Contractor/ 3
$100
$13 8
$125
$113
employees/ $200,000
in gross receipts
Boutique Retail Store/
$100
$1,038
$1,025
$1,013
12 employees/ $2
million in gross
receipts
Fine Dining
$100
$463
$450
$438
Restaurant/ 8
employees/ $850,000
in gross receipts
Retail Goods and
$100
$338
$325
$313
Clothing Store/ 10
employees/ $600,000
in gross receipts
Hypothetical
City's
Model 3.A —
Model 3.B —
Model 3.0 — Single
Business/ Employee
Current
Single Gross
Single Gross
Gross Receipt —
Count/ Annual
Rates
Receipt —
Receipt —
Threshold Increased
Gross Receipt Total
Threshold
Threshold
- $0.75/thousand
Increased: $0.75
Increased:
over $75,000
/thousand over
$0.75/thousand
$25,00
over $50,000
Auto Service
$100
$331
$313
$294
Business/ 5
employees/ $400,000
in gross receipts
Casual Dining
$100
$294
$275
$256
Restaurant/ 10
employees/ $350,000
in gross receipts
Contractor/ 3
$100
$181
$163
$144
employees/ $200,000
in gross receipts
Boutique Retail Store/
$100
$1,513
$1,513
$1,494
12 employees/ $2
million in gross
receipts
13
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
Fine Dining
$100
$669
$650
$631
Restaurant/ 8
employees/ $850,000
in gross receipts
Retail Goods and
$100
$481
$463
$444
Clothing Store/ 10
employees/ $600,000
in gross receipts
Business Tax Model 4: Gross Receipts Rate — Reduced Rates — Maximum Payment Cap
Mr. Davis stated that this option caps the fee that the business would pay if it generated a large enough gross
receipts total.
Number of
Taxable
Base Rate at
Tax Amount
Tax Amount
Tax Amount
Accounts
Gross
$50 per
$0.50/thousand
$0.50/thousand
$0.50/thousand
Receipts
Account
over $25,000 —
over $25,000 —
over $25,000 —
maximum
maximum
maximum
payment capped
payment
payment
at $750
capped at
capped at
$1,000
$2,000
5,836
$2.38
$291,800
$780,972
$833,296
$957,711
TOTAL
$1,072,772
$1,125,096
$1,249,511
Number of
Taxable
Base Rate at
Tax Amount
Tax Amount
Tax Amount
Accounts
Gross
$50 per
$0.75/thousand
$0.75/thousand
$0.75/thousand
Receipts
Account
over $25,000 —
over $25,000 —
over $25,000 —
maximum
maximum
maximum
payment capped
payment
payment
at $750
capped at
capped at
$1,000
$2,000
5,836
$2.38
$291,800
$1,067,116
$1,141,403
$1,330,993
TOTAL
$1,358,916
$1,433,203
$1,622,793
14
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
Mr. Davis compared the impact of this model on different business types:
Hypothetical
City's
Model 4 Gross
Model 4 Gross
Model 4 Gross
Business/ Employee
Current
Receipts —
Receipts —
Receipts — Reduced —
Count/ Annual
Rates
Reduced —
Reduced —
Payment Capped:
Gross Receipt Total
Payment Capped:
Payment
$0.50/thousand
$0.50/thousand
Capped:
capped at $2,000
capped at $750
$0.50/thousand
capped at $1,000
Auto Service
$100
$238
$238
$238
Business/ 5
employees/ $400,000
in gross receipts
Casual Dining
$100
$213
$213
$213
Restaurant/ 10
employees/ $350,000
in gross receipts
Contractor/ 3
$100
$13 8
$13 8
$13 8
employees/ $200,000
in gross receipts
Boutique Retail Store/
$100
$750
$1,000
$1,038
12 employees/ $2
million in gross
receipts
Fine Dining
$100
$463
$463
$463
Restaurant/ 8
employees/ $850,000
in gross receipts
Retail Goods and
$100
$338
$338
$338
Clothing Store/ 10
employees/ $600,000
in gross receipts
Hypothetical
City's
Model 4 Gross
Model 4 Gross
Model 4 Gross
Business/ Employee
Current
Receipts —
Receipts —
Receipts — Reduced —
Count/ Annual
Rates
Reduced —
Reduced —
Payment Capped:
Gross Receipt Total
Payment Capped:
Payment
$0.75/thousand
$0.75/thousand
Capped:
capped at $2,000
capped at $750
$0.75/thousand
capped at $1,000
Auto Service
$100
$331
$331
$331
Business/ 5
15
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
employees/ $400,000
in gross receipts
Casual Dining
$100
$294
$294
$294
Restaurant/ 10
employees/ $350,000
in gross receipts
Contractor/ 3
$100
$181
$181
$181
employees/ $200,000
in gross receipts
Boutique Retail Store/
$100
$750
$1,000
$1,531
12 employees/ $2
million in gross
receipts
Fine Dining
$100
$669
$669
$669
Restaurant/ 8
employees/ $850,000
in gross receipts
Retail Goods and
$100
$48 l
$481
$48 l
Clothing Store/ 10
employees/ $600,000
in gross receipts
Mr. Davis next reviewed a potential cannabis tax measure. He explained that forecasting the potential size of
the City's cannabis market is beyond the scope of the business license tax study. However, preliminary
numbers indicate that if the City were to capture a significant market share, which may be a challenge given
the expansion of delivery and retail services in the area, at a rate of 4%, the City could stand to gain between
$300,000 to $500,000 per year in revenue from the four cannabis delivery services businesses. He noted that
this opportunity for revenue generation can be done through the creation of a separate classification or class
for cannabis businesses within the existing business license ordinance provisions.
Mr. Davis next reviewed the potential revenue from a parcel tax measure similar to Measure HH. He noted
that based on a preliminary review, implementing a tax of $2.50 per square foot on commercial offices in
Burlingame (excluding government buildings and other buildings exempt from property tax) would yield
approximately:
Threshold
Estimated Parcels
Estimated Revenue
Greater than 25,000 square feet
34
$5,400,000
Greater than 50,000 square feet
18
$4,000,000
Greater than 100,000 square feet
7
$2,300,000
Councilmember Colson asked in regard to gross receipts, what happens to a law firm that has a presence in
Burlingame but a main office somewhere else. Mr. Davis stated that while the tax is measured by gross
16
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
receipts, it is based on the ability to do business in Burlingame. He explained that this is done by
apportioning the business activity by percentage of what is done in Burlingame.
Councilmember Colson asked about individuals who work most of the time out of another office. Mr. Davis
stated that the same principle and rule applies.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that it seems administratively complex to base a business license tax on gross
receipts. He asked how cities manage this program and whether disputes occur. Mr. Davis stated that the
process for the most part is the same. He noted that most businesses know their gross receipts, and therefore
most cities don't have any issue managing the program. He added that the process is self -assessed by the
businesses, and therefore the government doesn't step in unless it sees a problem.
Councilmember Beach asked if cities with big tech companies cap their gross receipts tax. Mr. Davis replied
in the negative.
Councilmember Beach asked if any cannabis delivery company would be operational in the next year or two
in Burlingame. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He stated that he believed two would be
operational.
Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if most cities incorporate an escalator with their business license
tax. Mr. Davis stated that if a city has a flat rate tax, then they use a CPI escalator. However, he noted that
most cities are now favoring a tax based on gross receipts, and in those cases an escalator is not needed.
Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that if an increase to the business license tax is brought to the
voters, the language would need to be clarified for the community to understand the proposal. She asked
how many words were allowed for a ballot measure question. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that 75
words are allowed.
City Manager Goldman explained that the City would be able to further explain the measure through the
ballot question summary, legal analysis, and arguments in favor, all of which are included in the Sample
Ballot Pamphlet.
Councilmember Beach asked if the City has enough time to get a successful measure on the November
ballot. City Manager Goldman stated that the timeline is very tight.
Mayor Ortiz asked how HdL came up with the $2,000 cap. City Manager Goldman stated that it came out of
a brainstorming session.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if he was correct that the cannabis tax can be independent of the business
license tax measure. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
17
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
Noriaki Kojima stated that he wasn't in favoring of increasing the business license tax based on revenue.
(comment submitted via publiccomment&burlin ag me.org).
Dennis Mitchell stated that he approved increasing the business license tax but didn't want it based on gross
receipts. (comment submitted via publiccommentgburlin ag me.org).
Francesca Tashjian stated that while she agreed that the fee structure needs to change, she didn't think basing
it on gross receipts would be appropriate. (comment submitted via publiccomment&burlin ag me.org).
Jenny Keleher stated that the City's businesses were still suffering from the pandemic and thought the
business license tax should be increased to a maximum of $150 to $200. (comment submitted via
publiccommentgburlin a�g).
John Kevranian stated that the Broadway BID would like more time to review the different models.
(comment submitted via publiccomment(d),burlin ag me.org).
Humberto Berenfus voiced concern about increasing the business license tax. (comment submitted via
publiccommentskburlin ag me.org).
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was unsure he supported enacting a gross receipts tax. He noted that it
is more complicated, and it might treat some businesses more harshly than others. However, he explained
that after 21 years of not increasing the business license tax, he didn't think anyone could argue against the
need to do so. He added that he would support an increase to the flat tax. He suggested having a tiered
system.
Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that while the City has the third highest number of businesses
among those studied, it is second to last in terms of business license tax revenue. She explained that she
would like to see the City in the middle of this list. Therefore, she thought the City should increase the flat
rates utilizing Model I.B. She suggested having a tiered system of-
* Small business - $150
• Medium business - $250
• Large business - $600
She stated that the City's revenue would be a little over $1.2 million. She added that she would also want to
include an escalator.
Councilmember Colson stated that she liked Councilmember O'Brien Keighran's suggestion of a tiered
system. She added that she was less inclined to enact a separate cannabis tax and would rather roll it in with
the business license tax update. She discussed all the work that goes into putting a measure on the ballot.
18
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
Councilmember Beach stated that whatever the City decides to do, it has to be fair and equitable. She noted
that she isn't sure that increasing the flat tax a little bit is worth it. She discussed the need to fix the fairness
and equity in the tax structure; however, she wasn't sure any of these models did that.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was in favor of a parcel tax to assist with the Broadway Grade
Separation or sea level rise but didn't think this was the year to do that.
Mayor Ortiz stated that he liked Councilmember O'Brien Keighran's tiered system. He noted that he
thought it was clear that the $100 business license tax isn't enough. He added that he believed
Councilmember O'Brien Keighran's tiered system with an escalator made the most sense. He stated that he
thought the three tiers should be
• Small businesses - $200
• Medium businesses - $300
• Large businesses - $700
Councilmember Colson stated that there is never a good time to raise taxes. However, she noted that the
City hasn't done it in 21 years, and there is a need to diversify the City's funds. She explained that she
would like the City to poll different tiered systems to see what the community likes. City Manager Goldman
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that she was looking at the business license tax increase to help
with sidewalk repairs, improvements to the business districts, and other projects. She explained that the
parcel tax measure could be discussed for a future election. However, she didn't think it should be put on the
same ballot as the County's proposed measure.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he agreed with both Councilmember O'Brien Keighran and
Councilmember Beach. He thought the measure was a heavy lift for a modest amount of money. However,
he did think it was important to modernize the business license tax.
Mayor Ortiz stated that the increase is creating an income stream that will continue for years. He noted that
while it might only be $1 million initially, over ten years it will be $10 million. He asked what the tiers were
that the staff would have consultants' poll. City Manager Goldman reviewed the proposed tiers.
Councilmember Beach stated that she would be in favor of having a fourth tier for the mega businesses. She
added that she appreciated her colleagues' comments on going forward with a measure to modernize the
business license tax.
Councilmember Colson stated that she would have the mega businesses level be significant. She suggested
the fourth tier be based on businesses with gross receipts over $20 million so as to not capture grocery stores.
She added that this would send a message that because those businesses use more infrastructure, they need to
pay more.
19
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
The Council agreed to have a consultant poll on tiers, a potential fourth tier, and the inclusion of an escalator.
c. AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER (ALPR) DISCUSSION
Police Chief Matteucci stated that this item was discussed at the January 18 and February 22 Council
meetings. He noted that this meeting's discussion was noticed in the San Mateo Daily Journal, in the enews,
on the Police Department's website, and via social media.
Police Chief Matteucci stated that at the previous meetings, the Council discussed the pros and cons of
ALPRs. He reviewed some of the pros of the City obtaining ALPRs including:
• Locating stolen vehicles
• Locating missing people
• Preventing criminal activity
• Assisting with criminal investigations
He also reviewed some of the cons of the City obtaining ALPRs including:
• Privacy issues
• Large data pools
• Potential data breaches
• Costs
Police Chief Matteucci stated that he was tasked with reaching out to other San Mateo County cities that
currently use ALPRs. He explained that the City received overwhelmingly positive feedback about ALPRs.
He noted that 14 out of the 20 cities in the County currently use ALPRs including all of the City's neighbors.
He stated that on average each city has 20 ALPRs.
Police Chief Matteucci discussed how ALPRs work and how they are intended to be used in the city. He
explained that ALPRs are primarily used in two ways:
• Real time notification system — the dispatch center is notified if a wanted vehicle passes an
ALPR. Wanted vehicles are stolen vehicles, those associated with a missing person, and those
associated with a serious crime such as robbery or homicide.
• After the fact investigatory tool — allows officers and inspectors to review specific timeframes
when investigating cold crimes
He clarified that arrest warrants are generally not attached to vehicles.
Police Chief Matteucci explained that if the City purchases ALPRs, State law requires the City to have
safeguards and privacy policies in place. He reviewed the questions that the policy would have to answer.
He noted that a draft policy was attached to the staff report.
Police Chief Matteucci stated that there is an optional surveillance technology ordinance that can be adopted
by Council. He explained that under this ordinance, the City Council would need to review any surveillance
20
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
technology prior to usage. He noted that these reviews would include a surveillance impact report and a
surveillance technology use policy. He added that no city in San Mateo County has adopted an ordinance of
this nature, but cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley have.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about crime in Burlingame over the past four years. Police Chief Matteucci
stated that residential burglaries have decreased, and vehicle burglaries have increased. He reviewed
additional statistics including stolen vehicles and commercial burglaries.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City's police department has done a great time keeping Burlingame
safe. He voiced concern about people being pulled over for individual warrants. Police Chief Matteucci
stated that 95% of the hits that police departments get from ALPRs are stolen vehicles. He added that
seldom is a person's warrant connected with a vehicle.
Councilmember Beach stated that the City of Alameda recently passed a fixed automated license plate reader
draft policy. She noted that Alameda worked with civil liberties advocates on the policy. She asked if staff
reviewed Alameda's policy. City Attorney Guina stated that Alameda's policy is more robust than the one
attached to the staff report. He added that based on the Council's direction, staff could incorporate aspects of
Alameda's policy into the City's policy.
Mayor Ortiz asked about the requirement for annual reports. Police Chief Matteucci stated that the annual
reports are required under the optional surveillance technology ordinance. However, he noted that the
Council could always direct staff to include annual reports as a requirement in the draft policy.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
John Martos asked whether the six cities in the County that didn't have ALPRs had explained why to staff.
Police Chief Matteucci stated that there was hesitancy from their governing bodies regarding privacy.
Brian Hofer discussed the City's draft policy and stated that there were areas for improvement.
Constance Quirk discussed her concerns about the increase in crime in Burlingame. She urged the Council
to purchase ALPRs. (comment submitted via publiccomment(a),burlin ag me.org).
Charles stated that he was opposed to ALPRs. (comment submitted via publiccomment&burlin ag me.org).
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Mayor Ortiz voiced support for purchasing ALPRs. He explained that he thought the City could create
enough boundaries within its policy to ensure that ALPRs are properly used.
Councilmember Colson suggested an ALPR pilot program.
21
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated the discussion and staff s recommendation of 30-day
retention of ALPR data. She explained that she would like to see the City adopt a surveillance vetting
technology ordinance. She noted the increase of technology in this realm and thought it was important for
the Council to thoroughly understand the technology before it is put in use. She added that she would like to
see the City adopt a policy similar to that of the City of Alameda.
Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that she didn't think the City needed a surveillance impact report.
She added that she would like to move forward and implement a pilot program. She noted that she would
like an annual summary of how the ALPRs are being utilized.
Mayor Ortiz stated that he liked the idea of an annual summary.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if a surveillance technology ordinance needed to come before the purchase of
ALPRs. He discussed his experience with living in a police state and didn't think that the community
wanted to live in that atmosphere. He worried about the consequences and risks of the City installing
surveillance technology.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would like to see the City adopt a surveillance ordinance in
conjunction with the purchase of ALPRs that outlines the rules for how this technology is used.
Mayor Ortiz stated that Councilmember O'Brien Keighran is recommending that the City undertake a pilot
program. He noted that he was comfortable with moving forward with a pilot program.
Councilmember Beach stated that she would like to see the City work on a surveillance vetting technology
ordinance in conjunction with the pilot program.
Councilmember Colson asked if the ordinance needed to be done prior to the pilot program.
City Attorney Guina stated that the Council can move forward with a pilot program now without a
surveillance technology ordinance. He added that at a later date, the Council can give direction to staff to
pursue a surveillance technology ordinance.
Mayor Ortiz asked what the pilot program would look like. Police Chief Matteucci stated that he laid out a
few options in the staff report including 14 or 6 locations. He noted that if the Council wanted to cover the
entrances to the city, it would be better to go with 14 locations.
Mayor Ortiz asked if 14 locations meant 14 cameras. Police Chief Matteucci replied in the negative. He
explained that 14 locations would need 20 cameras.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that if the City was going to undertake a pilot program, then the Council
should recommend 14 locations to see if it works. However, he would like to see the Council make a
22
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
commitment that before the year is out, the City will review enacting a surveillance technology ordinance.
He suggested creating a subcommittee that can work with staff on this ordinance.
Mayor Ortiz concurred with Vice Mayor Brownrigg that 14 locations should be in the pilot program.
Councilmember Colson and Councilmember O'Brien Keighran concurred with 14 locations.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if there was a consensus to create a surveillance policy.
City Attorney Guina stated that there was a difference between a surveillance policy and ordinance. He
noted that a policy must be in place to deploy the ALPRs. He added that a draft policy is attached to the staff
report. He explained that an ordinance is more detailed and requires an impact report.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would like to see the City work towards an ordinance.
Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that she would prefer going forward with the pilot program and re-
evaluating in a year whether an ordinance is needed. She explained that she would want to see the data first
before creating an ordinance to understand if it is needed.
Councilmember Beach stated that she thought what the ordinance would do is create a framework for how to
vet any type of surveillance technology that is brought to Council in the future.
Mayor Ortiz asked about the amount of staff time it would take to create a surveillance technology
ordinance. City Attorney Guina stated that the ordinance itself wouldn't take a lot of time to create. Instead,
he discussed the elements of the ordinance that would require continuous work such as the surveillance
impact report.
Councilmember Colson suggested that the City move forward with the pilot program and that if her
colleagues wanted, they could request a future agenda item to better understand what a surveillance
technology ordinance requires.
Councilmember Beach stated that she believed the staff report provided a good summary of the different
elements of a surveillance technology ordinance.
Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if she was correct that none of the cities in the County had an
ordinance and that this type of ordinance was only seen in the big cities. Police Chief Matteucci stated that
no city in the County had this ordinance and that he was only aware of it in cities like Oakland, Berkeley,
and San Francisco.
Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that she didn't want to decide on whether to institute an ordinance
without having baseline data.
23
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Councilmember Beach that an ordinance made good sense.
Mayor Ortiz stated that he thought the City should move forward with the pilot program and also review
whether to enact a surveillance technology ordinance.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about the ALPR Use Policy. He asked when the deadline is for community
members and Council to submit comments and feedback. City Attorney Guina stated that the absolute
deadline for having the policy finalized is before the police department flips the on -switch on the pilot
program. He added that the Council can give direction on what additional elements they want in the use
policy besides what is in the draft attached to the staff report.
Mayor Ortiz asked how long it would take to get the pilot program started. Police Chief Matteucci stated
that he would need to get bids and would bring the Council back a final policy.
Councilmember Beach stated that what she thought was missing from the draft policy is an annual review.
She also asked that staff look at the City of Alameda's policy.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no reports.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Beach asked to agendize raising the Progress Pride Flag for the month of June every year.
The Council agreed to agendize the discussion.
Councilmember Beach asked to agendize a discussion on a surveillance vetting technology ordinance. The
Council agreed to agendize the discussion.
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.burlin ag me.org.
24
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 4, 2022
14. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item: 8a
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 10:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
25
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item: 8b
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
CITY 0
W
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
City Council Closed Session on April 18, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed closed was held via Zoom at 6:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one spoke.
4. CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
PROPERTY: 250 ANZA BOULEVARD, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: CITY MANAGER LISA K. GOLDMAN, PARKS AND
RECREATION DIRECTOR MARGARET GLOMSTAD, CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL
GUINA, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SCOTT SPANSAIL, KAREN MURPHY FROM
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
NEGOTIATING PARTIES: CITY OF BURLINGAME; TOPGOLF USA BURLINGAME,
LLC
UNDER NEGOTIATIONS: PRICE AND TERMS OF REAL ESTATE NEGOTIATIONS
City Attorney Guina stated that direction was given but no reportable action was taken.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 18, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item: 8b
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
April 18, 2022
CITY 0
W
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on April 18, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
Agenda Item: 8c
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at
7:01 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by City Librarian McCulley.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
PROPERTY: 250 ANZA BOULEVARD, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
AGENCY NEGOTIATORS; CITY MANAGER LISA K. GOLDMAN, PARKS AND
RECREATION DIRECTOR MARGARET GLOMSTAD, CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL
GUINA, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SCOTT SPANSAIL, KAREN MURPHY FROM
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
NEGOTIATING PARTIES: CITY OF BURLINGAME; TOPGOLF USA BURLINGAME,
LLC
UNDER NEGOTIATIONS: PRICE AND TERMS OF REAL ESTATE NEGOTIATIONS
City Attorney Guina reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Ortiz reviewed upcoming events in the city.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 18, 2022
Agenda Item: 8c
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
6. PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA
There were no public comments.
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ortiz asked if any his colleagues or members of the public wanted to pull an item from the Consent
Calendar. Vice Mayor Brownrigg pulled item 8e.
Councilmember O'Brien Keighran made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d; seconded by
Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE VICTORIA PARK PLAYGROUND
RENOVATION PROJECT NO.84370 IN THE AMOUNT OF $680,520.33
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 035-2022.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMISSION MEETINGS REMOTELY DUE TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS
FOR THE PUBLIC
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 036-2022.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ORDERING AND CALLING FOR THE NOVEMBER 8,
2022 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO FILL THREE CITY COUNCIL
VACANCIES IN COUNCIL DISTRICTS 1, 3, AND 5
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 037-2022.
d. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE LIBRARY BOARD
OF TRUSTEES
City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill two vacancies on the Library
Board of Trustees.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH CSG CONSULTANTS, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION
2
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 18, 2022
Agenda Item: 8c
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500,000
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that this item was for a $1.5 million contract to have CSG Consultants, Inc.
assist the City with construction management and inspection services. He noted that this item is a sign of
how much development the City is taking on that the City needs to contract out for assistance.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg voiced concerns about the contract. He explained that he felt the contract was fairly
open ended. DPW Murtuza stated that the contract isn't a typical City contract. He explained that the
projects underway in the staff report dictate how much work will get done by CSG Consultants, Inc.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg noted that most of the cost will be recoverable but not all. He explained that he
thought if the City needs to hire a consultant, then the developers should cover the cost. DPW Murtuza
stated that the private developers do their own inspections for their own liability purposes. However, the
City's inspection will be to ensure that the City's ordinances and policies are met. He added that there are
minor costs associated with these inspections that are absorbed by the City.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked how staff plans to review the work of the developers to ensure that the quality
is up to the City's standards. DPW Murtuza replied that processes were in place to ensure that staff stayed
on top of inspections.
Mayor Ortiz asked about the City's past experience with CSG Consultants. DPW Murtuza replied that CSG
Consultants worked on the Burlingame Point Development. He noted that it was the biggest project in the
City and stated that the consultants have a good knowledge of the City and the City's requirements.
Councilmember Colson stated that she was informed by a developer that the City's staff is the best to work
with in the Bay Area.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 038-2022; seconded by Councilmember
Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
POLICY AND ADDING THE POLICY TO THE BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICY MANUAL; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378,15061(b)(3)
City Attorney Guina explained that AB 481 came into effect on January 1, 2022. The law requires law
enforcement agencies to adopt a military use policy prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding,
3
Burlingame City Council April 18, 2022
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item: 8c
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
acquisition, or use of military equipment as that term is defined by the statute. He added that the policy must
be adopted by ordinance at a regular meeting of the governing body for that law enforcement agency. He
noted that this policy must be adopted prior to the City leasing or collaborating with other law enforcement
agencies in their own jurisdiction.
City Attorney Guina stated that AB 481 requires that by May 1, 2022, the City Council start the process of
approving a military equipment use policy.
City Attorney Guina stated that AB 481 requires posting a draft of the policy on the Police Department's
website for at least 30 days prior to the hearing. He noted that this was completed.
City Attorney Guina reviewed the military equipment, as defined by AB 481, that the Police Department
utilizes:
• AR-15 rifle
• M4 select fire rifle
• 40 mm less lethal launchers and kinetic energy munitions
• Pepper ball launchers and munitions
He noted that the Police Department does not have tactical equipment obtained from the military, nor do they
possess any equipment that is designed for military use.
City Attorney Guina stated that the City's Police Department participates in the North County Regional
SWAT Team. He explained some equipment is owned and operated by NCR SWAT through partner law
enforcement agencies. Therefore, while the City's Police Department does not own or operate this
equipment, it could be used in Burlingame by NCR Swat if they are deployed to an incident within City
limits. He reviewed the equipment that NCR SWAT uses that is included in AB 481:
• Drones
• Mine resistant ambush protected vehicles
• Wheeled vehicles with breaching apparatus
• Battering rams/slugs
• AR-15
• Flashbang grenades, tear gas, and pepper balls
• Long range acoustic device
City Attorney Guina stated that AB 481 requires that in order to adopt the military equipment use policy, the
City Council must make the following findings:
• The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the
same objective of officer and civilian safety;
• The proposed policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties;
• If purchasing equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available
alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; and
4
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 18, 2022
Agenda Item: 8c
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
• Prior military equipment complied with the policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did
not comply with the policy, that corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and
ensure future compliance.
City Attorney Guina stated that AB 481 requires that the City undertake an annual review of its policy. He
noted that the annual review will include the following:
• Summary of how the military equipment is used and its purpose
• Summary of any complaints regarding the military equipment
• Internal audit results, violations of policy, corrective actions
• Annual cost of military equipment including acquisition, training, transportation, and the funding
sources
• Quantity possessed
• If the Police Department intends to acquire additional military equipment
Mayor Ortiz asked what a long-range acoustic device is. Police Chief Matteucci stated that it is used for
communication; to scramble communication; and can be used to send out signals that irritate the ear.
Mayor Ortiz asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read
the title.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance;
seconded by Councilmember O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing.
Barb Atwell stated that she reviewed the City's policy but didn't think it covered all items including a use
policy for assault rifles.
Mayor Ortiz closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to bring the proposed ordinance back for a second reading; seconded
by Vice Mayor Brownrigg.
Councilmember Beach asked staff to comment on Ms. Atwell's concern.
City Attorney Guina stated that he appreciated the input from Ms. Atwell. He stated that he believed the
policy could be adopted as is but asked that she provide her comments to the City so that they can be
reviewed.
The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 18, 2022
Agenda Item: 8c
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO FLY THE PRIDE FLAG
THROUGHOUT THE MONTH OF JUNE AT CITY HALL
City Manager Goldman stated that the City has long recognized the month of June as Pride Month.
However, it was not until last year that the City flew the Progress Pride Flag on the City Hall flagpole.
City Manager Goldman explained that previously the City had not flown the flag because of the concern that
it would open up the public forum for free speech. She stated that ACA Spansail reviewed the law and
discovered that the City could fly a commemorative or ceremonial flag as long as it is City speech and not
public speech for anyone else.
City Manager Goldman stated that ACA Spansail drafted an Outdoor Flagpole Display Policy that the
Council adopted on February 22, 2022; that policy contains the rules and procedures to display a flag on a
City -owned flagpole.
City Manager Goldman stated that under the policy:
a request to fly a commemorative or ceremonial flag must be made by at least two (2) City
Councilmembers during a duly -noticed meeting by the City Council, and the request will be
voted upon by the City Council at a later, duly -noticed City Council meeting. All requests to
fly a commemorative or ceremonial flag must receive an affirmative vote of at least four (4)
City Councilmembers to be approved.
City Manager Goldman stated that at the April 4, 2022 Council meeting, Councilmember Beach requested
that the City fly the Progress Pride Flag during the month of June. She explained that Mayor Ortiz seconded
the request. She added that staff recommended, and Councilmember Beach and Mayor Ortiz concurred, that
the City Council consider a resolution directing that the Progress Pride Flag (or whichever subsequent Pride
Flag is appropriate) be flown during Pride Month each year in perpetuity.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 039-2022; seconded by Vice Mayor
Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no reports.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items.
C1
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 18, 2022
Agenda Item: 8c
Meeting Date: May 2, 2022
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.burlin ag me.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
7
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 18, 2022
I
` �� STAFF •
Avovw
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 2, 2022
From: Michael Guina City Attorney
Mike Matteucci, Chief of Police
AGENDA NO: 8d
MEETING DATE: May 2, 2022
Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy and
Adding the Policy to the Burlingame Police Department Policy Manual;
CEQA Determination: Exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections
15378, 15061(b)(3)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance adopting a Military
Equipment Use Policy ("Policy") and adding the Policy to the Burlingame Police Department Policy
Manual. Staff recommends the following procedure:
A. By motion, adopt the proposed Ordinance.
B. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the Ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
DISCUSSION
AB 481 (Government Code section 7070 et seq.) requires adoption of a Policy before the law
enforcement agency can take action to: request military equipment; seek funds (such as grants or
in -kind donations) for acquiring military equipment; actually acquire military equipment, either
permanently or temporarily by owning, borrowing, or leasing; collaborate with other law enforcement
agencies to deploy or use military equipment in the agency's territorial jurisdiction; use new or
existing military equipment in a manner not previously subject to AB 481's scope; solicit or respond
to a proposal for, or enter into an agreement with, any person or entity to seek funds for, apply for,
acquire, use, or collaborate in using military equipment; or to acquire military equipment through
any other means not specifically detailed in the statute.
The City Council conducted a duly -noticed public and adopted the first reading of the proposed
Ordinance and Policy at its regular meeting on April 18, 2022. No changes to the proposed
Ordinance were requested; therefore, the Ordinance is presented to the City Council for second
reading and adoption. The staff report from the April 18 meeting is attached for reference.
1
Adoption of an Ordinance Adopting Military
Equipment Use Policy
May 2, 2022
FISCAL IMPACT
Since the department is not proposing to purchase new military equipment, but only seeks to
continue using current equipment, there is no fiscal impact associated with approval of this
Ordinance adopting the Policy.
Exhibits:
• Proposed Ordinance
o Attachment 1: Military Equipment Use Policy
■ Exhibit A to Military Equipment Use Policy: List of Military Equipment
• Staff report from April 18, 2022 Meeting
I+
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING A
MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY AND ADDING THE POLICY
TO THE BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY MANUAL;
CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTION 15378 AND 15061(b)(3)
WHEREAS, California Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481) became effective January 1,
2022, which requires law enforcement agencies to adopt a military equipment use policy
("Policy") prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of
military equipment as defined by the statute; and
WHEREAS, AB 481 requires adoption of the Policy before the law enforcement agency
can take action to request military equipment; seek funds (such as grants or in -kind donations)
for acquiring military equipment; actually acquire military equipment, either permanently or
temporarily by owning, borrowing, or leasing; collaborate with other law enforcement agencies
to deploy or use military equipment in the agency's territorial jurisdiction; use new or existing
military equipment in a manner not previously subject to AB 481's scope; solicit or respond to a
proposal for, or enter into an agreement with, any person or entity to seek funds for, apply for,
acquire, use, or collaborate in using military equipment; or to acquire military equipment through
any other means not specifically detailed in the statute; and;
WHEREAS, AB 481 provides that the Policy must be adopted by ordinance at a
regular meeting of the governing body, i.e., the City Council for the law enforcement
agency; and
WHEREAS, to continue to use military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022,
the law enforcement agency must commence the process of adopting the Policy no later than
May 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to AB 481, this Ordinance shall be reviewed bythe City Council
at least annually, and based on an annual military equipment report that must be submitted to
the City Council, the City Council shall determine whether each type of military equipment
identified in the report has complied with the standards for continued approval; if the City Council
cannot make such a determination, it shall either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for
that type of equipment, or require modifications to the Policy in a manner to resolve the lack of
compliance; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with AB 481, the proposed Policy was made available on
the Police Department's website within 30 days of the public hearing by the City Council to adopt
the Policy; once adopted, the Policy will be made publicly available on the Police Department's
website for as long as the covered military equipment is available for use; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 7070 provides a list of types of equipment
that are to be considered military equipment for purposes of compliance with AB 481 and
the Government Code; and while the Burlingame Police Department does not possess
any tactical equipment that it has obtained from the military, nor does it possess any
equipment that was designed for military use, it does possess some types of equipment
that are listed in Section 7070; additionally, the Burlingame Police Department
participates in a regional S.W.A.T. team, which possesses and utilizes additional types of
equipment that qualify as military equipment according to the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, in order to comply with AB 481 and the California Government Code,
the City Council wishes to a by ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals
The recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated
herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety.
Section 2. Findings
Pursuant to Government Code section 7071(d)(1), as may be amended or
renumbered from time to time, the City Council hereby makes the following findings in
support of its adoption of the Policy:
A. The military equipment identified in the Policy is necessary because there is
no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and
civilian safety.
B. The proposed Policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights,
and civil liberties.
C. If the Police Department purchases military equipment pursuant to the
Policy, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available
alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
D. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy
that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the
accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been
taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
Section 3. Military Equipment Use Policy Adopted
In light of the findings set forth in Section 2, and in accordance with AB 481, the
City Council, as the Governing Body described in AB 481, adopts the Military Equipment
I+
Use Policy attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated in full herein.
Section 4. CEQA Determination
The City Council finds and determines this Ordinance is not a project within the
meaning of section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting
in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this
Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption
contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty
to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.
Section 5. Severability
If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or
sections of the Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby 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 unconstitutional.
Section 6. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall go into effect 30 days following its adoption.
Section 7. Publication The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in a
manner required by law.
Section 8. Codification
This Ordinance shall not be codified in the Burlingame Municipal Code.
I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on 1811
day of April 2022 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
the day of by the following votes:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk
3
EXHIBIT A
Burlingame Police Department
Burlingame PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
708.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting
requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071;
Government Code § 7072).
This policy is provided to fulfill the obligations set forth in Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481). These
obligations include but are not limited to seeking approval on specific items deemed to be military
equipment and requirements related to compliance, annual reporting, cataloguing and complaints.
It is the policy of the Burlingame Police Department (Department) that there are legally enforceable
safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures in place to protect the
public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired,
or used.
708.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):
Governing body — The Burlingame City Council
Law Enforcement Agency - The City of Burlingame Police Department
Military equipment — Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles.
• Mine -resistant ambush -protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers.
• High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two -and -one -half -ton trucks,
five -ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached.
• Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants.
• Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the
operational control and direction of public safety units.
• Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.
• Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This
does not include a handheld, one -person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, excluding standard -issue shotguns
and standard -issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and
accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code §
30515, with the exception of standard -issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.
• Noise -flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools.
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/13, All Rights Reserved. ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 1
Published with permission by Burlingame Police Department
Burlingame Police Department
Burlingame PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
• Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service -issued handheld
pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic
devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require
additional oversight.
708.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Burlingame Police Department that members of this department comply with
the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment.
708.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police shall designate a member of this Department to act as the military equipment
coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this
policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current
possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire
that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually.
(d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the
jurisdiction of Burlingame Police Department (Government Code § 7071).
(e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement
meeting to include:
1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.
2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department's funding, acquisition,
and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police
and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government
Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that
person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how
the Department will respond in a timely manner.
708.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
A list of equipment currently held by the Department or in coordination with another local agency is
attached to this Policy as Exhibit "A" and incorporated into this Policy by reference. The inventory
list will be updated each year as part of the annual report required pursuant to AB 481.
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/13, All Rights Reserved. ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 2
Published with permission by Burlingame Police Department
Burlingame Police Department
Burlingame PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
708.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by
way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the
Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is
submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior
to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The
military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the
following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a.
(b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant,
soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in -kind donations, or other
donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing
or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of
military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department.
(e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person
not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other
person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the
use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above.
708.6 USE IN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
In exigent circumstances and with the approval of the Chief of Police or his/her designee, the
Police Department may acquire, borrow and/or use military equipment that is not included in this
policy.
If the Department acquires, borrows, and/or uses military equipment in exigent circumstances, in
accordance with this section, it must take all of the following actions:
Provide written notice of that acquisition or use to the City Council within 30 days
following the commencement of such exigent circumstance, unless such information
is confidential or privileged under local, state or federal law.
If it is anticipated that the use will continue beyond the exigent circumstance, submit a
proposed amended policy to the City Council within 90 days following the borrowing,
acquisition and/or use, and receive approval, as applicable, from the City Council.
Include the military equipment in the Department's next annual military equipment
report.
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/13, All Rights Reserved. ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 3
Published with permission by Burlingame Police Department
Burlingame Police Department
Burlingame PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
708.7 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment should not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in
this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy.
708.8 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should
submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment
approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment
is available for use (Government Code § 7072).
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment
report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is
available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072
for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory.
708.9 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold
at least one well -publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which
the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding,
acquisition, or use of military equipment.
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/13, All Rights Reserved. ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 4
Published with permission by Burlingame Police Department
EXHIBIT A
Section One: Qualifying Equipment Owned/Utilized by the Burlingame Police Department
Equipment Name: 5.56mm Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition - CA Gov't Code
7070 c 10
Quantity Owned/Sought: 28 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years
Equipment Capabilities: AR-15 semiautomatic rifle is capable of firing 5.56mm projectile
bullet.
Manufacturer Product Description: The Colt AR-15 is a lightweight, magazine -fed, gas -
operated semi -automatic rifle. It is a semi -automatic version of the M16 rifle sold for the
civilian and law enforcement markets in the United States.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: Officers may deploy the patrol rifle in any circumstance where
the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. Examples of
some general guidelines for deploying the patrol rifle may include but are not limited to:
1. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.
2. When an officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at
long range.
3. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a
suspect's firepower.
4. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded
person or a person with a hostage.
5. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.
6. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.
Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of equipment was approximately $34,000. The ongoing costs
for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws
governing police use of force. Various Burlingame Police Department Policies on Use of
Force and Firearms.
Training Required: Officers must successfully complete a CA POST certified 24-hour patrol
rifle course as well as regular department firearms training and qualifications as required by
law and policy.
Other Notes: These rifles are standard issue service weapons for our officers and therefor
exempted from this Military Equipment Use Policy per CA Gov't Code §7070 (c)(10). They
have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of
transparency.
Equipment Name: M4 Select fire rifle is capable of firing 5.56mm projectile bullet either fully
automatic or semiautomatic. Rifles and Ammunition - CA Gov't Code §7070(c)(10)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 6 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years
Equipment Capabilities: M4 Select fire rifle is capable of firing 5.56mm projectile bullet
either fully automatic or semiautomatic.
Manufacturer Product Description: The Colt M4 is a lightweight, magazine -fed, gas -
operated fully automatic or semi -automatic rifle.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: Officers may deploy the patrol rifle in any circumstance where
the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. Examples of
some general guidelines for deploying the patrol rifle may include but are not limited to:
1. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.
2. When an officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at
long range.
3. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a
suspect's firepower.
4. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded
person or a person with a hostage.
5. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.
6. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.
Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of equipment was approximately $6,000. The ongoing costs
for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws
governing police use of force. Various Burlingame Police Department Policies on Use of
Force and Firearms.
Training Required: Officers must successfully complete a CA POST certified 24-hour patrol
rifle course as well as regular department firearms training and qualifications as required by
law and policy.
Other Notes: These rifles are standard issue service weapons for our officers and therefor
exempted from this Military Equipment Use Policy per CA Gov't Code §7070 (c)(10). They
have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of
transparency.
Equipment Name: 5.56mm Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition - CA Gov't Code
§7070(c)(10)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 2 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years
Equipment Capabilities: AR-15 semiautomatic rifle is capable of firing 5.56mm projectile
bullet.
Manufacturer Product Description: The Windham Weaponry AR-15 is a lightweight,
magazine -fed, gas -operated semi -automatic rifle. It is a semi -automatic version of the M16
rifle sold for the civilian and law enforcement markets in the United States.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: Officers may deploy the patrol rifle in any circumstance where
the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. Examples of
some general guidelines for deploying the patrol rifle may include but are not limited to:
1. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.
2. When an officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at
long range.
3. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a
suspect's firepower.
4. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded
person or a person with a hostage.
5. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.
6. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.
Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of equipment was approximately $2,000. The ongoing costs
for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws
governing police use of force. Various Burlingame Police Department Policies on Use of
Force and Firearms.
Training Required: Officers must successfully complete a CA POST certified 24-hour patrol
rifle course as well as regular department firearms training and qualifications as required by
law and policy.
Other Notes: These rifles are standard issue service weapons for our officers and therefor
exempted from this Military Equipment Use Policy per CA Gov't Code §7070 (c)(10). They
have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of
transparency.
Equipment Name: 5.56mm Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition - CA Gov't Code
7070 c 10
Quantity Owned/Sought: 2 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years
Equipment Capabilities: AR-15 semiautomatic rifle is capable of firing 5.56mm projectile
bullet.
Manufacturer Product Description: The Stagg Arms AR-15 is a lightweight, magazine -fed,
gas -operated semi -automatic rifle. It is a semi -automatic version of the M16 rifle sold for the
civilian and law enforcement markets in the United States.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: Officers may deploy the patrol rifle in any circumstance where
the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. Examples of
some general guidelines for deploying the patrol rifle may include but are not limited to:
1. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.
2. When an officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at
long range.
3. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a
suspect's firepower.
4. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded
person or a person with a hostage.
5. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.
6. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.
Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of equipment was approximately $2,000. The ongoing costs
for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws
governing police use of force. Various Burlingame Police Department Policies on Use of
Force and Firearms.
Training Required: Officers must successfully complete a CA POST certified 24-hour patrol
rifle course as well as regular department firearms training and qualifications as required by
law and policy.
Other Notes: These rifles are standard issue service weapons for our officers and therefor
exempted from this Military Equipment Use Policy per CA Gov't Code §7070 (c)(10). They
have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of
transparency.
Equipment Name: 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions - CA Gov't
Code 7070 c 14
Quantity Owned/Sought: 12 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years
Equipment Capabilities: The 40mm Less Lethal Launcher is capable of firing 40mm Kinetic
Energy Munitions, which are essentially rubber projectiles.
Manufacturer Product Description: Penn Arms 40MM launchers are manufactured using
4140 hardened steel, 6061-T6 mil -spec anodized aluminum and DuPont supertough glass
filled nylon. These launchers are light weight, versatile and used worldwide by police and
corrections officers. The 40MM launcher family of products is available in single -shot, spring -
advance multi, and pump -advance multi -versions.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: The 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions
are intended for use as a less lethal use of force option.
Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of this equipment was approximately $12,000. The ongoing
costs for munitions will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws
governing police use of force. Various Burlingame Police Department Policies on Use of
Force and Crowd Control.
Training Required: Officers must complete a department certified 40mm course as well as
regular training and qualifications as required by law and policy.
Other Notes: None.
Equipment Name: 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions - CA Gov't
Code 7070 c 14
Quantity Owned/Sought: 2 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years
Equipment Capabilities: The 40mm Less Lethal Launcher is capable of firing 40mm Kinetic
Energy Munitions, which are essentially rubber projectiles.
Manufacturer Product Description: Def-Tec 40MM launchers are manufactured using 4140
hardened steel, 6061-T6 mil -spec anodized aluminum and DuPont super tough glass filled
nylon. These launchers are light weight, versatile and used worldwide by police and
corrections officers. The 40MM launcher family of products is available in single -shot, spring -
advance multi, and pump -advance multi -versions.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: The 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions
are intended for use as a less lethal use of force option.
Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of this equipment was approximately $2,000. The ongoing
costs for munitions will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws
governing police use of force. Various Burlingame Police Department Policies on Use of
Force and Crowd Control.
Training Required: Officers must complete a department certified 40mm course as well as
regular training and qualifications as required by law and policy.
Other Notes: None.
Equipment Name: Pepperball FTC Pepperball less lethal Pepperball launchers and
Pepmerball munitions - CA Gov't Code W070(c)(12)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 2 owned I Lifespan: Approximately 15 years
Equipment Capabilities: The FTC is a high -capacity, semi -automatic launcher that is perfect
for crowd management and mobile field force operations. Capable of deploying pepper
chemicals.
Manufacturer Product Description: The FTC is a high -capacity, semi -automatic launcher
that is perfect for crowd management and mobile field force operations. Reliable and
accurate, it features a hopper that can hold up to 180 rounds, a flexible air source
configuration and a compact modular design.
• Compact, Lightweight Modular Design • Uses Standard .68 cal Round
Projectiles
• .68 caliber • 13ci High Pressure Air
System
• Feeds 20+ Projectiles Per Second with EL-2Tm Hopper • No Recoil
• MIL-STD-1913 Rail Platform • Maximum range of 100ft • Cross -bold Safety
Purpose/Authorized Uses: The Pepperball FTC Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy
Munitions are intended for use as a less lethal use of force option.
Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of this equipment was approximately $2,000. The ongoing
costs for munitions will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws
governing police use of force. Various Burlingame Police Department Policies on Use of
Force and Crowd Control.
Training Required: Officers must complete a department certified Pepperball course as well
as regular training and qualifications as required by law and policy.
Other Notes: None.
Section Two: Qualifying equipment not already listed in this policy, which is known to be
owned and/or utilized by the North County Regional SWAT Team, for which the Burlingame
Police Department is a participating agency
Equipment Type: Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicles - CA Gov't Code
§7070(c)(1)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 2 Drones / 4 Robots
Lifespan: Approximately 15 years
(Not owned by BPD)
Equipment Capabilities: Vehicles are capable of being remotely navigated to provide scene
information and intelligence in the form of video and still images transmitted to first
responders.
Manufacturer Product Description: Unavailable as this equipment is not owned by the
Burlingame Police Department.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: To enhance the safety of potentially dangerous situations by
providing first responders with the ability to capture video and still images of hazardous areas
prior to, or in lieu of, sending in personnel.
Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by another agency.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: The use of unmanned, remotely piloted, powered
ground vehicles potentially involves privacy considerations. Absent a warrant or exigent
circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to all applicable privacy laws and shall
not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a
reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., residence, yard, enclosure).
Training Required: The North County Regional SWAT Team provides internal training for
staff members prior to allowing them to pilot these vehicles.
Other Notes: None.
Equipment Type: Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP) - CA Gov't Code
7070 c 2
Quantity Owned/Sought: 1 (Not owned by BPD) I Lifespan: Unknown
Equipment Capabilities: Capable of transporting personnel and equipment while providing
them with armored protection from gunfire.
Manufacturer Product Description: Unavailable as this equipment is not owned by the
Burlingame Police Department.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: To move personnel and/or resources in support of tactical
operations in which there is reason to expect potential armed resistance requiring protection.
Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by another agency.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: The MRAP can be deployed any time tactical
operators determine that there is a need to move personnel and/or resources into areas in
which they have reason to expect potential armed resistance requiring its protection.
Training Required: The North County Regional SWAT Team provides internal training for
staff members prior to allowing them to drive MRAP vehicles.
Other Notes: None.
Equipment Type: Wheeled vehicles that have a breaching apparatus attached - CA Gov't
Code 7070 c 3
Quantity Owned/Sought: 1 (Not owned by BPD) I Lifespan: Unknown.
Equipment Capabilities: Capable of breaching doors, gates, and other points of entry.
Manufacturer Product Description: Unavailable as this equipment is not owned by the
Burlingame Police Department.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: Breaching doors, gates, and other points of entry.
Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by another agency.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Breaching vehicles can be deployed any time
tactical operators determine that it is necessary to complete a lawful breaching. For a
breaching to be lawful, it will generally need to be supported by a search or arrest warrant, or
exigent circumstances.
Training Required: The North County Regional SWAT Team provides internal training for
staff members prior to allowing them to drive breaching vehicles.
Other Notes: None.
Equipment Type: Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatus that are explosive in
nature - CA Gov't Code §7070(c)(7)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 0 (Not owned by BPD) Lifespan: Unknown.
Equipment Capabilities: Capable of breaching doors, gates, windows, and other points of
entry.
Manufacturer Product Description: Unavailable as this equipment is not owned by the
Burlingame Police Department.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: Breaching doors, gates, windows, and other points of entry.
Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by another agency.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Breaching apparatus that are explosive in nature
can be deployed any time tactical operators determine that it is necessary to complete a
lawful breaching, and non -explosive breaching methods are not tactically practicable. For a
breaching to be lawful, it will generally need to be supported by a search or arrest warrant, or
exigent circumstances.
Training Required: The North County Regional SWAT Team provides internal training for
staff members prior to allowing them to use explosive breaching apparatus.
Other Notes: None.
Equipment Type: AR-15 Style Semiautomatic Rifle and Ammunition - CA Gov't Code
7070 c 10
Quantity Owned/Sought: 60 (not owned by
Lifespan: Approximately 15 years
BPD)
Equipment Capabilities: The AR15 style firearm can fire a .223, .556, .308 or .300 caliber
projectile accurately at over 100 yards.
Manufacturer Product Description: The AR15 style firearm features M-LOK attachment
technology with the Daniel Defense MFR 15.0 rail. Built around a Cold Hammer Forged, 16-
inch barrel, the V7 has a DID improved Flash Suppressor to reduce flash signature. The mid -
length gas system provides smooth and reliable cycling under any condition and reduces both
perceived recoil and wear on moving parts. With the M-LOK attachment points that run along
7 positions and an uninterrupted 1913 Picatinny rail on top, the V7 has plenty of room for the
sights, optics, and accessories the user may require. The independently ambi GRIP-N-RIP
Charging Handle accommodates left- and right-handed shooters. This rifle also comes with
the ergonomic Daniel Defense Buttstock and Pistol Grip.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: Officers may deploy the patrol rifle in any circumstance where
the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. Examples of
some general guidelines for deploying the patrol rifle may include but are not limited to:
1. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.
2. When an officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at
long range.
3. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a
suspect's firepower.
4. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded
person or a person with a hostage.
5. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.
6. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.
Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by another agency.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws
governing police use of force. Various Burlingame Police Department Policies on Use of
Force and Firearms.
Training Required: In addition to patrol rifle and standard SWAT Operator training, SWAT
Operators must successfully complete a CA POST certified SWAT course as well as regular
SWAT training and qualifications as required by law and policy.
Other Notes: None.
Equipment Type: Flashbang grenades, explosive breaching tools, tear gas and pepper balls
- CA Gov't Code 7070 c 12
Quantity Owned/Sought: 20 (Not owned by
Lifespan: Unknown.
BPD)
Equipment Capabilities: Capable of breaching doors, gates, windows, and other points of
entry, creating explosive distractions, and/or deploying tear gas or pepper chemical.
Manufacturer Product Description: Unavailable as this equipment is not owned by the
Burlingame Police Department.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: breaching doors, gates, windows, and other points of entry,
creating explosive distractions, and/or deploying tear gas or pepper chemicals.
Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by another agency.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Breaching apparatus that are explosive in nature
can be deployed any time tactical operators determine that it is necessary to complete a
lawful breaching, and non -explosive breaching methods are not tactically practicable. For a
breaching to be lawful, it will generally need to be supported by a search or arrest warrant, or
exigent circumstances. Tear gas and pepper balls can only be deployed in accordance with
all applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force, crowd control, etc.
Training Required: The North County Regional SWAT Team provides internal training for
staff members prior to allowing them to use any of these items.
Other Notes: None.
Equipment Type: Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) - CA Gov't Code §7070(c)(13)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 1 (Not owned by BPD) I Lifespan: Unknown.
Equipment Capabilities: LRAD systems are a type of Acoustic Hailing Device (AHD) used to
send messages over long distances. LRAD systems produce much higher sound levels
(volume) than normal loudspeakers or megaphones. Over shorter distances, LRAD signals
are loud enough to cause pain in the ears of people in their path.
Manufacturer Product Description: Unavailable as this equipment is not owned by the
Burlingame Police Department.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: Can be used to disperse unlawful crowds (with required notice
and compliance times) and/or to disrupt the activities of person(s) who represent an
immediate threat to others.
Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by another agency.
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: LRADs can only be deployed in accordance with
all applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force, crowd control, etc.
Training Required: The North County Regional SWAT Team provides internal training for
staff members prior to allowing them to use any of these items.
Other Notes: None.
�� CITV O
��
`� STAFFME
REPORT
Avovw
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 18, 2022
From: Michael Guina City Attorney
Mike Matteucci, Chief of Police
AGENDA NO: 9a
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2022
Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy and
Adding the Policy to the Burlingame Police Department Policy Manual;
CEQA Determination: Exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections
15378, 15061(b)(3)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing to introduce the proposed Ordinance
adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy ("Policy") and adding the Policy to the Burlingame Police
Department Policy Manual. To introduce the Ordinance, staff recommends the following procedure:
Recommended Procedure and Order of Operations:
A. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff.
B. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed Ordinance.
C. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance.
D. Conduct a public hearing.
E. Discuss the Ordinance and by motion determine whether to bring it back for second
reading and adoption. If the Council is in favor of the Ordinance, direct the City Clerk to
publish a summary of the Ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption.
BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2021, Governor Newsom signed a series of policing reform bills into law. These
laws are aimed at increasing police transparency. In particular, Assembly Bill ("AB") 481, which
came into effect on January 1, 2022, requires law enforcement agencies to adopt a military
equipment use policy ("Policy") prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or
use of military equipment as that term is defined by the statute. The Policy must be adopted by
ordinance at a regular meeting of the governing body for that law enforcement agency. In the case
of the Burlingame Police Department, the City Council is the governing body.
1
Introduction of an Ordinance Adopting Military Equipment Use Policy April 18, 2022
DISCUSSION
AB 481 (Government Code section 7070 et seq.) requires adoption of a Policy before the law
enforcement agency can take action to: request military equipment; seek funds (such as grants or in -kind
donations) for acquiring military equipment; actually acquire military equipment, either permanently or
temporarily by owning, borrowing, or leasing; collaborate with other law enforcement agencies to deploy or
use military equipment in the agency's territorial jurisdiction; use new or existing military equipment in a
manner not previously subject to AB 481's scope; solicit or respond to a proposal for, or enter into an
agreement with, any person or entity to seek funds for, apply for, acquire, use, or collaborate in using military
equipment; or to acquire military equipment through any other means not specifically detailed in the statute.
Definition of Military Equipment
AB 481 designates the following categories of items as military equipment:
1. Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles
2. Mine -resistant ambush -protected vehicles or armored personnel carriers
3. High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two -and -one -half -ton trucks, five -
ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached.
4. Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a
tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.
5. Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational
control and direction of public safety units.
6. Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.
7. Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature
8. Firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, excluding standard -issue shotguns and
standard -issue shotgun ammunition.
9. Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and
accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code §30515,
with the exception of standard -issue handguns.
10. Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles
11. "Flashbang" grenades and explosive breaching tools, "tear gas," and "pepper balls,"
excluding standard, service -issued handheld pepper spray.
12. Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices.
13. Projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions including 40mm projectile
launchers, "bean bag," rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition weapons.
14. Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require
additional oversight.
The Burlingame Police Department does not possess any tactical equipment that it has obtained from the
military, nor does it possess any equipment that was designed for military use. The Police Department does
possess some types of police equipment that fall under the broad definition of military equipment in AB
481, including the following:
2
Introduction of an Ordinance Adopting Military Equipment Use Policy April 18, 2022
• AR-15 semiautomatic rifle is capable of firing 5.56mm projectile bullet
• M4 Select fire rifle
• 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions
• Pepperball FTC Pepperball less lethal Pepperball launchers and Pepperball munitions
A complete description of this equipment is attached to the proposed Policy as Exhibit A, "Section
One: Qualifying Equipment Owned / Used by the Burlingame Police Department."
The Burlingame Police Department participates in the North County Regional SWAT Team (NCR
SWAT). Some equipment is owned and operated by NCR SWAT through partner law enforcement
agencies (San Mateo PD, Foster City PD, San Bruno PD, South San Francisco PD, and Brisbane
PD). While the Burlingame Police Department does not own or operate this equipment, it could be
used in Burlingame by NCR SWAT if they are deployed to an incident within City limits. The list of
military equipment available to Burlingame PD through its participation in NCR SWAT is attached
to the proposed Policy as Exhibit A, "Section Two: Qualifying equipment not already listed in this
policy, which is known to be owned and/or utilized by the North County Regional SWAT Team, for
which the Burlingame Police Department is a participating agency."
Consideration of Draft Policy at Public Hearing; Criteria for Approving Policy
As noted, the Policy must be adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council following a public
hearing. In addition, AB 481 requires the draft Policy to be published on the Police Department's
website at least 30 days prior to the public hearing to approve the Policy. The draft Policy was
posted to the Burlingame Police Department's website on March 17, 2022.
The governing body shall approve a proposed Policy if it determines all of the following:
• The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can
achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety;
• The proposed Policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties;
• If purchasing equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available
alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; and
• Prior military equipment complied with the Policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior
uses did not comply with the Policy, that corrective action has been taken to remedy
nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
For the military equipment used by the Burlingame Police department, staff believes the City
Council is able to make the required findings. The military equipment used by BPD is necessary
because there are no reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objective for officer and
civilian safety. The proposed Policy for BPD's military equipment is designed to safeguard the public
welfare, safety, and civil rights: the Policy describes the purpose and use of each type of equipment,
the fiscal impacts, the rules of use for the equipment, and the training required. For the current year,
the department is not proposing to purchase equipment. Finally, as this is the first year for AB 481
compliance, there is no prior Policy to compare past use. For the next reporting period, staff will
provide an analysis of whether the use complied with the approved Policy.
3
Introduction of an Ordinance Adopting Military Equipment Use Policy April 18, 2022
Annual Review
A law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy is required to
submit to the governing body an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment
approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as
the military equipment is available for use. The annual report is also required to be made publicly
available on the department's website. Following review of the annual report, the governing body
shall determine whether each type of military equipment identified in the report has complied with the
standards for continued approval. If the City Council cannot make such a determination, it shall either
disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of equipment, or require modifications to the Policy
in a manner to resolve the lack of compliance.
The annual report must contain, at a minimum, the following information for the immediately
preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
1. A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.
2. A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.
3. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment
use policy, and any actions taken in response.
4. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel,
training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from
what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following
submission of the annual military equipment report.
5. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment.
6. If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next
year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.
In addition, within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual military equipment report,
the law enforcement agency must hold at least one well -publicized and conveniently located
community meeting at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the
annual report and the law enforcement agency's funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
FISCAL IMPACT
Since the department is not proposing to purchase new military equipment, but only seeks to
continue using current equipment, there is no fiscal impact associated with approval of this
Ordinance adopting the Policy.
Exhibits:
• Proposed Ordinance
o Attachment 1: Military Equipment Use Policy
■ Exhibit A to Military Equipment Use Policy: List of Military Equipment
E
BURLE
AGENDA NO: 8e
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 2, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 2, 2022
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230
Kevin Okada, Senior Civil Engineer — (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of Resolutions Awarding a Construction Contract to Cratus Inc. in
the Amount of $2,287,000 for the Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main
Improvements Project; and Approving a Professional Services Agreement
with Coastland Civil Engineering, Inc. in the Amount of $329,590 for
Construction Management Services Related to the Project; and Authorizing
the Citv Manaqer to Execute Said Contracts
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions as follows:
(1) Award a construction contract to Cratus Inc. for the Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main
Improvements Project, City Project No. 84891 in the amount of $2,287,000.00 and authorize
the City Manager to execute the construction contract; and
(2) Approve a professional services agreement with Coastland Civil Engineering, Inc. in the
amount of $329,590.00 for construction management services related to the projects, and
authorize the City Manager to execute the professional services agreement.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has implemented a robust Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to address the
City's aging infrastructure. The Glenwood Park Subdivision and portions of the nearby Burlingame
Park Subdivisions were identified as high priority locations because the existing 4-inch, 6-inch, 8-
inch, and 12-inch cast iron water mains were installed nearly 100 years ago and have reached their
intended service life. The work is necessary to ensure uninterrupted water service to the residents
in the affected area and to improve water quality, flow, and pressure to serve the residents in the
area. Furthermore, the new water system will improve fire protection capability for the residents in
the affected area.
The water main work includes approximately 1,580 linear feet of new 12-inch, 900 linear feet of
new 8-inch, 1,690 linear feet of new 6-inch, and 10 linear feet of new 4-inch Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP)
water main on Howard Avenue, Cypress Avenue, Carol Avenue, East Carol Avenue, Central
Avenue, and Crescent Avenue. The project also consists of installing new 1 and 2-inch water
service replacements, totaling approximately 2,900 linear feet for customer service connections.
1
Award of Construction Contract and Approval of Professional Services Agreement May 2, 2022
For the Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements
Eleven fire hydrant assemblies will also be removed and replaced with new ones. Miscellaneous
concrete and asphalt work will be performed as needed.
DISCUSSION
Construction Contract: Staff advertised the project for bids on March 14, 2022 and opened the
sealed bids on April 12, 2022. The City received seven bids ranging from $2,287,000 to $3,201,935.
Cratus, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of $2,287,000, which is 22% lower
than the engineer's estimate of $2,930,000. Staff has reviewed Cratus's proposal and finds that the
contractor has met all the project requirements and has a past history of performing similar work
successfully for the City and other agencies. As a result, staff recommends that the City Council
award the project to Cratus, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute the construction
contract.
Additionally, staff recommends that the City Council authorize a 25% construction contingency
budget to take advantage of favorable bid prices and perform additional water main replacement
on Ralston Avenue that is planned for a future project.
Professional Services Contract: Coastland Civil Engineering, Inc. has been selected as the top
qualified firm to provide professional services related to construction management and inspection
through a competitive RFP (Request for Proposal) process. Coastland has extensive experience
in construction management and inspection services for utility work and has successfully completed
similar projects for the City in the past. Staff has negotiated a professional service fee with
Coastland Civil Engineering in the amount of $329,590 for the following scope of professional
services:
• Attend and manage pre -construction meetings between the City and contractor;
• Perform daily construction inspections and provide construction management services for
a 140 working day construction period;
• Assemble project files and administer construction management procedures;
• Prepare daily written construction reports and document photographic records of the
project;
• Attend weekly construction progress meetings, perform necessary field engineering work,
and perform quality assurance assessments;
• Provide written reports and documentation, including weekly statement of working days,
meeting minutes, field directive log, and tracking change orders;
• Perform construction management services including manage submittals, requests for
information (RFI), labor compliance, and maintaining records;
• Perform cost and schedule management, including review and advise the City on
contractor's overall and weekly construction schedule as well as tracking work quantities'
calculations;
• Provide public relations and outreach services;
• Provide conflict resolution and claims management services, including negotiate claims,
advise the City regarding liquidated damages, and final payment; and
2
Award of Construction Contract and Approval of Professional Services Agreement May 2, 2022
For the Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements
• Perform project close out inspection and develop final punch list.
The professional service fee amount represents approximately 14% of the construction cost. The
amount is consistent with industry standards for construction management and inspection services
based on the scope and complexity of the project.
The project construction is anticipated to begin in July 2022 and be completed by March 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated Project Expenditures:
The following are the estimated project construction expenditures:
Construction $2,287,000
Construction Management $329,590
Construction Contingencies 25% $654,148
Engineering Administration and Staff time $129,262
Total $3,400,000
There are adequate funds in the City Council approved Capital Improvement Program to fund the
proposed work. The work will be funded by the Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main
Improvements Project, City Project No. 84891; and the Water Service Replacement Program, City
Project No. 86300. Additionally, $800,000 is being programed in the fiscal year 2022-23 Water CIP
to account for contingencies and additional scope of work.
Exhibits:
• Resolution Awarding Construction Contract
• Resolution Approving Professional Services Agreement
• Bid Summary
• Project Location Map
• Construction Contract
• Professional Services Agreement
3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR GLENWOOD PARK
SUBDIVISION WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TO CRATUS, INC. AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT
CITY PROJECT NO. 84891
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2022, the City issued notice inviting bid proposals for the
Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements Project and Water Service Replacement
Program, City Project No. 84891; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2022, all proposals were received and opened before the City
Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, Cratus, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of
$2,287,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and
Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of Cratus, Inc. for said project in the amount of
$2,287,000, and the same hereby is accepted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the
successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said
work, and that the City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said
contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to
be furnished by the contractor.
Ricardo Ortiz, 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 2nd day of May,
2022, 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
APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COASTLAND
CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE GLENWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION WATER
MAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
CITY PROJECT NO. 84891
WHEREAS, the City is implementing the Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main
Improvements Project, City Project No. 84891; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage a professional engineering consultant to
provide construction management and inspection services; and
WHEREAS, Coastland Civil Engineering, Inc., has been selected through a
competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to enter into a Professional Services Agreement
("Agreement") with Coastland Civil Engineering, Inc., to provide said services.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Burlingame, California which FINDS, ORDERS and DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the Agreement cited in
the title above.
2. The City Manager is authorized to sign said Agreement on behalf of the City of
Burlingame.
3. The City Clerk is instructed to attest such signature.
Ricardo Ortiz, 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 2nd day of May,
2022 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk
Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements Project
City Project No. 8401
BID OPENING:
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2022 at 2:30P.M.
ers rtimate
flatus, Inc.
Casey Construes.., Inr.
Bau EnBineerin8
Kl Woods Consbuelon Inc.
MitsBell Engineer"mH
W.R. 'once Assaiata,ln<.
<on -Quest Coirorattors, Inc.
RfM
ITEM OEBCAIPTION
No.
CITy
UNIT
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
UNIT P0.1Cf
AMOUNT
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
1
MobllibaROn
1
LS
5
$ 27,5o0.00
$ 16,50000
$ BE0000
$ 1%750.00
$ BE0000
$ 305.00
$ 315.W
$ 350.00
$ 305.W
$ -00
$ 450.W
$ 550.00
$ 625.W
$ -00
$ OW.W
$ 650.00
$ 750.W
$ 1,200.00
$ 050.W
$ 9W.W
$ 1,4W.00
$ 1,500DD
$ 1-Do
$ 1,6W.o0
$ 23W.00
$ 4,500.00
$ 25W.00
$ 1,8W.00
$ 12,500.00
$ 1,250.00
$ S,SW.oO
$ ]22,900.00
$ 27500.00
$ 16,s..00
$ B-Do
$ 13,750.00
$ B-Do
$ 3,Dse.Do
$ 549,250.00
$ 315,W0.00
$ 608,300.00
$ 80D.W
$ L-00
$ 4,950.00
$ 1,250.00
$ 4,200D.
$ Lecoo0
$ 1,300D.
$ 105W.00
$ 2,400D.
$ L-Do
$ 90D.W
$ 5,6DD.00
$ 1,SW.00
$ L-Do
$ 1'-D.
$ 13,8W.00
$ 85,SW.00
$ 1o'-G0
$ 12,6W.00
$ 87,5W.00
$ 8,750.00
$ 1,50D.00
$ 80,OD0.00
$ 40000.00
$ 35,-D.
S 5,000.00
$ 21),-D.
S 12,500.00
$ 240.W
$ 240.W
$ 26o.W
S 200.0c
$ D...W
S too.W
$ IOO.W
$ too.W
$ D...W
S 250.W
$ 250.W
$ 250.W
$ 250.W
S 250.W
$ 250.W
$ 250.W
$ 25o.W
S 250.W
$ 25o.W
$ 250.W
$ 8,OD0.00
S 4,50G.00
$ 3,5W.00
$ 13,50DOO
$ SOO.W
$ 1,SW.00
$ 80,OD0D.
$ 40000.00
$ 35,-D.
$ 5,000.00
$ 21),-D.
$ 12500.00
$ 2,400.00
$ 405,6GODO
$ 234,WD0o
$ 442,400.00
$ 2oo.00
S 400.W
$ ED-
$ 200.W
$ 60o.W
$ 500.0c
$ SOO.W
$ 3,500.00
$ SOO.W
$ 500.0c
$ 250.W
$ 5,000.00
$ 25o.W
$ 250.0c
$ 25o.W
$ 1,500.00
$ 152,000.00
$ 10,000Do
$ 24,SW.00
$ 945W.00
$ 3,5W.00
S S,SW.00
$ 29,OD0.00
$ 50,ODGD0
$ 7,000.00
$ .,-.Do
$ 12,OD0.00
$ %000'oo
$ 210.00
$ 223.W
$ 225.00
$ 205.W
$ 55c.00
$ 550.W
$ 550.00
$ 550.W
$ 55c.00
$ 820.0c
$ 550.00
$ 770.W
$ 2,DODDO
$ 1,050.00
$ 600.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 1,sooDo
$ 1,3COD0
$ 2,700.00
$ 1,500.00
$ s'l0000
$ 3,000.00
$ 2,30D00
$ 17,OD000
$ 1,20D00
$ 3,600.00
$ 29,0D0.00
$ EO,-00
$ 7,000.00
S 8,000.00
$ 12,OD0.00
S 9,000.00
$ 2,100.00
$ 376,870.W
$ 2o2,50-
$ 450,300.W
$ 1,1W.00
$ 2,200.00
$ 4,950.00
$ 1,SW.00
$ 3,30DD0
$ 1,640.00
$ i'l0000
$ 10,M0.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 3,700.00
$ 600.00
$ 6,000.0o
$ 1,90D.00
$ 1,30D.00
$ 2,700.00
$ 9,000.00
$ 96,903.00
$ 12,ODD00
$ 16,103.00
$ 119,W0.W
$ 8,400.00
$ 3,600.00
$ 91,000.00
$ 91,00DOD
$ 120,000.00
$ SO,00con
$ ......Go
$ 11,20000
$ 25,000.DD
$ 15,000.o0
$ -D.
$ 365.00
$ -D.
$ 390.00
$ 200.o0
$ 300.00
$ 350.00
$ .0.00
$ 450.00
$ 750.00
$ 500.00
$ 700.00
$ 1,600.W
$ Boo.00
$ 550.00
$ 1,300.0c
$ 1,650.W
$ 1,1o0.W
$ 2,400.W
$ 3,70DDD
$ 6,00DW
$ 2,700.W
$ 2,400.W
$ 16,00con
$ 5W.00
$ 4,500.0c
$ 120,000.00
$ SO,00con
$ 80,000.00
$ 11,20000
$ 25,000.W
$ 15,000.00
$ 3,550.W
$ 616,050.00
$ 337,500.00
$ 616,20C.03
$ 400DD
$ 1,200.00
$ 3,150.0c
$ 8W.00
$ 2,700.W
$ 1,500.00
$ 1,000.0c
$ 9,800.00
$ 3,200.0c
$ 1,600.00
$ 550DD
$ 5,200.00
$ 1,650.0c
$ LJOGW
$ 2,400.0c
$ 22,200.00
$ 114,OW.W
$ 10,800.00
$ 16,800.00
$ 112,000.00
$ 3,500.0c
$ 4,S00.00
$ 135cro.00
$ 135,OOD.00
$ 14'-oo
$ 1W,OW.W
$ 5%.I)DOD
$ 40'00coo
$ 150,000.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 4W.00
$ 250.00
$ 2-0
$ 298.00
$ 1,500.0c
$ 1,600.W
$ 2,000.0c
$ 2,000.W
$ 2,SOo.W
$ -.Do
$ 5W.00
$ 1,00Goo
$ 2,2.DDO
$ 1,S000n
$ I,SOO.W
$ 3,500.0o
$ 3,000.W
$ 1,Socon
$ 3,000.W
$ 6,000.W
$ 6,000.W
$ E,500.W
$ 2,200.0c
$ SS,OW.W
$ 1,000.W
$ S,S000n
$ 140,W0.00
$ 100,000.00
$ 50,OD0DD
$ 40000.00
$ 150,00000
$ 30000.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 422,500.00
$ 241,200.00
$ 470,840.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 6,4W.00
$ 18,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 15,OD0.00
$ L'-Do
$ I,1300.00
$ 14,00000
$ 4,400.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 14,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 3,1300.00
$ 36,OD000
$ 114,00000
$ S0,OD000
$ 15,400.00
$ 105,W0.00
$ 7,000.00
$ S,sW.00
$ 308,OWoo
$ 308,000.W
Traffic Control
1
LS
$ 95,000.00
$ 95,OW.W
$ atkoW.W
$ 00,000.W
$ 60,00con
$ 60,oW.00
3
Sheeting, Shoring and Bracing
1
LS
$ 71,COD .00
$ 71,OW.W
$ 55,000.00
$ 55,00o.0D
$ 15,000.00
$ 15,000.00
4
Construction $taking and Survey
1
L$
$ 17,000.00
$ 17,000.On
$ 50,000.On
$ 50,000.On
$ 50,000.On
$ S0,0o0.00
5
Site Investigation and Potholing
1
LS
$ 19,0000o
$ 19,OW.W
$ IIS,OW.W
$ IIS,OW.W
$ 45,OW.W
$ 45,000.00
6
1 Storm Water Pollution P,evenbon
1
LS
$ 3,200.00
$ 3,200.On
$ 25,000.On
$ 25,000.On
$ 25,000.On
$ 25,000.00
7
4" Water Main - DIP
10
LF
$ 240.00
$ 2,400.0c
$ 577.Do
$ 5,770.GO
$ 425.00
$ 4,250.00
8
6" Water Main - DIP
1,690
LF
$ 190.W
$ 334,620.00
$ 256.00
$ 432,640.W
$ 280.00
$ 473,200.00
9
8"Water Main - DIP
900
LF
$ 258.00
$ 232,200.00
$ 280.Do
$ 252,ON Do
$ 315DD
$ 283,5-
SO
12-Water Main - DIP
1,580
LF
$ 27sOD
$ 439,240.00
$ 264.00
$ 417,120.W
$ 380.00
$ 600,400.W
11
2" Plug or Cap &Thrust Block
2
EA
$ -oo
$ 68000
$ 53100
$ 1,062.00
$ 26000
$ 530.00
2
4" Plug Or Cap &Thrust Block
4
EA
$ .0.On
$ 1,360.On
$ 5"00
$ 2,176.On
$ 340.00
$ 1,360.00
13
6"Plug or Cap&Thrust Block
9
EA
$ 340.00
$ 3,060.0c
$ 551DD
$ 4,959.00
$ 350.Do
$ 3,150.00
14
8"PIUg.,Cap&Thrust Block
2
EA
S moo
S aso.Do
$ .7.00
$ 1,214.W
$ 340.00
$ 6W.W
15
12' Plug or Cap &Thrust Block
6
EA
$ -00
$ 2,00.00
$ 575.Do
$ 3,450.W
$ 400.00
$ 2p00.00
16
Fitting 6"90 Degree Bend &Thrust Block
2
1k
$ 340.W
$ No Do
$ 1,862.On
$ 3,724.Do
$ -.Do
$ S,WO.00
17
Fitting 4"45 Degree Bend &Thrust Block
2
EA
$ -oo
$ esoco
$ 1,613.Co
$ 3,226.GO
$ 6-
$ I,200.00
10
Fitting 6"45 Degree Bend &Thrust Block
14
EA
$ 340.W
$ 4,760.0o
$ 1,816.On
$ 25,424.DO
$ 880.00
$ 12,320.00
19
Fitting 12.45 Degree Bend &Thrust Block
2
EA
$ 3 00
$ EER Do
$ 2,803.Co
$ 5,606.GO
$ 1,700.0c
$ 3ACODO
20
Fitting B" 22.5 Degree Bend &Thrust Block
2
EA
$ MOD
$ 680.00
$ 1,957.On
$ 3,914.DO
$ 1,700.W
$ 3,400.00
21
Fithng6"x4"ConcenbiC Reducer
1
EA
$ -00
$ 340.00
$ 1,672.0c
$ 1,672.00
$ 780DD
$ 780.00
2
Fitting 17x6' Concentric Reducer
5
EA
S 340.W
S 1,360.W
$ 2,440.On
$ 9,760.On
$ 2,600.W
$ 10,400.00
23
Fitting l2'x8' Concentric Reducer
1
EA
$ M00
$ 340.00
$ 2,787.Co
$ 2,787.GO
$ 1,900.0c
$ 1,900.00
24
Fitting 6"z6"Tee &Thrust Block
1
EA
$ 340.W
$ 340.00
$ 2,229.W
$ 2,229.0c
$ 1,300.0o
$ 1,300.00
25
Fitting 8"x6" Tee & Thrust Block
1
EA
$ M00
$ 34D.00
$ 3,553.Co
$ 3,553.GO
$ 2,500.0c
$ 2,500.00
26
Fitting 12'.12"Ten, &Thrust Block
6
EA
$ MO Co
$ 2,040.W
$ 4,960.W
$ 29,760..
$ 3,900.W
$ 23-00
27
12' Butterfly Valve
19
EA
$ 15,810.00
$ 3W,390.00
$ 5.9.
$ %,881.GO
$ 5,200.0c
$ 98,800.00
20
8"Gate Valve
4
1k
$ 1,550.00
$ 6,200.0o
$ 3,247.0o
$ 12,900.W
$ 3,100.W
$ 12,4W.00
29
6"Gate VeMe
7
EA
$ 1,464.00
$ 10,248.00
$ 2,577.Co
$ 18,039.Co
$ 2,400.0c
$ 16,800.00
30
Fire Hydrant Assembly
7
1k
$ 6,213.00
$ 43,49LOD
$ 16,668 On
$ 116,676.OD
$ 20,0W.W
$ 140,00O.W
31
Remove EXlsting Fire Hydrant Assembly
7
EA
$ 275.00
$ 1,925.0c
$ 2,Got .W
$ 14 ODD GO
$ 4,500.0c
$ 31,500.00
32
1 Reconnect M Existing Water Sampling Station
1
EA
$ 7,155.00
1 $ 7155.0o
$ .7.00
1 $ 937.00
$ E'.Goo
I $ 5,000.00
Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements Project
City Project No. 8401
BID OPENING:
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2022M2:30P.M.
ers Inmate
flatus, let.
Casey Construction, Inr.
9au et Engineering
IU Woods ConsYuttion I.C.
MitcBell Engineerng
W.R. Forde bsaiata,lnt.
<oniWest COMrattors, Inc.
RfM
ITEM DESCRIPTION
No.
O7y
UNR
UNITPRICE
AMOUNT
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
UNIT PRICE
AMOUR
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
UNIT P0.1Cf
AMOUNT
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
33
1"WERE, Service Type K Copper Tubing Small (less than loft) -Glenwood
47
EA
$ 2,o010
$ 2,900.00
$ 3,-.00
$ 500.00
$ 00D.110
$ 1,00G00
$ 350.n0
$ 700.00
$ 200A0
$ sODO00
$ ao00.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 400.00
$ B...
$ 650.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 5D.
$ 30D0
$ 3D.
$ 250.n0
$ 250.00
$ 25A0
$ 8..
$ 3,000.00
$ 3,700.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 2W.00
$ 5,500.00
$ 3,10GOD
$ B2D.D.
$ 94,00n.0
$ 78,300.00
$ L2%200.00
$ 19,o0U 00
$ .,-.Do
$ 1,000.00
$ 3a-GO
$ 7oo.Do
$ 22,-.00
$ sDOb00
$ S6, 0 00
$ 40,000.00
$ SO0,000.00
$ 6,800.00
$ 500..
$ 7,800.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 13,-G0
$ 1,BOD.00
$ 250.00
$ 25o.Do
$ 1Oc0.00
$ 2,400.00
$ 3,-.00
$ 14,800.00
$ 7,6DO.00
$ $750.00
$ 5500.00
$ 3,100.00
$ 320.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 200D0
S 500.Oc
$ 600..
$ 500.00
$ 1,000.00
$ too.00
$ 8,"Do
$ 9,000.00
$ 11,0c0.00
S .,-.Do
$ 250.00
$ 250.00
$ 500.00
$ 250.Oc
$ 5Doc
$ 20.00
$ 30.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 2,DODDO
S 20.00
$ 6.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 150.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 3,000.00
5 0
$ 9'oco00
$ 54,0W.00
$ 95,ODDDO
$ 7,600.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 600.00
$ 54,50000
$ 1,000.Do
$ 11,on0.00
$ 8,_D.
$ S0,o00.00
$ 44000.00
$ 12B.0.00
$ 4,250.00
$ 250.Oc
$ 6,oD.00
$ S,O00.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 9,_Do
$ 1,800.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 2,I)D000
$ 8Do..
$ 1,800.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 5,250.00
$ 10,o00.00
$ 3,DODOO
5 DD
$ 3,300.00
$ 3,800.00
$ 4,000.00
$ m000
$ 600.On
$ 1,000.00
$ 500.00
$ 1,5 Do
$ 300.00
$ 4,600.00
$ 5,500.00
$ 6,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 20o.
$ So0.00
$ 3,DODDO
$ 500.00
$ 8Dou
$ 15.00
$ 30.00
$ 200.00
$ 1,20DOO
$ SODO
$ 4.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 9,870.00
$ 2,6D0.00
$ 70.00
$ 3,500.00
$ 4,oD.00
moon
$ 155,100.W
$ 102,600.00
$ 152,000.00
$ 19,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 1,DODDO
$ 54,500.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 33,-.00
$ 4,6DC00
$ LLOD .00
$ 24,000.00
$ 36,000.00
$ 3,400.00
S 500.W
$ 36,000.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 4,Do0.00
$ 6,B00.00
$ 1,8D000
$ 200.00
$ 1,20DOO
S 400.00
$ 1,20D.00
S 5,000.00
$ 39,480.00
$ 5,200.00
$ 2,450.00
$ 3,500.00
$ 4,DODDO
$
$ 2,851.00
$ 133,997.o0
$ 2,000DO
$ 3,500.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 1,800.00
$ 2,000.DO
$ 3,000.p0
$ 2110.00
$ 800.00
$ SOO.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 3,000DD
$ 3,OOODO
$ 4,000DD
$ 100.00
$ 1n0.00
$ 1,000.00
$ L'ooD D
$ 100.00
$ 20.00
$ 40.00
$ S..Do
$ 2,000D0
$ 30.00
$ to.00
$ 4,000DD
$ 4,000D0
$ L'5 . D
$ I50.0o
$ 8,000DD
$ 4,00oOO
$ 2,000,00
$ Korn..
$ 94,500.00
$ 114,000OO
$ 68,400.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 21,800.00
$ sco..
$ 11,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 6,000.DO
$ 12,000.00
$ 36,000.00
$ L700D0
$ SOGDO
$ 12,000.00
$ 4,000.
$ 5,000.00
$ 9,200.00
$ 2,40o00
$ 500.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 1,200.00
$ 3,00000
$ 4,000.00
$ 16,000.00
$ 3,000.
$ 5,25000
$ 8,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 2c.occ
$ .oD
$ .Oc
$ 2,000.00
$ 2,800.00
$ 3,000DD
$ 800.00
$ L'E0000
$ 2,500.W
$ 300.00
$ -D.
$ 3o0.0O
$ 10,000.Go
$ 15,OOO.o0
$ I5,000.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 80oDo
$ a00.0O
$ L200OO
$ L'EOGOD
$ 30.00
$ LEDO
$ 25.00
$ L'EOGOD
$ 2,500.00
$ LEDO
$ I5.00
$ tBoc .00
$ 7,000.00
$ B'EOGOD
$ 250.0o
$ 30,000.00
$ 3,500.00
$ 1,SOO.w
$ .,-.Do
$ 75,6CODD
$ 114,000.00
$ 30,400.00
$ 16, 0 00
$ 2,500.00
$ 32,J00.00
$ 500.00
$ 33,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 30, 0 00
$ 60,000.00
$ 100000.00
$ 13,600Do
$ Boom
$ 14,400.00
$ 6,000.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 6,900.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 600.On
$ 4,500.00
$ 16,-.00
$ 28,ODGoD
$ 7,000.00
$ 8,750.00
$ 30,-.00
$ 3,500.00
$ 0
$ L'EOGOD
$ 75,200.00
34
1" Water Service Type K Copper Tubing Medium (1O-25ft)-Glenwood
27
EA
$ 2,851.00
$ 76,977.00
$ 4,2BLOO
$ 114,777.00
$ 3,700.00
$ 99,BOODO
35
1" Water Service Type K Cop", Tubing Large(more Khan 25ft)-Glenwood
38
EA
$ 3,OOBDO
$ 114,342.00
$ 5,444.Do
$ 206,872.00
$ 5,800.OD
$ 220,400.00
36
1" Customer -Side Water Service Type K Copper Tubing Small (less than 10ft) - Glenwood
38
EA
$ 3,165.00
$ 120,270.00
$ 1,921.00
$ 72,998.00
$ 600.00
$ 22,800.00
37
1"Customer-Side Water Service Type K Copper Tubing Medium (10-25ft)-Glenwood
10
EA
$ 3,165.00
$ 31,650A0
$ 2,740.00
$ 27,400.00
$ 1,D00.00
$ 10,000.00
38
1"Customer-Side Water Service Type K Copper Tubing Large (more then 25ft)-Glenwood
1
EA
$ 2,851.00
$ 2,851.0o
$ 6,036.0o
$ 6,036.GO
$ 1,900.OD
$ 1,90DOO
39
Wate, Meter Box -B16-Glenwood
109
EA
$ 309.00
$ 42,401D0
$ 379.00
$ 41,311,OD
$ -00
$ 65,400.00
4o
Water Meter Box - Trafli Rated H20-Glenwood
1
EA
$ 469.00
$ 469.00
$ %9.00
$ %9.00
$ 1,200.0o
$ 1,200.00
1
Remove and Dispose Of Water Meter Box and Salvage Meter - Glenwood
110
EA
$ 309.00
$ 33,9BDOD
$ 200.00
$ 22,000.On
$ 70.00
$ 7,70D.00
42
Connect to Existing Water 4" Main (Intl. shut down, tie-in)
1
EA
$ 3,929.00
$ 3,929.Do
$ 2,328.0o
$ 2,328.GO
$ 6,800.00
$ 6,8DODO
43
Connect t0 Existing Water 6" Main (inol. shut down, tie-in)
2
EA
$ 9,071.00
$ 18,142.00
$ 2,327.
$ 4,654.DO
$ 6,800.Do
$ 13,son 00
44
Connect to Existing Water 8" Main (Incl. shut down, tie-in)
4
EA
$ 3,929.00
$ 15,716.OD
$ 3,491.0o
$ 13,964.0O
$ 6,800.00
$ 27,200.00
45
Connect t0 Existing Water 12" Main (incl. Shut down, tie-in)
9
EA
$ 20,583.00
$ 185,247.00
$ 4,655.Do
$ 41,895.On
$ 6,800.OD
$ 61,200.00
46
Abandon Existing Water Valve
17
EA
$ 860.00
$ 14,620.00
$ 1,000.0o
$ 17,OOO.Oo
$ iGODo
$ 14,450.00
47
Abandon ExisBng BIOW HValve
1
EA
$ 666.W
$ .6.00
$ 1,300.Do
$ 1,300.00
$ EGO Do
$ BSO.o0
48
Temporary Service Conn¢c80ns
12
EA
$ 358.00
$ 4,296.00
$ 810.0o
$ 9,720.DO
$ I,Oo0.0o
$ 12,000.00
49
Repair Sewer Crossing Allowance(5' section)
4
EA
$ 221W
$ 884.00
$ 1,620.Do
$ 6,480.
$ 4,BOD.
$ 19,600.00
5o
Miscellaneous Concrete Repair (Curb & Gutter, Wide Gutter Apron, etc.)
50
LF
$ 64.00
$ 3,200.Go
$ 130.0o
$ 6,500.DO
$ 120Do
$ 6,000.00
51
Remove and Replace Sidewalk
460
SF
S 11.00
S 5,060.Do
$ 117.00
$ 53,820.OD
$ 20.00
$ 9,200.00
52
Remove and Replace Concrete Driveway Section
60
SF
$ 12.OD
$ 720.Do
$ 117.0o
$ 7,020.GO
$ 85.00
$ 5,100.00
53
Remove and Replace Curb Drain
1
EA
$ 4,0%.00
$ 4,886..
$ 5,320.Do
$ 5,328.DO
$ 4,900.00
$ 4,B00.00
54
Remove and Replace Ex Fire Hydrant Bury
1
EA
$ 1,516.00
$ 1,516.00
$ 2,000.0o
$ 2,000.GO
$ 1,200.00
$ 1,20DOO
55
Concrete Cap
40
SF
$ 60.OD
$ 2,720.OD
$ 119.00
$ 4,760.OD
$ 28.00
$ 1,120.00
56
Allowance for Additional AC Pavement Lift (4"Max)
300
SF
$ 4.GO
$ 1,200.Go
$ 19.00
$ 5,700.GO
$ noO
$ 5,700.00
57
Relocate Speed Sign Pole, Foundation, & Electrical Wiring
1
EA
$ 3,400.00
$ 3,400.Do
$ 3,240.OD
$ 3,240.OD
$ 3,700.OD
$ 3,JOD.00
58
Alr Release Valve Assembly
4
EA
$ 2A60DO
$ 9,840.00
$ 4,763.Go
$ 19,052.0O
$ 12,00DOD
$ 48,000.00
59
Temporary Blow OH Valve Assembly
2
EA
$ 2,4.00
$ 4,920..
$ 4,763.OD
$ 9,526.00
$ 5,200.00
$ 10,400.00
6o
Contaminated Soil Removal Allowance
35
CV
$ 18.00
$ EGODo
$ 51.00
$ 1,785.GO
$ 755Do
$ 26,425.00
61
Striping & Signage
1
LS
$ 17,000.00
$ 17,000.00
$ 1,726.OD
$ -
$ 13,584.Do
$ 13,584.On
$ 20,275.Do
$ 20,275.00
62
Hand Dig Section (1 Unit= 20LF)
1
Unit
$ 1,726.00
$ 6,984.Go
$ 6,984.DO
$ 1,550.00
$ 1,550.00
63
Allowance for Dewatering Operations If Unit =20LF)
1
Unit
no on
$ 500no
E6, on
$
South El Camino Water Main Improvements, City Project No. NEW (Schedule A)
$ 2,830,000.00
$ 2,176,000.00
$ 2,176,570.00
$ 2,SS1,394.00
$ 2,771,200.00
$ 2,748,725.00
$ 2,857,690.00
$ 3,003,795.00
Water Service Replacement Program, City Project No. 86300 (Schedule B,
$ 100,U00.00
$ 111,000.00
$ 184,400.00
$ 99,055.00
$ 116,800.00
$ 226,428.00
$ 237,600.00
$ 198,140.00
TOTAL (Schedule A+Schedule B
$ 2,930,000.00
$ 2,287,000.00
$ 2,360,970.00
$ 2,650,449.00
$ 2,888,OU0.00
$ 2,975,IS3.00
$ 3,095,290.00
$ 3,261,935.00
$ 2,287,000.00 $ 2,360,970.00 $ 2,618,829.00 $ 2,888,OU0.00 $ 2,964,955.00
$ 3,095,290.00 $ 3,201,935.00
mum
U
W
,uF
�G
m
1I[1���111\ I]I0■011111[IIIIII: I]111 111 ", 111
LEGEND
BURLINGAME AND GLENWOOD PARK
SUBDIVISIONS AND NEIGHBORHOOD
— — — — CITY LIMIT
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
140
.QUO/
2��VF
�G
m
�O
O��q< ��
N
N.T.S.
File: H:\140-Burlingame\140-079 Burlingame 2022 Street Resurface\Engineering\Exhibits\Glenwood Subdivision Water Main Improvement Project.dwg Plotted: 4-12-22 @ 09:35:28 AM By: pbusinger
AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
GLENWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
AND WATER SERVICE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
CITY PROJECT NO.84891 AND 86300
THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame,
County of San Mateo, State of California on , 2022 by and between
the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and Cratus,
Inc, a California Corporation, hereinafter called "Contractor."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public
work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for
bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2022, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame
awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor,
which the Council found to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for these improvements;
and
WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the construction
of said improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of work.
Contractor shall perform the work described in those Contract Documents entitled:
GLENWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT,
CITY PROJECT NO.84891
2. The Contract Documents.
The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following documents: this
Agreement; Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A; the accepted Bid
Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions, addenda, complete plans,
profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid documents titled Glenwood Park Subdivision
Water Main Improvements Project; the State of California Standard Specifications 2010, as
promulgated by the California Department of Transportation; prevailing wage rates of the State
of California applicable to this project by State law; and all bonds; which are collectively
AGREEMENT-
hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and
Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents, which are hereby
incorporated as if fully set forth herein. All of the above described documents are intended to
cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to
be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents.
3. Contract Price.
The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above
agreed to be done, the sum of two million, two -hundred eighty seven dollars ($2,287,000), called
the "Contract Price". This price is determined by the lump sum and unit prices contained in
Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to
those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for
at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided
in the Contract Documents.
4. Termination
At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any portion of
the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice in writing to
Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor will be granted an
adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for Completion, or both, directly
attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a claim therefor was provided in the
Contract Documents.
The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justify termination of the
contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractor's persistent failure to perform the work in accordance
with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor's disregard of Laws or Regulations of any public
body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor's disregard of the authority of the Engineer; or (4)
Contractor's violation in any substantial way of any provision of the Contract Documents. In the
case of any one or more of these events, the City, after giving Contractor and Contractor's sureties
seven calendar days written notice of the intent to terminate Contractor's services, may initiate
termination procedures. Such termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against
Contractor then existing or that accrue thereafter. Any retention or payment of moneys due
Contractor will not release Contractor from liability. At the City's sole discretion, Contractor's
services may not be terminated if Contractor begins, within seven calendar days of receipt of such
notice of intent to terminate, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such
failure within no more than 30 calendar days of such notice.
Upon seven calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may, without cause and
without prejudice to any other right or remedy of City, terminate the Contract for City's
AGREEMENT-2
convenience. In such case, Contractor will be paid for (1) work satisfactorily completed prior the
effective date of such termination, (2) furnishing of labor, equipment, and materials in accordance
with the Contract Documents in connection with uncompleted work, (3) reasonable expenses
directly attributable to termination, and (4) fair and reasonable compensation for associated
overhead and profit. No payment will be made on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue
or other economic loss arising out of or resulting from such termination.
5. Provisions Cumulative.
The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of
any other rights or remedies available to the City.
6. Notices.
All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail,
postage prepaid.
Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows:
Kevin Okada, PE
Senior Engineer
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows:
Michael Kirwan
Cratus, Inc.
945 Taraval Street #302
Sri Francisco, CA 94116
7. Interpretation
As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural
and vice versa.
8. Waiver or Amendment.
No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective
unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more waivers of any
term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall not be construed as a
waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision.
AGREEMENT-3
9. Controllin- Law.
This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the
State of California.
10. Successors and Assignees.
This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto
but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written consent of the other
party.
I L Severability.
If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable by
any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement shall not be
affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect.
12. Indemnification.
Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers, employees,
agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions,
damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the actual or alleged
negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or
agents, or on account of the performance or character of the services, except for any such claim
arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents,
or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes
the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be
limited to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements
required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this indemnification
and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or
not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or
claims for damages.
AGREEMENT-4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of
five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an
original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day
and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF BURLINGAME,
a Municipal Corporation
By
Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager
Approved as to form:
City Attorney — Michael Guina
ATTEST:
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk
"CONTRACTOR"
By
Print Name:
Company Name: Cratus, Inc.
AGREEMENT-5
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES
WITH COASTLAND CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
FOR GLENWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 84891
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of )2022,
by and between the City of Burlingame, State of California, herein called the "City", and
COASTLAND CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. engaged in providing PROFESSIONAL
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION services herein called the
"Consultant".
Rl=rITAI C
A. The City is considering conducting activities for consultant engineering services
for construction management and inspection services for the Glenwood Park
Subdivision Water Main Improvements, City Project No. 84891
B. The City desires to engage a professional engineering consultant to provide
construction management and inspection services because of Consultant's
experience and qualifications to perform the desired work, described in Exhibit A.
C. The Consultant represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the
desired work pursuant to this Agreement.
AGREEMENTS
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide professional engineering
services such as pre -construction meetings, site visits and documentation; project
start-up; daily field inspections; progress meetings; status reports; cost and
schedule management; public relations and notifications; post -construction
meeting; project closeout; and as detailed in "Scope of Services" of the attached
Exhibit A of this agreement.
2. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant are to commence upon the
execution of this Agreement with completion of all work by December 31, 2023.
Page 1 of 8
3. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws,
codes, ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state and local laws.
Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits,
qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for
Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City
that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all
times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which
are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall
maintain a City of Burlingame business license.
4. Sole Responsibility. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging
all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.
5. Information/Report Handling. All documents furnished to Consultant by the City
and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this
Agreement are the City's property and shall be delivered to the City upon the
completion of Consultant's services or at the City's written request. All reports,
information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection
with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential
until released by the City to the public, and the Consultant shall not make any of
these documents or information available to any individual or organization not
employed by the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City
before such release. The City acknowledges that the reports to be prepared by
the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a
defined project, and City's use of the information contained in the reports prepared
by the Consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at City's risk,
unless Consultant expressly consents to such use in writing. City further agrees
that it will not appropriate any methodology or technique of Consultant which is
and has been confirmed in writing by Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant.
6. Compensation. Compensation for Consultant's professional services shall not
exceed 329 590; and payment shall be based upon City approval of each task.
Billing shall include current period and cumulative expenditures to date and shall
be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by whom at what
rate and on what date. Also, plans, specifications, documents or other pertinent
materials shall be submitted for City review, even if only in partial or draft form.
7. Availability of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting this
billing for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work under this
Page 2 of 8
Agreement. Consultant shall make these records available to authorized
personnel of the City at the Consultant's offices during business hours upon written
request of the City.
8. Project Manager. The Project Manager for the Consultant for the work under this
Agreement shall be Mike Janet, Construction Department Manager.
9. Assignability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this
Agreement are unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these
services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the City.
10. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly
given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to:
To City: Kevin Okada, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
To Consultant: Mike Janet, Construction Department Manager
Coastland Civil Engineering, Inc.
14000 Neotomas Avenue
Santa Rose, CA 95405
or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address as
Consultant designates in writing to City.
11. Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Consultant, in the performance
of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. As an
independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or
other benefits which accrue to City employee(s). With prior written consent, the
Consultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement by
subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or
assign or transfer interests under this Agreement.
Consultant agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the
work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall be compensated
for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such
matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is
Page 3 of 8
brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent
performance or wrongdoing.
12. Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibilities
is solely to the City. The Consultant has and shall not obtain any holding or
interest within the City of Burlingame. Consultant has no business holdings or
agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the City or
its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. In
addition, Consultant warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any
direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the City in the subject of this
Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest
should it discover it has done so and shall, at the City's sole discretion, divest itself
of such interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps
to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this
performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Consultant
discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would
conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall promptly notify
City of this employment relationship, and shall, at the City's sole discretion, sever
any such employment relationship.
13. Equal Employment Opportunity. Consultant warrants that it is an equal
opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal
employment opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its subcontractors do and
neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with
them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation,
ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical
condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the
California Fair Employment & Housing Act.
14. Insurance.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance:
Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the
contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and
his/her firm to an amount not less than: One million dollars
($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence and two million
dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and
property damage in a form at least as broad as ISO Occurrence Form
CG 0001.
Page 4 of 8
ii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the
contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her
and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
iii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the
contract, professional liability insurance in amounts not less than two
million dollars ($2,000,000) each claim/aggregate sufficient to insure
Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the performance
of the particular scope of work under this agreement.
iv. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions
as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers;
or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of
losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense
expenses.
B. General and Automobile Liability Policies:
The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed
operations of Consultant, premises owned or used by the
Consultant. The endorsement providing this additional insured
coverage shall be equal to or broader than ISO Form CG 20 10 11
85 and must cover joint negligence, completed operations, and the
acts of subcontractors. This requirement does not apply to the
professional liability insurance required for professional errors and
omissions.
ii. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be endorsed to be
primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self -insurances
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers
shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute
with it.
Page 5 of 8
15
iii. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall
not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
iv. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
C. In addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain Workers'
Compensation insurance as required by California law. Further,
Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant
provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective
employees.
D. All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty
(30) days' prior written notice by mail, has been given to the City (10 days
for non-payment of premium). Current certification of such insurance shall
be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City
Clerk.
E. Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
Best's rating of no less than A-:VII and authorized to do business in the
State of California.
F. Verification of Coverage: Upon execution of this Agreement, Contractor
shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates
and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates
and endorsements are to be on forms approved by the City. All certificates
and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before any
work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified
copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall save,
keep and hold harmless indemnify and defend the City, its officers, employees,
authorized agents and volunteers from all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or
expenses in law or equity, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, that may at
any time arise, result from, relate to, or be set up because of damages to property
or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of performing work which
Page 6 of 8
arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the
negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, or any of the
Consultant's officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant. This provision
shall not apply if the damage or injury is caused by the sole negligence, active
negligence, or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees, or
volunteers.
16. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy
hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may
have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement
constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other
provision of this Agreement.
17. Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be
governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California. Venue for
any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County
of San Mateo.
18. Termination of Agreement. The City and the Consultant shall have the right to
terminate this agreement with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen (15)
days written notice of termination. In the event of termination, the Consultant
shall deliver to the City all plans, files, documents, reports, performed to date by
the Consultant. In the event of such termination, City shall pay Consultant an
amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work
delivered to the City bears to completed services contemplated under this
Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event,
compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and
circumstances involved in such termination.
19. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this
Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the
Consultant.
20. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive
statement of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms,
conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this
Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound,
shall be binding on either party.
Page 7 of 8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement
as of the date indicated on page one (1).
City of Burlingame
By
Lisa K. Goldman
City Manager
Approved as to form:
City Attorney — Michael Guina
ATTEST:
City Clerk - Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
"Consultant"
Coastland Civil Engineering, Inc.
Print Name:
Title:
Coastland Civil Engineering, Inc.
Print Name:
Title:
Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT A
C AS T E L A P S
ND
CIVIL ENGINEERING - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMT - BUILDING DEERVICES
April 14, 2022
Weizhi Cheng, PE
Associate Engineer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: Proposal for Construction Management and Inspection Services for:
Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements
Dear Weizhi:
Based on our conversations, Coastland is pleased to provide you with this letter proposal to
provide Construction Management (CM) and Inspection services to the City for the Glenwood
Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements (Project) consists of installing new
water mains in the City of Burlingame. Bid Schedule A consists of approximately 1,580 linear feet
of 12-inch, 900 linear feet of 8-inch Ductile Iron pipe (DIP), 1,690 linear feet of 6-inch DIP, and 10
linear feet of 4-inch DIP water main on Howard Ave., Cypress Ave., Carol Ave., East Carol Ave.,
Central Ave., and Crescent Ave. The existing water mains will be abandoned in place. Work also
consists of installing 2,300 feet of 1- and 2-inch water services, and City -furnished water meters
for customer service connections. Seven fire hydrant assemblies will be removed and replaced.
Miscellaneous concrete and asphalt work will be performed, including approximately 460 square
feet of sidewalk, 60 square feet of concrete driveway, and 40 square feet of concrete cap work.
Work will also require traffic control and miscellaneous concrete and asphalt repair for pavement
restoration. Bid Schedule B includes work installing 600 feet of 1- and 2-inch water services, and
City -furnished water meters for customer service connections at 17 locations outside of the
Glenwood Park project area. The replacement of the water main will include locating existing
utilities by potholing, temporary service connections, abandonment of sections of the existing
water lines, testing, disinfection and connection to the existing water system, traffic controls,
shoring and bracing, water pollution control measures, sidewalk, driveways and landscape
restoration, pavement restoration and striping and markers. The engineer's construction estimate
is $2,930,000.
SCOPE OF WORK
Coastland's overall approach to performing Construction Management and Inspection focuses on
teaming with City forces to produce a high quality, cost effective project. Our Construction
Manager and Inspector will keep the City informed regarding costs, changes, public relations, and
construction progress. We will coordinate closely with the City and the property owners for the
entire project duration. From the onset of the project, we will establish the lines of communication
and decision -making roles with all project stakeholders. Based on our understanding of the
project our scope of services is as follows:
Santa Rosa Auburn Pleasant Hill Fairfield
1400 Neotomas Avenue 11641 Blocker Drive, Ste. 170 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Ste. 1000 324 Campus Lane, Ste. A
Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Auburn, CA 95603 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Fairfield, CA 94534
Tel:707.571.8005 Tel:530.888.9929 Tel:925.233.5333 Tel:707.702.1962
www.coastlandcivil.
City of Burlingame
Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements — CM and Inspection
April 14, 2022
Page 2 of 8
TASK 1 — PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING
Immediately following the Notice to Proceed, our Construction Manager will schedule and
administer the pre -construction meeting. During this meeting we will establish lines of
communication and decision making roles with all project stakeholders. We will also discuss
safety requirements, responsibilities of the project team members, working hours, quality control
procedures, submittal requirements, project schedule, change order and potential claim
procedures, and safety procedures.
Coastland will be responsible for generating pre -construction meeting invitations including the
meeting agenda. Agenda items include lines of communication, public relations, safety,
submittals, change procedures, payments, progress schedules, contract time, requests for
information, and other applicable items. Coastland will prepare and distribute meeting minutes to
all parties.
Following the pre -construction meeting, Coastland will continue to work with the City team,
contractor, and Coastland's design team to ensure that all project issues are addressed promptly
and that the City's best interests are considered at all times.
TASK 2 — PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT AND DOCUMENTATION
Coastland will take pre -construction digital photos of the construction site with special attention
given to sensitive areas including any private residences and businesses adjacent to the project.
Documenting the site prior to construction will help mitigate possible disputes between the City,
contractor and property owners within or adjacent to the project limits. These photos will be
logged and filed with the project files.
TASK 3 — PROJECT START-UP
Coastland will assemble project files in accordance with the City's standard format. Coastland
utilizes a centralized system for document control to create, store, organize, track, and link all
project information. Our digital record -keeping will ensure the constant flow of documentation to
a form that quickly and easily identifies trends and critical issues and will help keep the project
moving as it helps document the work.
TASK 4 - DAILY FIELD INSPECTIONS AND DOCUMENTATION
A critical aspect of our services is maintaining close communication with City staff to ensure
scheduling goals are met. To help maintain close communication, Coastland's inspector will be
accessible to the City at all times at the project site and through the use of email and cellular
phones. Coastland's on -site inspector will examine all construction activities to ensure that the
contract work adheres to the contract documents, City standards and the established schedule.
We will maintain records and provide documentation of the work in the form of daily reports,
weekly summary of construction activities, deficiency lists, and progress photographs of
construction activities. Daily reports will describe the contractor's level of effort, specific work
being done, started, or finished, and relevant points raised by the contractor that may require
consideration and response. We also document proposed change orders and claims, important
conversations, safety issues or accidents, extra work in progress, materials testing performed,
information for "as -built" drawings, quantities for progress payments, environmental concerns and
hazardous materials.
0
City of Burlingame
Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements — CM and Inspection
April 14, 2022
Page 3 of 8
Coastland will provide a digital photo logbook of construction activities, progress, and areas of
concern or interest. The photo log will be compiled on a portable storage device (USB drive) and
will identify the location and date of each photo. The log will be maintained through the duration
of the project to assure continuity from one week to the next and will be submitted to the City at
the close of the project.
Coastland will continually review the specifications and plans to ensure the work is of good quality
and meets the requirements of the contract documents. Coastland will immediately report any
deviation from the approved contract documents.
Our inspector will identify actual and potential problems and provide solutions. We will maintain
daily documentation and resolve issues by proposing field changes and avoid any delays.
Our inspector will review the Contractor's traffic control plan to make certain that access is
maintained during construction.
In summary, our Inspector's responsibilities include:
Represent the City in ensuring that the terms of the construction contract are followed
throughout the term of the project.
Participate in regular meetings called by the Construction Manager.
Protect the interest of the City.
Daily inspection of the contractor's work for conformance to the contract documents, codes,
regulations, and City standards.
Prepare and submit daily inspection reports that document all job site activities.
Serve as a daily contact for the contractor as to performance of the construction.
Respond promptly to City requests.
Verify construction material quantities.
Monitor traffic control procedures.
Distribute notifications to impacted public regarding the status of construction.
Document construction activities with photographs and maintain a photo log.
Respond to calls from the public promptly and log any complaints in a timely manner.
Work overtime as needed to assure presence on site during all construction activities.
Document and maintain complete field files containing construction period correspondences,
changes, discussions with contractor, memos, reports, and other pertinent items.
TASK 5 — PROGRESS MEETINGS
Coastland will conduct weekly coordination and progress meetings to focus on completed and
upcoming work, any construction delays, schedule updates, proposed changes, change orders,
contractor's questions, public relations, safety and other concerns that are identified by a project
team member. We will work to foster honest, open communication at these weekly meetings
which will help in timely resolution of any disputes and/or potential claims.
TASK 6 — STATUS REPORTS AND DOCUMENTATION
Task 6a — Reports
Complete and accurate record keeping will be an essential component of this project. We will
ensure project documents and certified payroll are complete and correct sub -contractors are
used. We will keep the City informed and document all construction issues with the following:
• Weekly Statement of Working Days
• Progress Meeting Minutes
• Field Directive Log
0
City of Burlingame
Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements — CM and Inspection
April 14, 2022
Page 4 of 8
Change order tracking
• Regular phone calls and a -mails
Task 6b — Submittal Management
Coastland will coordinate all submittals and monitor the status of the submittals to assure the
contractor provides timely response. At the pre -construction conference, we will provide the
contractor with a log of all required submittals and due dates. Submittals will be stamped, logged
and distributed to the designer for complete review and approval. Submittals will be filed
numerically and approved copies will be distributed to the City, project members, and the
contractor.
Task 6c — Requests for Information (RFI)
Coastland will receive and log all Requests for Information (RFI's) from the contractor, and
forward the RFI to the designer. Coastland will track the status of all RFI's by generating a weekly
RFI log that lists the "Balkin-court" status, description, and if an RFI results in a potential change
order.
Task 6d — Change Order Management
In the event that a change order is required, Coastland will negotiate the changes with the
contractor and prepare documentation. All changes will be approved by the contractor, Coastland
and the City prior to starting work on the change. With the City's approval, Coastland can
negotiate with the contractor to produce the best construction method for the change at the lowest
cost. If a change order requires input from the design engineer, our Construction Manager will
coordinate with them to ensure it is reviewed. A Change Order Log will be created that will show
Change Order number, description, status, approved date, start and completion dates and cost.
TASK 7 — CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Our goal is to ensure that construction and contract administration are performed in compliance
with City requirements and standards, and the project plans and specifications. To accomplish
this goal, our Construction Manager will manage the day-to-day construction activities with the
contractor. He will be accessible to the City at all times. The Construction Manager will be
responsible for keeping the City informed of the progress of the project, changes that may be
needed, pay estimate input and releasing information to the public. In addition, our Construction
Manager will complete all contract administration documentation in a timely, accurate and orderly
fashion.
In summary, our Construction Manager's responsibilities include:
• Continuous communication and coordination with the contractor through regular progress
meetings.
Review and routing of project submittals and RFIs.
Prepare project pay estimates and maintain records associated with the project's federal
funding requirements.
• Accept work performed or, if work is rejected, work with contractor to correct construction
errors.
Prepare and approve Contract Change Orders.
Provide claims management.
Monitor permit and environmental compliance.
Confirm labor compliance.
Develop a project punch list and make recommendations for project acceptance.
Prepare As -Built plans.
0
City of Burlingame
Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements — CM and Inspection
April 14, 2022
Page 5 of 8
Maintain an up-to-date construction file containing all records associated with the construction
of the project.
TASK 8 — COST AND SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT
Coastland will continually review the construction progress and perform field measurements and
quantity calculations. Each month, Coastland will provide accurate calculations for all work items
completed and accepted to provide progress payment recommendations to the City. Coastland
will review the contractor's progress pay estimate request and schedule of values to assess if
they are reasonable, and will compare this to the field measurements and quantity calculations.
We will continually monitor project costs and keep the City informed regularly.
Coastland will review the contractor's construction schedule for accuracy, reasonableness, and
will verify that it meets the project schedule, order of work, and contract requirements. Progress
schedules will be reviewed weekly to ensure the contractor is meeting the critical dates. If the
contractor fails to meet critical dates, it will immediately be brought to his attention and remedies
to get back on schedule will be accomplished. Schedule updates may be required once a month
or more. We will negotiate any time extensions for the contractor due to change orders, weather,
or other delays. Coastland will also maintain an as -built progress schedule.
TASK 9 - PUBLIC RELATIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS
Coastland will ensure every effort is made to keep residents and businesses informed of
construction progress and minimize disruptions due to limited access and excessive noise. Our
Construction Manager will proactively meet with property owners prior to and during construction
to address any concerns from those affected by the project.
We will monitor traffic control and flagging procedures to ensure construction proceeds smoothly
and public impact is minimized. There may be traffic delays during peak traffic periods.
Accordingly, we will keep all residents and businesses informed on construction status and
impacts through the use of message boards and notification letters. Our Construction Manager
will also make introductions to the affected properties and provide his 24-hour contact phone
number as appropriate. Coastland will ensure that Contractor provides advanced notice to
residents and businesses, as required by the specifications, regarding roadwork and lane
closures.
Coastland will log and respond to questions and concerns from the public in a timely manner and
will record the contractor's activities as they relate to public safety and public convenience.
Additionally, our inspector will accurately document pre -construction conditions with a photo log
to verify the project area is restored to its original form following construction.
TASK 10 — POST -CONSTRUCTION MEETING
Following completion of the work, Coastland will organize and conduct the post -construction
meeting. The meeting will document all requirements necessary for final closeout and payment,
and confirm all contract obligations have been met. Recommendations for improvement will be
made and incorporated into future projects. The results of the meeting will be summarized in
meeting minutes.
TASK 11 —PROJECT CLOSEOUT
Coastland will verify completion of punch list items, issue notice of completion, prepare
recommendations for final acceptance of the project, review as-builts for accuracy and
0
City of Burlingame
Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements — CM and Inspection
April 14, 2022
Page 6 of 8
completeness, prepare and recommend final payment, and transmit all construction
documentation to the City. At the completion of the project, we will provide the City with the
following:
■ All contract files and records (hard & electronic files)
Annotated journal of photos and CD of digital photos
As -built project schedule
OPTIONAL TASKS
If requested by the City, conflict resolution & claim management can be added under an
amendment on a Time & Materials basis.
SCHEDULE
We understand that proper construction management is a priority for the City. Work is anticipated to
commence in May 2022, and upon receipt of the Notice to Proceed and is expected to continue for
140 days.
WORK ESTIMATE
Based on the Scope of Work outlined in our proposal, we have prepared a comprehensive budget
that identifies staffing rates, total hours and costs per task and direct expenses. Inspector rates
are in compliance with current California General Prevailing Wage Rate Determinations.
We propose to provide our services on a time -and -materials basis with a not -to -exceed amount.
Our proposal is based on a project duration of 140 working days and part-time construction
management as outlined in our work estimate. We are providing full-time inspection at 40 hours
per week and estimating inspector overtime at 120 hours for typical overrun.
Our proposal also includes factors such as attending meetings, project closeout and vehicle costs.
Based on these items, we estimate the not -to -exceed fee to be $329,590 (see attached Work
Estimate). If the contract time extends beyond 140 working days, or the scope or level of services
change, our costs may also increase. Similarly, if the contract time is reduced, charges will
decrease accordingly.
This estimate has been created to show the overall cost for comprehensive Construction
Management and Inspection services on the project. We welcome the opportunity to speak with
you regarding the scope of services. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or
concerns regarding this estimate.
0
City of Burlingame
Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements — CM and Inspection
April 14, 2022
Page 7 of 8
Coastland maintains a current DIR registration number (1000014855, exp. 6/30/2022). We
greatly appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Burlingame. Please let me know if you have
questions.
Sincerely,
COASTLAND CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
?I- Yn--U)4WA?'—
John Wanger, PE
CEO
Mike Janet
Construction Department Manager
0
City of Burlingame
Glenwood Park Subdivision Water Main Improvements - CM and Inspection
April 14, 2022
Page 8 of 8
WORK ESTIMATE
Glenwood Park Subdivision
Water Main Improvements
PROPOSAL FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT &
INSPECTION SERVICES
City of Burlingame
TASK INFORMATION
HOURS AND COST INFORMATION
Task No.
Task Information
construction
ManagerlRE
Inspector
Inspector OT
Admin
Direct
Costs
Total
Hours
Total
Costs
Comments
$170
$160
$Z/O
$85
1
Pre -Construction Meeting
4
4
8
$1,320
Agendas / conduct meeting
2
Site Visit & Documentation
4
24
28
$4,520
Constructability Job walk / photos/Meet with City
3
Project Start -Up
8
6
1
15
$2,405
Assemble filing / CM program
4
Daily Field Inspections & Documentation
790
790
$126,400
Based on 140 working days of fled wcrk
5
Progress Meetings & Coordination
90
60
150
$24,900
Assume attendance Q 30 mlgs
6
Status Reports & Documentation
48
48
1
97
$15,925
Review progress/documentation
6a
Reports
48
48
1
97
$15,925
Status/Daily Updates to City
6b
Submittal Management
50
10
60
$10,100
Based on 25 Submitials
tic
Requests For Information
60
20
1
81
$13,485
Based on 40 RFI's
6d
Change Order Management
20
10
30
$5,000
Based on 5 change orders
7
Construction Management
152
1
152
1 $25,840
28 weeks at part time
8
Cost and Schedule Management
32
16
48
$8,000
Based on 8 monthly payments
9
Public Relations & Notifications
24
48
0
72
$11,760
Notcestmeeting1coardinabon etc
10
Utility Coordination
10
20
30
$4,900
Coordination/spot inspection
11
Post Construction Meeting
4
4
8
$1,320
Walk through
12
Compaction Testing
$0
TBD
$0
13
Project Closeout
6
12
1
19
$3,025
As -bunts / files
Photographs & video
$125
$125
Vehicle/Equipment expenses
$25,840
$25,840
1,520 hours x$17/hr-S25,840
Total Hours
560
1,120
120
5
1,805
Subtotal
$95,200
$179,200
$28,800
$425
$25,965
$329,590
Project Total
$95,200
1 $179,200
$28,800
$425
1 $25,965
$329,590
NOTES: Coastland reserves the right to adjust estimated hours should the Contractor schedule additional crews or overtime work.
1 Based on 140 working days.
2 Based on full time inspection at 40 hours per week for one inspector, and 120 hours of Omrtims for Inspection.
3 Based on partfime construction managementbased on 20 hours per week.
3 Based on an estimated number of RR's, change orders and submittals shown above.
0
STAFF REPORT
Honorable Mayor and City Council
May 2, 2022
AGENDA NO: 8f
MEETING DATE: May 2, 2022
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk — (650) 558-7203
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the City of Burlingame's 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 2020. 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 are required to file their Form 700 with the State:
• City Councilmembers
• Planning Commission members
• City Manager
• City Attorney
• Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer
These positions are governed by statutory conflict of interest provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 7 of
the Political Reform Act of 1974. Therefore, they are not included on the City's list of designated
positions required to file Form 700s with the City.
1
Conflict of Interest Code Amendment
May 2, 2022
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.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibit:
• Resolution Amending the City of Burlingame Conflict of Interest Code to Revise List of
Designated Employees
2
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 47-1980 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 19-1987, 51-1992, 90-1996, 12-1998, 32-1998, 102-2000, 23-2001, 99-
2002, 14-2003, 80-2008, 82-2010, 93-2014, 67-2016, 85-2018, and 53-2020; 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.
Ricardo Ortiz, 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 2nd day of May,
2022 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
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:
Designated Positions
Disclosure Category
BOARDS, COUNCIL, AND COMMISSIONS
Beautification Commission
I
Library Board of Trustees
I
Parks and Recreation Commission
I
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
I
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Assistant City Attorney
I
Code Compliance Officer
I
Code Compliance Officer and Senior Risk Analyst
I
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Assistant to the City Manager
II
Sustainability Program Manager
11
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City Clerk
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Community Development Director
I
Assistant Planner
I
Associate Planner
I
Building Inspector
I
Chief Building Official
Planning Manager
I
Planning Technician
I
Senior Building Inspector
I
Senior Planner
I
CONSULTANTS
Design Review
I
Information Technology Service
II
Planner
I
Water Quality Treatment Plant Contractor
I
Environmental Compliance Officer
I
Plant Manager
I
Storm Water Coordinator
I
Designated Positions
Disclosure Category
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Financial Services Manager
I
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Human Resources Director
I
Human Resources Analyst II
I
LIBRARY
City Librarian
I
Library Circulation Supervisor
II
Librarian III***
II
Library Assistant II —Acquisitions and Accounts
Payable/Receivable
II
Library Services Manager
II
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Parks and Recreation Director
I
Recreation Supervisor
II
Parks Superintendent/City Arborist
II
Parks Supervisor
II
Senior Management Analyst
I
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Chief of Police
I
Administrative Assistant to Chief
11
Facilities and Fleet Maintenance (assigned Police
Officer)
11
Information Technology Services (assigned Police
Officer)
11
Police Captain
I
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Director of Public Works
I
Assistant Director of Public Works
I
Assistant Engineer
11
Associate Engineer
11
Deputy Director of Public Works Operations
I
Facilities Division Manager
I
Fleet Manager
11
Management Analyst
11
Public Works Inspector
11
Senior Civil Engineer
I
Senior Public Works Inspector
11
Street and Sewer Supervisor
11
Streets, Storm Drains, and Sewers Division
Manager
I
Transportation Engineer
I
Designated Positions
Disclosure Category
Water Division Manager
I
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.
BUR— IN�A AGENDA NO: 9a
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 2, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 2, 2022
From: Helen Yu -Scott, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222
Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of
Burlingame Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-23
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 2022-23.
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 City Council reviewed the proposed fees on April 4, 2022. In compliance
with California Government Code § 66016, the Council established a public hearing for May 2,
2022 (Resolution No. 031-2022); notice of the public hearing was duly provided; and the proposed
Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2022-23 was posted to the City's web page at: Master Fee
Schedule.
DISCUSSION
The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) establishes fees for Fire services. 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, usually every other year. CCFD has
historically established fees based upon the cost of providing the service. The CCFD Master Fee
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2022-23
May Z 2022
Schedule for fiscal year 2022-23, which will remain unchanged from fiscal year 2021-22, was
approved by the Board on April 13, 2022.
After the April 4, 2022 Council meeting, staff adjusted the Memorial Bench fee (Page 57 of the
Proposed Master Fee Schedule) from $3,207 to $3,500 to reflect the current cost of the bench, site
preparation, the plaques, and staff's installation time.
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. All fees will be effective July 1, 2022.
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 2022-23 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 conducted 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 since 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, pursuant to Government Code section 6601, on April 4, 2022, the City
Council set a public hearing for May 2, 2022, to consider the adjusted fees (Resolution No. 031-
2022); and
WHEREAS, notice of the City's proposed fee schedule and of the May 2, 2022 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 adjusted fees as delineated in the Master Fee Schedule shall become
effective July 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, despite every effort to ensure that all City fees for services are contained in
the 2022-23 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 DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER 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 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule, attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
3. The 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule shall become effective on July 1, 2022.
Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor
I, Meagan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Burlingame City Council held on the 2nd day of May, 2022, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Meagan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk
BURLIN AM1E
,. . r o n y J n
City of Burlingame
Master Fee Schedule
EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1, 2022
Fiscal Year 2022-23 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 - %11 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
Fiscal Year 2022-23 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 $100,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,032.00 for the first
$50,000.00 plus $11.07
for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction
thereof up to and
including $100,000.00
Page 2
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
$100,001.00 to $500,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,585.00 for the first
$100,000.00 plus $9.40
for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction
thereof up to and
including $500,000.00
$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00
Resolution No 27-2011
$5,345.00 for the first
$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 outside
Resolution No. 27-2011
$274.00 per hour
normal business hours
(minimum charge of 2
hours
Re -inspection fees (minimum — one
Resolution No. 27-2011
$274.00 per hour
hour)
Page 3
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
General fire inspections for new
Resolution No. 27-2011
Determined by CCFD —
building and tenant remodels
pass -through costs
limited to building permits of
commercial or multi -family
residential
PLAN REVIEW FEES
Basic Fee — Building Division
Resolution No. 104-2002
65% of Building Permit
Fee
Energy Plan Check Fee (where
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of
applicable; includes review of
Building Permit Fee
Green Points Checklist)
Disabled Access Plan Check Fee
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 35% of
(where applicable)
Building Permit Fee
Review of Request for Alternate
Resolution No. 27-2011
$333.00 per hour
Materials and Methods
Review of Unreasonable Hardship
Resolution No. 27-2011
$333.00 per hour
Request
Planning Department Plan Check
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of
Fee (where applicable)
Building Permit Fee
Minimum fee of $80.00
Plan Revisions for Planning
Resolution No. 27-2011
$333.00 per hour
Department
Page 4
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Plan Revisions Subsequent to
Resolution No. 27-2011
$333.00 per hour plus
Permit Issuance
cost of any additional
review
Engineering Division Plan Review
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of
(where applicable)
Building Permit Fee
Imaging Fee
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 5% of Building
Permit Fee with minimum
fee of $5.00
Arborist Review
Resolution No. 33-2008
$270.00
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 plumbing
Resolution No. 27-2011
$47.00
permit
**The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee:
New Residential Building -
Resolution No. 32-2009
$0.14 per square foot of
including all plumbing fixtures,
habitable area
connections and gas outlets for
new single- and multi -family
buildings
Page 5
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
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
For each building sewer
Resolution No 27-2011
$72.00
For each industrial waste
Resolution No. 27-2011
$61.00
pretreatment interceptor
(except kitchen -type grease traps)
Water Piping and Water Heaters
For installation alteration or repair
of water piping or water -treatment
Resolution No. 27-2011
$61.00
equipment
For each water heater including
vent
Resolution No. 27-2011
$61.00
Gas Piping Systems
For each gas piping system of one
Resolution No. 27-2011
$40.00
to five outlets
For each additional outlet over five
Resolution No. 33-2008
$8.00
Page 6
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Irrigation Systems and Backflow
Prevention Devices
Irrigation systems including
backflow device(s)
Resolution No. 27-2011
$61.00
Other backf low prevention
devices:
2 inches (50.8 mm) and smaller
Resolution No. 27-2011
$61.00
Over 2 inches (50.8 mm)
Resolution No. 27-2011
$64.00
Swimming Pools
For each swimming pool or spa, all
plumbing:
Public pool
Resolution No. 27-2011
$246.00
Public spa
Resolution No. 27-2011
$185.00
Private pool
Resolution No. 27-2011
$246.00
Private spa
Resolution No. 27-2011
$185.00
Miscellaneous
For each appliance or fixture for
Resolution No. 27-2011
$40.00
which no fee is listed
Inspections outside normal
Resolution No. 27-2011
$274.00 per hour
business hours
(minimum charge of 2
hours)
Re -inspection fees
Resolution No. 27-2011
$274.00 per hour
(minimum — one hour)
Inspections for which no fee is
Resolution No. 27-2011
$274.00 per hour
specifically indicated
(minimum charge is one-half hour)
Page 7
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Imaging fee
Resolution No. 32-2009
Additional 5% of
plumbing permit fee with
minimum fee of $5.00
Plan review (where applicable)
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of
plumbing 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
$47.00
For issuance of each mechanical
permit**
**The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee:
New Residential Building including
Resolution No. 32-2009
$0.14 per square foot of
all mechanical work including
habitable area
appliances, exhaust fans, ducts,
and flues
Furnaces
To and including 100 MBTU
Resolution No. 27-2011
$61.00
Over 100 MBTU
Resolution No. 27-2011
$64.00
Boilers, compressors, absorption
systems
To and including 100 MBTU or 3HP
Resolution No. 27-2011
$61.00
Over 100 MBTU or 3 HP
Resolution No. 27-2011
$64.00
Page 8
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Air Conditioners
Resolution No. 27-2011
$61.00
Air Handlers
To 10,000 CFM including ducting
Resolution No. 27-2011
$40.00 each
Over 10,000 CFM
Resolution No. 27-2011
$64.00 each
Ventilation and Exhaust
Each ventilation fan attached to a
Resolution No. 27-2011
$20.00 each
single duct
Each hood including ducts
Resolution No. 27-2011
$31.00 each
Miscellaneous
For each appliance or piece of
Resolution No. 27-2011
$31.00 each
equipment not specifically listed
above
Inspections outside normal
Resolution No. 27-2011
$274.00 per hour
business hours
(minimum charge of 2
hours)
Re -inspection fees
Resolution No. 27-2011
$274.00 per hour
(minimum charge is one hour)
Inspections for which no fee is
Resolution No. 27-2011
$274.00 per hour
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
Page 9
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Plan review (where applicable)
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of
mechanical permit 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 electrical
Resolution No. 27-2011
$47.00
permit"
New Residential Building -
Resolution No. 32-2009
$0.14 per square foot of
including all wiring and electrical
habitable area
devices in or on each building,
including service
SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE
Swimming Pools
Public swimming pools and spas
Resolution No. 27-2011
$244.00
including all wiring and electrical
equipment
Private pools for single-family
residences
Resolution No. 27-2011
$188.00
Page 10
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Temporary Power
Temporary service pole including
Resolution No. 27-2011
$61.00
all attached receptacles
Temporary power pole and wiring
for construction sites, Christmas
Resolution No. 27-2011
$64.00
tree lots, etc.
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Receptacle, switch and light outlets
Resolution No. 27-2011
$60.00
First 20 units
Each additional
Resolution No. 32-2009
$4.00
Residential Appliances
For fixed residential appliances
Resolution No. 32-2009
$10.00 each
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 11
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Nonresidential Appliances
Self-contained factory -wired non-
Resolution No. 32-2009
$10.00 each
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 12
Fiscal Year 2022-23 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
Over 10 to and including 100
Resolution No 27-2011
$31.00
Over 100
Resolution No. 27-2011
$61.00
Notes:
For equipment or appliances
Resolution No. 27-2011
$122.00
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 13
Fiscal Year 2022-23 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
$411.00
Plan Check
Resolution No. 27-2011
$333.00 per hour
Busways
For trolleys and plug-in type
Resolution No. 27-2011
$33.00 for each 100 feet
busways
(30,500 mm) or fraction
thereof
Signs, Outline Lighting and
Marquees Permits
Signs, outline lighting, or marquees
Resolution No. 27-2011
$64.00 each
supplied from one circuit
For additional branch circuits
within the same sign, outline
Resolution No. 32-2009
$20.00 each
lighting, or marquee
Page 14
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Services
600 volts or less and not over 200
Resolution No. 27-2011
$64.00 each
amperes in rating
600 volts or less, over 200 amperes
Resolution No. 27-2011
$97.00 each
to 1,000 amperes
Over 600 volts or over 1,000
amperes
Resolution No 27-2011
$129.00 each
Miscellaneous
For apparatus, conduits, and
Resolution No. 27-2011
$40.00
conductors for which a permit is
required but for which no fee is set
forth
Inspections outside normal
Resolution No. 27-2011
$274.00 per hour
business hours
(minimum charge of 2
hours)
Re -inspection fees
Resolution No. 27-2011
$274.00 per hour
(minimum charge is one hour)
Inspections for which no fee is
Resolution No 27-2011
$274.00 per hour
specifically indicated
(minimum charge is one-half hour)
Imaging fee
Resolution No. 32-2009
Additional 5% of electrical
permit fee with minimum
fee of $5.00
Plan review (where applicable)
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of
electrical permit fee
Page 15
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
GENERAL FEES
Building Moving
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 18.07.030)
$410.00
General Plan and Title 25 Zoning
Ordinance Maintenance Fee
Additional 0.005% of
Building Valuation
Page 16
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
CITY CLERK & ELECTIONS
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Video recording of City Council
Resolution No. 32-2009
$88.00 per VHS tape plus
meeting or other proceeding that
photo service charge
has been video recorded — to be
paid in advance of copying
Resolution No. 32-2009
$88.00 per DVD plus
recording
photo service charge
Audiotape of City Council meeting
Resolution No. 32-2009
$17.00 per tape if tape is
or other City proceeding that has
supplied by requestor
been taped — to be paid in
advance of copying tape
Resolution No. 32-2009
$17.00 per tape if tape is
not supplied plus
purchase cost of tape
All Certifications
Resolution No. 32-2009
$17.00 each
Filing of Nomination Papers
Burlingame Municipal
$25.00 per candidate
Code section 2.20.020
(Ordinance No. 1703
(2003)
Page 17
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
Work without the benefit of an Encroachment Permit will be double the permit fee.
Minor (no excavation involved)
$262.00
Sewer Lateral Test
Resolution No. 32-2009
$468.00 — If fail, one time
free retest
Sewer Lateral Replacement (with
Resolution No. 32-2009
$481.00
Sidewalk fee)
Storm Service Connection (with
$481.00
sidewalk fees)
Water Service Connection (with
Resolution No. 32-2009
$629.00
Sidewalk fee)
Fire System Connection (with
Resolution No. 32-2009
$629.00
Sidewalk Add No. 5)
Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200 S.F.
Resolution No. 32-2009
$453.00 plus $10.00 for
(Includes Curb Drain)
Sections
each square foot over 200
12.10.030/12.08.020/
12.04.030
*Fee waived for owners
who undertake stand-alone
sidewalk trip hazard repairs
(Section 12.12.070)
Sidewalk Closure/Pedestrian
Resolution No. 32-2009
$452.00 per review
Protection
Traffic Control
Resolution No. 33-2008
$368.00 per review
Block Party (includes up to 6
Resolution No. 27-2006
$61.00 plus $5.00 for each
barricades)
add'I barricade over 6
Page 18
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Commercial Areas and
$234.00 plus $11.00 space
Construction Purposes (i.e.
per day or meter rates
Dumpsters/Containers)
Moving Only Purposes (Residential
$37.00 processing fee plus
Areas)
$11.00 per space per day
Page 19
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
GENERAL FEES
Demolition Permit (in addition to
Resolution No. 32-2009
$1,728.00
any Building Department -issued
Demolition or Construction Permit)
Includes sewer, water and
sidewalk replacement
Add fire line
Resolution No. 32-2009
$92.00
Add curb drain
Resolution No. 32-2009
$247.00
Add sidewalk closure
Resolution No. 32-2009
$247.00
Add PG&E
Resolution No. 32-2009
$247.00
Address Change
Resolution No. 32-2009
$359.00
Single Trip -Transportation Fee
Senate Bill SB 372
$16.00
(Fixed rate set by Caltrans)
Leaf Blower Testing Certification
Ord. No. 1871 (2012)
$37.00 for up to 5 leaf
Fee
blowers
$5.00 for certification decal
if certified by manufacturer
Page 20
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Creek Enclosures
Resolution No. 32-2009
$3,350.00
Section 18.24.020
Abandonment of Public Utility
$5,494.00
Easement
Hauling Permit
Section 13.60.120
$268.00 application fee
plus $1.00 per ton per mile
from project site to HWY
Inspection/Investigation Fee
Section 12.10.070
$262.00 per hour
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
(i.e. shoring wall)
value per square foot (sf)
multiplied by the area (sf)
of encroachment
Permanent structures, such as
Resolution No. 32-2009
$2,914.00
retaining walls, fences
Section 12.10.020
Page 21
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Non -permanent installations, such
Resolution No. 32-2009
$1,710.00
as tables, chairs, planters
Section 12.10.020
DEPOSITS OR BONDS FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WORK
Openings in Public Right -of -Way
Resolution No. 33-2007
$1,000.00 Minimum (in
(not in sidewalk or street)
easement area) $10.00/sf
for area excavated
Openings in Public Right -of -Way in
Resolution No. 33-2007
$30.00 per square foot in
sidewalk (not in street)
sidewalk area, $1,000.00
minimum
Street Roadway Opening (AC
Resolution No. 33-2007
$15.00 per square foot in
Pavement Restoration)
Section 12.10.025
paved area, $2,500.00
minimum including curb
replacement
Water Main Modification
Resolution No. 33-2007
$10,000.00 per connection
(refundable bond)
Sewer Main & Storm Drain
Resolution No. 33-2007
$10,000.00 per connection
Modification (refundable bond)
Street Lighting
$15,000.00 per street light
Page 22
e4RL1NGA ME
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
SERVICE
Lot Line Adjustment
Lot Combination
Subdivision Map
City Benchmark Maintenance
Condominium Map
ENGINEERING
REFERENCE
SUBDIVISION MAPS
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 26.24.090)
Resolution No. 32-2009
Section 26.24.090
Resolution No. 32-2009
Sections 26.24.090/
26.16.151
Applies to development
projects that require a
map action by Council
Resolution No. 32-2009
Sections 26.24.090/
26.16.151
FEE
$2,941.00 (application fee)
+ actual City consultant
costs
$2,941.00 (application fee)
+ actual City consultant
costs
$4,366.00 plus deposit, plus
$266.00 for each additional
lot in excess of 5 lots; plus,
actual City consultant costs
$3,000 per map action
(parcel or final map)
$3,551.00, plus $668.00 for
each additional unit over 4
units, plus actual City
consultant costs
Page 23
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
** The fees represent the labor cost to inspect and security deposit
Type 1 Project: Single family
$201.00 plus $1,500.00
dwellings with 15Y or 2nd floor
security deposit
additions on a 10,000 sf lot or
smaller
Type 2 Project: Multi -family
$402.00 plus $3,000.00
dwellings or commercial additions
security deposit
(excluding tenant improvements)
that are on a 10,000 sf lot or
smaller
Type 3 Project: Any project 10,000
$805.00 plus $5,000.00
sf up to an acre lot
security deposit
Type 4 Project: Any project greater
$1,610.00 plus $10,000
than one acre in size
security deposit
Page 24
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Review of Wireless Permit
Resolution 092-2021
$1,000 deposit per location
Applications
Fee based on actual
charges against the deposit.
Charges will include staff
time for permit review,
processing and inspections
calculated at hourly rates
plus actual consultant
costs, if any
Wireless Permit Application Appeal
Resolution 092-2021
$600.00
Fee
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEWS
Single Family Dwelling (Addition)
$523.00
Single Family Dwelling (New)
$1,045.00
Multi -family
$2,087.00
Commercial/Industrial
$2,087.00
Environmental Review
$1,681.00
Traffic and Parking Studies
$3,967.00
Page 25
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
GRADING PERMIT
1-100 cubic yards
$1,409.00
101-1,000 cubic yards
$2,127.00
1,001-10,000 cubic yards
$2,487.00
Over 10,000 cubic yards
$3,384.00
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Stormwater Inspection for
Industrial/Commercial Facilities
$154.00 per hour
Page 26
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
FINANCE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT 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
transient occupancy after
bond is late
expiration of bond
Special business license for long-
Section 6.08.085
5% of gross receipts
term parking
Short Term Residential Rental
Resolution 142-2020
Zoning Permit Application Fees:
Section 6.56
Initial Short Term Residential
$200.00
Rental Registration Fee
Renewal Fee
$100.00
Page 27
Fiscal Year 2022-23 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
adopted, and approved as of July 1, 2021.
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
CARE FACILITIES INSPECTION
Pre -inspection of licensed
community care facility
Health & Safety Code §
13235
$173.00 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
$358.00
Large Family Day Care
Resolution No. 33-2008
$111.00
Skilled Nursing Facility
Resolution No. 33-2008
$686.00
Hospital/Institution
I Resolution No. 33-2008
$2,658.00
RE -INSPECTIONS
Second re -inspection
Resolution No. 33-2008
$133.00 per inspection
Third and subsequent
re -inspections
Resolution No. 33-2008
$161.00 per inspection
Page 28
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
CONSTRUCTION FEES
General Fire & Life Safety Services
12% of Building Permit fees
• Consultation & Research
for Commercial and Multi-
• Pre -application meetings &
Family Residential
Design Review
• Property Survey
• General Construction
Inspections
• Processing, Scheduling, and
Record Keeping
Building or Planning Plan Check
Resolution No. 33-2008
$181.00 per hour
Expedite Building or Planning
Resolution No. 33-2008
$362.00 per hour
Check Fees
(2 hour minimum)
Consultation and Planning
Resolution No. 33-2008
$263.00 per hour
Alternate Means of Protection
Resolution No. 33-2008
$263.00 per hour
Review
Fire Alarm Systems
Permit for Monitoring System
Resolution No. 33-2008
$207.00
Permit for Manual System
Resolution No. 33-2008
$207.00
Permit for Automatic System
Resolution No. 33-2008
$371.00
Permit for Combination
System
Resolution No. 33-2008
$535.00
Page 29
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Multi -Residential or Commercial
$125.00
Minor Fire Alarm Remodel or
Repair (Device
relocation/adjustment)
Emergency Responder Radio
§510, CFC
$342.00
Coverage System Permit
Title 24 Part 9
Fixed Fire Extinguishing System
Resolution No. 33-2008
$289.00
Permit
Standpipe System Permit
Resolution No. 33-2008
$371.00
Storage Tank (above or below
Resolution No. 33-2008
$207.00
ground) Permit
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
one or two Family Dwelling Fire
Resolution No. 33-2008
$452.00 - flat fee including
Sprinkler System (NFPA 13D)
2 inspections (additional
inspections will be charged
at the hourly rate of the
staff who actually perform
each inspection)
Page 30
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Fire Pump Permit
Resolution No. 33-2008
$207.00
Multi -Residential or Commercial
Resolution No. 33-2008
$864.00 flat fee including 2
Fire Sprinkler System (NFPA 13 or
inspections (additional
13R)
inspections will be charged
at the hourly rate of the
Permit — Single Story (incl. T.I.)
staff who actually perform
each inspection)
Permit - Multi -story
Multi -Residential or Commercial
Resolution No. 33-2008
$125.00
Fire sprinkler minor Remodel &
Repair (Sprinkler Head
relocation/adjustment only)
Fire Flow Information Processing
$39.00 plus individual city
fees
MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND PERMITS
Labor Rate for Mechanic Services
$110.00
Community CPR/AED Class
$40.00 Resident
$50.00 Non -Resident
Change of Use Inspection (usually
Resolution No. 33-2008
$158.00
triggered by new business license)
Accounts referred to Collection
+47% of original invoice
Agencies
Photographs from investigations
Resolution No. 61-2004
Cost of reproduction
Page 31
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Fire Incident Reports (not including
Resolution No. 33-2008
$10.00
photographs)
Work without a construction
Resolution No. 33-2008
Up to 10 times the permit
permit
fees
Emergency Response Costs for
Govt. Code §53150-58
Costs according to
Driving under the Influence (Billing
Personnel Schedule below
upon conviction)
plus apparatus cost of
$140.00 per hour as set by
State
False Alarms
Resolution No. 33-2007
$540.00 for 3 to 5
$1,080.00 for 6 or more
Hazardous Materials Clean-
Resolution No. 33-2008
Costs according to
up/Response
Personnel Schedule below
plus apparatus costs of
$140.00 per hour as set by
State
Page 32
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
STANDBY SERVICE
Firefighter
Resolution No. 33-2008
$116.00 per hour
(minimum of 3 hours)
Fire Captain
Resolution No. 33-2008
$134.00 per hour
(minimum of 3 hours)
Battalion Chief
Resolution No. 33-2008
$157.00 per hour
(minimum of 3 hours)
Engine Company
Resolution No. 33-2008
$480.00 per hour
(minimum of 3 hours) plus
apparatus costs of $140.00
per hour as set by State
PERSONNEL COSTS
Personnel Costs bV Job Class
Resolution No. 33-2008
Administration
$ 67.00 per hour
Firefighter
$116.00 per hour
Fire Captain
$134.00 per hour
Fire Prevention Specialist
$ 82.00 per hour
Fire Inspector
$164.00 per hour
Deputy Fire Marshal
$173.00 per hour
Battalion Chief
$157.00 per hour
Division Chief or Fire Marshal
$198.00 per hour
Deputy Fire Chief
Fire Chief
$238.00 per hour
$272.00 per hour
Page 33
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
GENERAL PERMITS
Aerosol Products
Resolution No. 33-2008
$193.00
Amusement Buildings
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Apartments, Hotels and Motels —
10 or less units
Resolution No. 33-2008
$163.00
Apartments, Hotels and Motels —
11 to 25 units
Resolution No. 33-2008
$184.00
Apartments, Hotels and Motels —
26 or more units
Resolution No. 33-2008
$205.00
Apartments Assigned to
Prevention
$219.00
Aviation Facilities
Resolution No. 33-2008
$563.00
Battery System
Resolution No. 33-2008
$563.00
Carnivals and Fairs
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Christmas Tree Lot
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Combustible Fiber Storage
Resolution No. 33-2007
$316.00
Combustible Material Storage
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Commercial Occupancy Assigned to
Prevention
Resolution No. 33-2008
$200.00
Commercial Rubbish -Handling
Operation
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Page 34
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Compressed Gases
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Cryogens
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Dry Cleaning Plants
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Dust -Producing Operations
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Exhibits & Trade Shows — Display
Booth
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Exhibits & Trade Shows — With
Open Flame
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Exhibits & Trade Shows — Display
Fuel Powered Equipment
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Explosives or Blasting Agents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$563.00
Fire Hydrants and Water Control
Valves
Resolution No. 33-2008
$313.00
Fireworks
Resolution No. 33-2008
$563.00
Flammable or Combustible Liquids
Resolution No. 33-2008
$563.00
Hazardous Materials
Resolution No. 33-2008
$563.00
High -Piled Combustible Storage —
20,000 square feet or less
Resolution No. 33-2008
$572.00
High -Piled Combustible Storage —
more than 20,000 square feet
Resolution No. 33-2008
$654.00
Highrise
H&S§13214(b)
$449.00
Hot -Work Operations
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Page 35
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Liquefied Petroleum Gasses
Resolution No. 33-2008
$563.00
Liquid- or gas -fueled Vehicles or
Equipment in Assembly Buildings
Resolution No. 33-2008
$563.00
Live Audiences
Resolution No. 33-2008
$563.00
Lumber Yards storing in excess of
100,000 board Feet
Resolution No. 33-2008
$440.00
Magnesium Working
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Motor Vehicle Fuel -Dispensing
Stations
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Open Burning
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Organic Coating
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Ovens, Industrial Baking and
Drying
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Parade Floats
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Places of Assembly
Resolution No. 33-2008
$522.00
Production Facilities
I Resolution No. 33-2008
$522.00
Pyrotechnical and Special Effects
Material
Resolution No. 33-2008
$563.00
Radioactive Materials
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Refrigeration Equipment
Resolution No. 33-2008
$440.00
Repair Garage
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Page 36
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Spraying and Dipping
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Tents, Canopies, and Temporary
Membrane Structures
Resolution No. 33-2008
$478.00
Tire Storage
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
Wood Products
Resolution No. 33-2008
$316.00
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
printouts — Color
page
Page 37
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master 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 shoots
$50.00/hour
requiring staff oversight during
closed hours)
PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM CONSORTIUM CONTROLLED FEES
Lost Book Replacement Fee
Peninsula Library System
Costs of replacement of
item
Page 38
e4RL1NGA ME
Fiscal Year 2022-23 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 & Board meetings
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.
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 39
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
INDOOR FACILTIES
Burlingame Based Non -Profit Board Meeting $40.00 per hour
Community Hall
Sequoia Room - Whole
Group A:
Burlingame Residents
No Charge
Non -Residents
No Charge
Group B:
(Monday — Thursday)
Burlingame Residents
$180.00 per hour
Non -Residents
$216.00 per hour
(Friday — Sunday)
(July 2022 — October 2022)
Introductory Rate Only
$126.00 per hour
Burlingame Residents
$151.00 per hour
Non -Residents
(Friday — Sunday)
(November 2022 — June 2023)
$252.00 per hour
Burlingame Residents
$302.00 per hour
Non -Residents
Page 40
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Group C:
(Monday — Thursday)
$300.00 per hour
Burlingame Residents
$360.00 per hour
Non -Residents
(Friday — Sunday)
(July 2022 — October 2022)
$210.00 per hour
Introductory Rate Only
$252.00 per hour
Burlingame Residents
Non -Residents
(Friday — Sunday)
$420.00 per hour
(November 2022 — June 2023)
$504.00 per hour
Burlingame Residents
Non -Residents
Deposits:
$500.00 per event /
Burlingame Residents
$1,000.00 if alcohol is
served
Non -Residents
$500.00 per event /
$1,000.00 if alcohol is
served
Page 41
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Large Rooms
Elm Meeting Room (Whole), Maker's Space, Maple Meeting Room, Grand Oak Lounge,
Sequoia A or B, STEAM Lab, Fine Arts Studio.
Group A:
Burlingame Residents
No Charge
Non -Residents
No Charge
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
$102.00 per hour
Non -Residents
$122.00 per hour
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
$170.00 per hour
Non -Residents
$204.00 per hour
Deposits:
Burlingame Residents
$200.00
Non -Residents
$200.00
Page 42
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Medium Rooms
Magnolia Meeting Room, Dance/Fitness Studio, Kids Town, Kitchen, Teen Scene, Elm
Meeting Room A or B, Musical Arts Room.
Group A:
Burlingame Residents
No Charge
Non -Residents
No Charge
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
$90.00 per hour
Non -Residents
$108.00 per hour
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
$150.00 per hour
Non -Residents
$180.00 per hour
Deposits:
Burlingame Residents
$200.00
Non -Residents
$200.00
Page 43
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
In conjunction with Community
Hall/Sequoia Room Rental
Additional Rental Charges:
Tables/Chairs-up to 50
Resolution No. 33-2008
$20.00
Tables/Charis-51 to 100
Resolution No. 33-2008
$29.00
Tables/Chairs-over 100
Resolution No. 33-2008
$45.00
Dance Floor
$100 per event
Building Attendant*
Resolution No. 33-2008
$40.00 per hour
Second Building Attendant
$40.00 per hour
(Over 150 guests)
Custodian (3 hours)
$130 per event
Extra, Non -Scheduled Hours
Resolution No. 27-2006
2x's the hourly room
rental rate
Page 44
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
Field Attendant
Resolution No. 41-2008
$43.00 per hour
Large Special Event Deposit for
Athletic Fields:
Less than 100 in attendance
$267.00 per event
More than 100 in attendance
$534.00 per event
Group A-1: Field Use per
Resolution No. 27-2011
$16.00 per Resident
Season by Burlingame -based
$86.00 per Non -Resident
non-profit youth sports group.
plus $3.00 per hour per
field
for Resident groups,
$9.00 per hour per field
for groups less than 50%
Resident
Fields used by Validated
Security Deposit $500.00
Burlingame -based non-profit
youth sports groups
Bayside Ball Fields #1 and #2
Resolution No. 31-2003
No Charge
Group A
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$25.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$36.00 per hour
Page 45
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 31-2003
$36.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$59.00 per hour
Bayside Field Lights
Resolution No. 24-2010
$41.00 per hour
Bayside Ball Fields #3,#4 or #5
for Softball or Baseball
Group A
Resolution No. 31-2003
No Charge
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$21.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$31.00 per hour
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$31.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$47.00 per hour
Bayside Field Lights
Resolution No. 24-2010
$41.00 per hour
Bayside Soccer Fields
Group A
Resolution No. 31-2003
No Charge
Group B:
Page 46
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$25.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$36.00 per hour
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$36.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$59.00 per hour
Bayside Field Lights
Resolution No. 24-2010
$41.00 per hour
Cuernavaca Park
Group A
Resolution No. 31-2003
No Charge
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$25.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$36.00 per hour
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 31-2003
$36.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$59.00 per hour
Murray Field
Group A
Resolution No. 31-2003
No Charge
Group B:
Page 47
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$63.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$85.00 per hour
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$85.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$108.00 per hour
Murray Field Lights
Resolution No. 24-2010
$41.00 per hour
Ray Park Ball Fields #1 or #2
Resolution No. 31-2003
No Charge
Group A
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$25.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$36.00 per hour
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 31-2003
$36.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$59.00 per hour
Washington Park Main Ball
Field for Baseball
Group A
Resolution No. 41-2008
No Charge
Page 48
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 41-2008
$36.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 41-2008
$59.00 per hour
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 41-2008
$59.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 41-2008
$82.00 per hour
Washington Park Lights
Resolution No. 24-2010
$41.00 per hour
Grandstands
$21.00 per hour + Field
attendant $160.00
cleaning fee
Washington Park Bullpen
Group A
Resolution No. 31-2003
No Charge
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$19.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$25.00 per hour
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 33-2007
$36.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$47.00 per hour
Page 49
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Washington Park Main Ball
field Outfield for Soccer
Group A
Resolution No. 31-2003
No Charge
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$36.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$59.00 per hour
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$59.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$83.00 per hour
Washington Park Lights
Resolution No. 24-2010
$41.00 per hour
Washington Park Small Ball
Field
Group A
Resolution No. 31-2003
Group B:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$19.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$31.00 per hour
Group C:
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$31.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
$47.00 per hour
Page 50
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Washington Small Lights
Resolution No. 24-2010
$41.00 per hour
Tennis Courts
USTA Tournaments
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 31-2003
$38.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 61-2006
$62.00 per hour
For Profit Rental
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 103-2009
$23.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 103-2009
$27.00 per hour
PICNIC PERMITS
West -end of Washington Park
Resolution No. 27-2011
$489.00 Permit Fee
(for Burlingame residents and
$500.00 Deposit
non-profit groups only)
Electrical Service Hook-up at
Resolution No. 32-2009
$86.00
West -end of Washington Park
Oak Tree Playground Picnic
Area
$182.00 Permit Fee
Burlingame Residents
No Deposit
Non -Residents
$218.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
Page 51
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Redwood Grove Picnic Area
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 24-2010
$238.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
Non -Residents
Resolution No. 24-2010
$299.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
Non-profit Group Picnic Fees:
Resolution No. 103-2009
$114.00 Permit Fee
Cuernavaca & Ray Parks
No Deposit
Both Washington Park Picnic
Areas (Redwood Grove +Oak
Tree)
Burlingame Residents
$337.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
Non -Residents
$438.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
Olive Tree Picnic Area
Burlingame Residents
$121.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
Non -Residents
$161.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
Washington Park Sports Court
Washington Park Basketball
$18.00 per hour
Court
Rental of Pickleball Net
$100 fee if returned
damaged
Page 52
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
$200 fee if returned
beyond repair
Washington Park Bocce Ball
Courts (reservations)
Burlingame Residents
Resolution 34-2013
$30.00/hour per court
No Deposit
Non -Residents
$35.00/hour per court
No Deposit
Rental of Bocce Ball and
Resolution 34-2013
$10.00 Flat Rate + $40.00
Horseshoes
Refundable deposit
Washington Park Horseshoe
Pits
(reservations)
Burlingame Residents
Resolution 34-2013
$30.00/hour per court
No Deposit
Non -Residents
Resolution 34-2013
$35.00/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. 103-2009
$21.00 per hour
Non-residents
Resolution No. 103-2009
$25.00 per hour
Page 53
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Village Park Picnic Fee (3
tables
Burlingame residents
Resolution 24-2010
$120.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
Non-residents
Resolution 24-2010
$161.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
Offsite: Non -Profit Community
Resolution No. 32-2009
$20.00 per table/per day
Groups Equipment Rental Fees
Collapsible Picnic Table
Tables
$6.00 per table/per day
Chairs
$3.00 per chair/per day
Tents
$25.00 per tent/per day
Inflatable Jump House
Washington Park
Resolution No. 27-2011
$120.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit (Must be done
in conjunction with a
picnic permit)
Wedding Ceremony
Washington Park Rose Garden
Resolution No. 27-2011
Page 54
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 27-2011
$120.00
Non -Residents
$180.00
Washington Park Anson
Burlingame Portals
Burlingame Residents
$120.00
Non -Residents
$180.00
With Facility Rental
$60.00
$120.00
Photo Shoots in Parks
Application Fee
Resolution No. 27-2011
$59.00 non-refundable fee
Rental Fee Per Day
Resolution No. 27-2011
$149.00 per day
Student Photo Shoot
No Charge
Film Shoot in Parks
Application Fee
$342.00 non-refundable
fee
Commercial or Corporate
$478.00 per day
Feature Film/Documentary
$717.00 per day
Page 55
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Community Garden
Annual Fee
Burlingame Residents
$85/year per plot
Non -Residents
$100/year per plot
Deposit
$100 deposit
Brochure Ads
Resolution No. 27-2011
1 issue/4 issues (1 year -
20% Discount)
1/8 page
$83.00/$267.00
1/4 page
$166.00/$530.00
1/2 page
$333.00/$1,067.00
Full page
$666.00/$2,130.00
Full Page Inside Front Cover
$897.00/$2,870.00
Full Page Inside Back Cover
$837.00/$2,678.00
Full Page Back Cover
$997.00/$3,191.00
Layout
$85.00 per hour
Discount for Non -Profits
25% resident groups
0% non-resident groups
Page 56
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
CLASSES
Class Fees
Resolution No. 31-2003
To be set based on class
provider and
materials/facilities
provided
Registration Fees
Resolution No. 24-2010
$12.00
Non-resident Fee on Classes
Resolution No. 31-2003
Add 20% to class fee
rounded to nearest dollar
Senior discount — Burlingame
Resolution No. 103-2009
25% off class fee on
residents age 65 and over
classes held at Temporary
Facilities
Senior discount — non-residents
Resolution No. 31-2003
Waive non-resident fee
age 65 and over
Registration cancellation
Resolution No. 33-2008
$8.00 per class or event
charge
TREE AND PARKS FEES
Memorial tree plantings
Resolution No. 33-2008
$325.00/$518.00
15 gallon/24" box size
Memorial Bench
Resolution No. 27-2011
$;,'� ^� 3 500.00
Additional street tree plantings
Resolution No. 32-2009
$123.00/$280.00
15 gallon/24" box size
Page 57
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Protected Tree Removal
Resolution No. 33-2008
Application Fee
$107.00
Failure to Meet Replanting
$1,282.00
Requirements of Permit
Arborist's plan review for
Resolution No. 33-2008
$270.00
landscaping requirements on
planning applications
(See also planning fee
schedule)
Arborist check of construction
Resolution No. 33-2008
$270.00
plans and inspection of
landscape requirements on
building permit submittals
Appeal to City Council from
Resolution No. 33-2008
$500.00
Beautification Commission
decision (does not include
noticing costs)
Noticing, City Council Appeal
Resolution No. 33-2008
$114.00
Street Banner Hanger
Resolution No. 24-2010
$214.00
Private Tree Emergency Work
$85.00 per hour
Business Hours (M-F; 7-3:30)
After Hours (Weekends &
$109.00 per hour
Holidays)
Page 58
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
PRE -APPLICATIONS
Preliminary Plan Check, New
Resolution No. 27-2011
$967.00
Construction*
Preliminary Plan Check,
Resolution No. 27-2011
$484.00
Addition/Remodel*
Zoning Verification/Property Profile
$114.00
Letter
APPLICATIONS
Ambiguity/Determination Hearing
Resolution No. 33-2008
$1,616.00
before Planning Commission
(applies to Planning, Fire, and
Building requests)
Amendment/Extension of Permits
Resolution No. 27-2011
$871.00
Appeal to Planning Commission of
Resolution No. 33-2008
$631.00
administratively approved
permits/appeal to City Council of
Planning Commission decisions
Noticing to be charged separately
Legal Review -Substantive work by
Resolution No. 48-2015
$213.00/hour
*Fifty percent (50%) of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete
application.
Page 59
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
City Attorney for development
projects requiring discretionary
review before the Planning
Commission under Title 25
Conditional Use Permit
Resolution No. 27-2011
$2,143.00
Multi -Unit Residential, 10 Units or
Resolution No. 33-2008
$3,816.00
Fewer
Multi -Unit Residential, 11 Units to 25
Resolution No. 33-2008
$4,482.00
Units
Multi -Unit Residential, 26 Units to 50
$5,260.00
Units
Multi -Unit Residential, 51 Units to
$6,176.00
100 Units
Multi -Unit Residential, 101 Units and
$7,252.00
Greater
Design Review, Amendment
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,187.00
Design Review Deposit**
Resolution No. 27-2006
$1,552.00
Design Review — Handling Fee
Resolution No. 33-2008
$602.00
Minor "FYI" Amendment to
$458.00
Approved Project —Applicant
Initiated
**Minimum deposit. Formula for ultimate calculation is design review consultant fee times hours spent. Project not set for hearing
until actual time paid.
Page 60
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
As -Built "FYI" Variation from
Approved Project
$1,686.00
Design Review, Single -Unit
Residential
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,373.00
Design Review, Multi -Unit
Residential 25 Units or Fewer
$2,209.00
Design Review, Multi -Unit
Residential 26 Units or Greater
$3,261.00
Design Review, 5,000 Gross Square
Feet or Less
$1,373.00
Design Review, 5,001-10,000 Gross
Square Feet
$2,209.00
Design Review, 10,001 Gross Square
Feet or Greater
$3,261.00
Design Review, Information
Submittal to Planning Commission
$1,324.00
Fence Variance
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,207.00
Minor Modification
Resolution No. 27-2011
$2,527.00
Hillside Area Construction Permit
Resolution No. 27-2011
$2,527.00
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Resolution No. 27-2011
$782.00
Reasonable Accommodation
Resolution No. 27-2011
$492.00
General Plan Amendment/Re-zoning
Resolution No. 27-2011
$8,218.00
Page 61
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty
Resolution No. 27-2011
$568.00
Permit,
Building Official Inspection Deposit
Special Use Permit
Resolution No. 27-2011
$4,690.00
Variance
Resolution No 27-2011
$4,902.00
Wireless Communications
Municipal Code Section
$2,179.00
Administrative Use Permit
25.48.300
Plan Recheck Fee
More than two revisions to plans
Resolution No. 32- 2009
$795.00
Major redesign of project plans
Resolution No. 32- 2009
$957.00
Cannabis Operator Permit
Municipal Code Section
Application Fees
25.48.060
Delivery only, no fixed location
$1,492.00
Fixed location, non -storefront retail
delivery
$5,967.00
Municipal Code Section
Cannabis Operator Permit Renewal
25.48.060
$1,492.00
Page 62
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Fees
Delivery only, no fixed location
$373.00
Fixed location, non -storefront retail
delivery
ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental, Categorical
Resolution No. 27-2011
$134.00
Exemption
Environmental, Negative Declaration
Resolution No. 27-2011
$6,908.00
(R-1 and R-2)
Environmental, Initial
Resolution No. 27-2011
Pass -through of actual
Study/Mitigated Negative
contractor cost, plus 10% of
Declaration Checklist/Streamlining
contract handling fee,
Exemption and/or with a
deposit to be determined by
Responsible Agency
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
$945.00
Mitigated Negative Declaration and
EIR
Page 63
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Fish & Wildlife Fee for Negative
Fish & Game Code §
$2,548.00 (Fish & Wildlife
Declaration, whether mitigated or
711.4
Fee is updated annually on
not (pass -through fee)
January 1 by the California
Department of Fish &
Wildlife)
Fish & Wildlife Fee for
Fish & Game Code §
$3,539.25 (Fish & Wildlife
Environmental Impact Report (pass-
711.4
Fee is updated annually on
through fee)
January 1 by the California
Department of Fish &
Wildlife)
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
$270.00
NOTICING
Noticing, All Other
Resolution No. 27-2011
$729.00
Noticing, Design Review
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,013.00
Noticing, Minor Modifications,
Resolution No. 27-2011
$847.00
Hillside Area Construction Permits
Noticing, General Plan Amendment —
Resolution No. 33-2008
$1,515.00
Re -zoning
Noticing, Environmental Impact
Code Section 25.48.300
$1,515.00
Report
Noticing, City Council Appeal
Code Section 25.48.300
$114.00
Page 64
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Noticing, Accessory Dwelling Unit
Amnesty Permit
Resolution No. 61-2004
$73.00
Noticing— Wireless Communications
Municipal Code Chapter
25.48.300
$667.00
Noticing — Replacement of Design
Review Sign
$380.00
SIGNS
50 square feet or less
Resolution No 27-2011
$284.00
Over 50 SF and less than 200 square
feet
Resolution No. 27-2011
$405.00
Over 200 square feet
Resolution No. 27-2011
$466.00
Sign Variance
Resolution No. 27-2011
$3,448.00
Removal of Illegal Sign
Resolution No. 33-2008
$138.00
Page 65
Fiscal Year 2022-23 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 are 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)
$2,905.00/TSF
Restaurant
$11,699.00/TSF
Hotel
$952.00/room
Hotel, Extended Stay
$926.00/room
Office, Warehouse,
$4,405.00/TSF
Manufacturing
Retail — Commercial
$10,695.00/TSF
Car Rental
$67,875.00/acre
Commercial Recreation
$21,065.00/acre
All Other
$2,341.00 per p.m. peak hour
trip as detailed by traffic study
Page 66
Fiscal Year 2022-23 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 are 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)
$0.66 per square foot of
building
El Camino North Area of Benefit
Ord. No. 1751 (2005)
$0.66 per square foot of
Multiple family dwelling or duplex
building
Any use other than multiple family
Ord. No. 1751 (2005)
$0.83 per square foot of
dwelling or duplex
building
Page 67
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
The Public Facilities Impact Fee is a general category of fees based on the uses, number of dwelling units
and/or amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of a development
project. The fees are committed to public improvement, public services, and community amenities
affected by new development (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.80).
The purpose of the fee is established upon approval of a permit for construction or reconstruction, and is
intended for improvements in one or more of the following categories:
• General Facilities & Equipment • Streets & Traffic
• Libraries • Fire
• Police • Storm Drainage
• Parks & Recreation
Single Family
Multifamily
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Fee per Dwelling
Unit
Fee per Dwelling
Unit
Fee per 1,000 sq.ft.
of Building
Fee per 1,000 sq.ft.
of Building
Fee per 1,000 sq.ft.
of Building
General
$ 2,756
$ 1,636
$ 640
$ 930
$ 305
Library
$ 2,383
$ 1,415
$ 478
$ 695
$ 228
Police
$ 437
$ 259
$ 102
$ 147
$ 48
Parks
$ 590
$ 350
$ 118
$ 172
$ 56
Traffic/Streets
$ 1,573
$ 1,105
$ 1,810
$ 7,285
$ 1,146
Fire
$ 642
$ 381
$ 248
$ 360
$ 118
Storm Drainage
$ 781
$ 391
$ 442
$ 717
$ 628
Total Impact Fee:
$ 9,162
$ 5,537
$3,838
$10,306
$2,529
The establishing ordinance provides no annual escalator for the Public Facilities Impact Fee.
Page 68
Fiscal Year 2022-23 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
$61,764.00
Fees
Page 69
e4RL1NGA ME
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
Commercial Affordable Housing Linkage Fees were adopted by the City Council in 2017 to provide a
dedicated source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame.
• Retail - $7.00 per square foot ($5.00 w/ prevailing wages)
• Hotel - $12.00 per square foot ($10.00 w/ prevailing wages)
• Office projects of 50,000 square feet or less - $18.00 per square foot ($15.00 w/
prevailing wages)
• Office projects greater than 50,000 square feet - $25.00 per square foot ($20.00 w/
prevailing wages)
Residential Impact Fees were adopted by the City Council in 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 70
Fiscal Year 2022-23 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 State
$35.00 plus appropriate State
of California Department of
Dept. of Justice and/or Federal
Justice
processing fee
CD's/DVD's Containing
Resolution No.32-2009
$106.00 per CD/DVD
Digital Files
Clearance Letter
Resolution No. 32-2009
$31.00
Repossessed Vehicle
Gov't Code § 41612
$15.00
Preferential Parkin
Permits
(Residential Permit
Parking Program)
Resolution No. 22-2008
$63.00
Issuance (up to 2 permits
(Section 13.36.070)
for same address)
Resolution No. 22-2008
$63.00
Annual renewal (up to 2
(Section 13.36.070)
permits for same
address)
Resolution No. 22-2008
$63.00
(Section 13.36.070)
Charge for replacement
of lost permit
Page 71
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Burlingame Avenue
Section 13.32.020
$63.00/month
Downtown Area Parking
Permits
Driving Under Influence
Resolution No. 32-2009
$254.00 per hour
(DUI) Fees
Resolution No. 33-2007
$147.00 per blood test
$55.00 per breath or urine test
Resolution No. 33-2007
$147.00 per refused blood test
Resolution No. 33-2007
Security Service (Outside
Resolution No. 33-2008
$159.00 per hour
Detail) (minimum charge
of four hours)
Alarm Permit Application
Resolution No. 116-2003
$18.00
Fee
(Section 10.10.110)
Resolution No. 116-2003
$32.00 per year
Alarm Permits (Annual
(Section 10.10.110)
Renewal)
Page 72
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
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
(Section 10.10.090)
$50.00 (includes cost of alarm
no alarm permit has
Resolution No. 28-2006
permit plus $18.00 initial
been issued
application fee)
Live Entertainment
Resolution No. 32-2009
$660.00
Permit
(Sections 6.16.030)
Single Event
(Section 6.16.090)
$114.00
Entertainment Permit
Peddlers and Solicitors
Resolution No. 41-2008
$702.00 for investigation plus
(Section 6.24.030)
fingerprinting fees
Curb Painting
Resolution No. 33-2007
$64.00 for investigation
Tanning Salon
Application
Resolution No. 41-2008
$1,074.00 plus fingerprinting fees
(Section 6.42.060)
$984.00 plus fingerprinting fees
Sale or Transfer
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.42.120)
$736.00 plus fingerprinting fees
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.42.160)
Page 73
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Massage Operator
Application
Resolution No. 32-2009
$1,389.00 plus fingerprinting fees
(Section 6.40.060)
$1,389.00 plus fingerprinting fees
Sale or Transfer
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 6.40.120)
$871.00 plus fingerprinting fees
Renewal
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 6.40.160)
Model/Escort Service
Resolution No. 41-2008
$1,178.00 plus fingerprinting fees
Application
(Section 6.41.040)
$1,075.00 plus fingerprinting fees
Sale or Transfer
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.41.100)
$736.00 plus fingerprinting fees
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.41.130)
Private Patrol Company
Resolution No. 41-2008
$396.00 plus fingerprinting fees
Application
(Section 6.44.050)
$198.00 plus fingerprinting fees
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.44.080)
Taxi Operator
Application
Section 6.36.050
Business license fee plus
fingerprinting fees
Business license fee plus
Renewal
Section 6.36.190
fingerprinting fees
Page 74
e4RL1NGA ME
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Taxi Driver
Application
Section 6.36.050
$80.00 plus fingerprinting fees
$70.00 plus fingerprinting fees
Renewal
Section 6.36.190
Taxicab Annual
Section 6.36.120
$90.00 per vehicle
Inspection
Valet Parking
Resolution No. 41-2008
$762.00 plus fingerprinting fees
(Section 6.30.040)
Concealed Weapon
Resolution No. 32-2009
$1,286.00 for investigation
Fortune Teller
Resolution No. 41-2008
$762.00 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
$114.00
Sidewalk Closure
$114.00 per parcel/per day
$226.00 per parcel/per day
Road Closure
Verification of non-
Resolution No. 90-2009
No Charge
resident "proof -of -
correction" citations
Page 75
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
SEWER CAPACITY CHARGES
Single-family
Section 15.08.020
$10,219.00/ dwelling unit
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/2022
Multi -family, Two or
Section 15.08.020
$7,075.00/ dwelling unit
More Bedrooms
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/2022
Multi -family, Studio and
Section 15.08.020
$4,804.00/ dwelling unit
One Bedroom
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/2022
Detached Accessory
Section 15.08.020
$4.26/ square foot
Dwelling Unit (ADU) >
Fee updated based on Engineering
150 square feet
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/2022
Non -Residential, water
Section 15.08.020
$19,653.00/ connection
meter size = %-inch
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/2022
Non -Residential, water
Section 15.08.020
$32,756.00/ connection
meter size = 1-inch
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/2022
Page 76
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Non -Residential, water
Section 15.08.020
$65,511.00/ connection
meter size = 1%-inch
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/2022
Non -Residential, water
Section 15.08.020
$104,818.00/connection
meter size = 2-inch
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/2022
Non -Residential, water
Section 15.08.020
$196,534.00/ connection
meter size = 3-inch
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/2022
Non -Residential, water
Section 15.08.020
$327,557.00/connection
meter size = 4-inch
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/2022
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 (2006)
$606.00
Moderate Discharger,
Ord. No. 1786 (2006)
$1,660.00
Annual
Heavy Discharger,
Ord. No. 1786 (2006)
$2,318.00
Annual
Page 77
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Non -Conventional
Ord. No. 1786 (2006)
$1,239.00
Discharger, Annual
Groundwater Discharger
Ord. No. 1786 (2006)
Non -conventional Fee plus $6.98
per 1000 gallons discharged
Application Processing
Ord. No. 1786 (2006)
$160.00
Fee
ANALYTICAL FEES
In-house Testing
Ord. No. 1786 (2006)
Cost
Contract Lab Testing
Ord. No. 1786 (2006)
Cost plus 15%
BIMONTHLY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
Minimum Bi-Monthly
Resolution No. 144-2021
$27.16
Charges
(Effective 1/1/2022)
Applies only when volumetric
sewer rates result in a charge that
is lower than the minimum.
Single-family or duplex
Resolution No. 144-2021
$13.58 per thousand gallons.
(Effective 1/1/2022)
Multi -Unit residential
Resolution No. 144-2021
$13.05 per thousand gallons
(Effective 1/1/2022)
Food Related:
Resolution No. 144-2021
$34.14 per thousand gallons
Restaurant, other
(Effective 1/1/2022)
commercial food -related
uses
Page 78
e4RL1NGA ME
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Moderate/Heavy
Resolution No. 144-2021
$23.80 per thousand gallons
commercial
(Effective 1/1/2022)
Light commercial
Resolution No. 144-2021
$14.44 per thousand gallons
(Effective 1/1/2022)
Institutional/ Schools/
Resolution No. 144-2021
$6.71 per thousand gallons
Churches
(Effective 1/1/2022)
Page 79
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
NEW CUSTOMERS IN SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEX CLASSIFICATION — Resolution
No. 144-2021 (Effective 1/1/2022)
Number of Bedrooms
Bi-Monthly Fee
1 Bedroom or Studio
$54.32
2 Bedrooms
$81.48
3 Bedrooms
$108.64
4 Bedrooms
$135.80
5 or More Bedrooms
$162.96
Page 80
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
WATER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
WATER CAPACITY CHARGES
Single-family
Section 15.04.020
$6,699.00/ dwelling unit
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/22
Multi -family, Two or
Section 15.04.020
$4,164.00/ dwelling unit
More Bedrooms
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/22
Multi -family, Studio and
Section 15.04.020
$2,715.00/ dwelling unit
One Bedroom
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/22
Detached Accessory
Section 15.04.020
$2.80/ square foot
Dwelling Unit (ADU), >
Fee updated based on Engineering
150 square feet
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/22
Non -Residential, water
Section 15.04.020
$10,138.00/ connection
meter size= %-inch
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/22
Non -Residential, water
Section 15.04.020
$16,910.00/ connection
meter size=1-inch
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/22
Page 81
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
WATER
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Non -Residential, water
Section 15.04.020
$33,784.00/ connection
meter size= 1 % -inch
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/22
Non -Residential, water
Section 15.04.020
$54,061.00/ connection
meter size=2-inch
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/22
Non -Residential, water
Section 15.04.020
$101,387.00/ connection
meter size=3-inch
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/22
Non -Residential, water
Section 15.04.020
$168,991.00/ connection
meter size=4-inch
Fee updated based on Engineering
News Record Construction Cost
Index as of 1/1/22
Page 82
Fiscal Year 2022-23 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 2022-23 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 January 1, 2019: $11.46
Family/Duplex/Other
per 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., Monday
$20.00
thru Friday
3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., Monday
$60.00
thru Friday
Saturday/Sunday/Holiday
$60.00
Page 84
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
Dk]
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., Monday
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
$45.00
thru Friday
3:31 p.m. to 4:50 p.m., Monday
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
$60.00
thru Friday
After normal operating hours
$150.00
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 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
Dk]
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
SERVICE
REFERENCE
FEE
Page 86
e4RL1NGA ME
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule
WATER
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 2022-23 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
�v ci�v o
STAFF REPORT
APORA<
Honorable Mayor and City Council
To:
Date: May 2, 2022
AGENDA ITEM NO: 9b
MEETING DATE: May 2, 2022
From: Helen Yu -Scott, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222
Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of Broadway Area Business Improvement
Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Hold a public hearing to consider any protests to the Broadway Area BID assessments;
2. Close the public hearing and ask the City Clerk to report out any protests filed with the City;
and,
3. If protests do not represent the majority of the assessments, then adopt the resolution setting
the 2022-23 fiscal year assessments.
BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted a resolution of intention to set the 2022-23 fiscal year Broadway Area
BID assessments on April 4, 2022 and established May 2, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. as the public hearing
date and time. Notice of the public hearing was sent to owners of all businesses within the district
during the week of April 111"
DISCUSSION
No changes in the boundaries, assessments, or business classifications of the business district
are proposed. If there is a protest by businesses that represent a majority of the value of the
assessments, then the resolution cannot be approved. As of the time of writing this staff report,
the City had not received any protests, although protests may be presented in writing before or at
the hearing. Any and all protests must be received by the City Clerk at or before the time
fixed for the public hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT
Up to $28,500 in assessments is collected annually with City business licenses. All of these funds
are forwarded to the Broadway Area Business Improvement District for improvements as
authorized by the BID Board of Directors. The City of Burlingame covers the expenses associated
with the renewal of the BID.
1
Broadway Area Business Improvement District Assessments May 2, 2022
Exhibits:
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Establishing 2022-23 Fiscal Year
Assessments for the Broadway Area Business Improvement District and Determining that
No Majority Protest Has Been Made
Broadway Area BID Assessment Roll (showing weight of protest votes)
2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING
AND LEVYING 2022-23 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq.,
the City Council of the City of Burlingame established the Broadway Area Business
Improvement District ("BABID") in 1992 for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and
physical maintenance of said business district, and
WHEREAS, the BABID Advisory Board has filed its 2021-22 annual report with the City
Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the BABID has provided important services in enhancing the Broadway
business area, its businesses, and properties; and
WHEREAS, at the request of the BABID Advisory Board, the City Council desires to set
and levy the assessments in connection with the BABID for Fiscal Year 2022-23; and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2022, the Burlingame City Council approved the BABID's annual
report and adopted a Resolution of Intention to levy BABID assessments for fiscal year 2022-23;
and
WHEREAS, the Burlingame City Council set a public hearing to consider its levy of
assessments on the businesses in the BABID for May 2, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting is
scheduled to be held telephonically and via other electronic means pursuant to the provisions of
AB 361. Members of the public may review the meeting by logging into the Zoom meeting
through the link published within the meeting agenda on the City's website, or by accessing the
meeting by phone. Access information can be found at www.burlingame.org, and said public
hearing was duly noticed as required by State law; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on May 2, 2022 the Burlingame City Council
received and considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons and any and
all written protests presented by businesses within the BABID; and
WHEREAS, the method, basis, and amounts of the BABID assessments on businesses
will remain the same as those levied in the pre -pandemic year for fiscal year 2022-23 so that
improvements and programs may continue in the BABID; and
WHEREAS, the BABID's proposed activities and improvements, the proposed
assessments and the boundaries of the District for the 2022-23 fiscal year are without change
from those currently in place for the BABID;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND FIND AS FOLLOWS:
1. All of the facts and assertions recited above, in the staff report and supporting
documentation are true and correct.
2. Written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received at or
before the close of the public hearing on May 2, 2022, that constituted a majority as defined in
Government Code sections 36500 and following.
3. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the 2022-23 fiscal year on
businesses in the BABID as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1461, to pay for
improvements and activities of the BABID.
4. The types of improvements and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments on
businesses in the BABID are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein.
5. The method and basis for levying the assessments on all businesses within the
BABID are set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 2nd day
of May, 2022, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NOES:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
2
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Improvements and Activities to be Funded by the Levy of Assessments on
Businesses in the Broadway Area Business Improvement District
• BID funding/contribution to Burlingame Trolley.
• Burlingame Pet Parade - September.
• Halloween Trick -or -Treat Event - October.
• Broadway Cheer Holiday Toy Drive with Central County Fire Department - December.
• Install and maintain string lights on mature trees throughout the year.
• Revamp and maintain Broadway website and promote events.
• Revamp and maintain Pet Parade website and promote event.
• Grow and maintain social media presence of the Broadway merchants (Facebook,
Google).
• Promote new & existing businesses on Facebook.
• Advertise Broadway Business District on Google.
• New Neighbor postcard marketing.
• Plan Hotel Concierge Tour.
• Merchant communication efforts such as door-to-door, email, calling in regards to
downtown updates, parking updates, upcoming events, construction, planned power
outages, road closures etc. (New merchants welcomed by BID President.)
• Assist new merchants during planning and building phase/process having difficulties with
local, county and state agencies.
• Maintenance of 32 well lights at street corner bulb -outs illuminating corner trees.
• Work with Boys Scouts to set up and remove American flags to celebrate patriotic
holidays.
• Educate businesses in regards to encroachment permits and illegal "A -Frames".
• Update Broadway Business Directory brochure for Burlingame Trolley.
• Work with BCE to promote Broadway businesses by donating gift certificates for the
Gala Online Auction.
• Shop Small Business Saturday - November.
• "Bike to Shop Day" event by County of San Mateo.
• Communicate with City and City departments in resolving any and all issues to beautify,
clean, maintain and make Broadway a safe environment to shop.
• Encourage business owners to renew their outdated/dilapidated awnings with up to $500
subsidy from BID.
• Implement and maintain new & existing businesses on Google Map.
• Design and custom -make 10 bike racks with the Broadway Arch logo.
• Hotel Book full -page advertising with Explorer Publishing.
3
EXHIBIT B
BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
ASSESSMENT BASIS*
BUSINESS TYPE
RETAIL &
RESTAURANT
SERVICE
PROFESSIONAL
FINANCIAL
NO. OF STAFF ** ANNUAL ASSESSMENT
4+
----------------
$450
1-3 - 3
$300
3+
$250
1-2
$150
3+
$200
1 - 2
$150
NA
$500
* ----- Amount shown is annual total
** --- Staff means any persons working (full time or full time
equivalency) including owners, partners, managers,
employees, family members, etc.
Business Definitions (Burlingame Municipal Code § 6.52.010):
Retail ❑ Businesses that buy and resell goods. Examples are clothing stores,
shoe stores, office supplies, etc.
Restaurant ❑ Selling prepared food and drink.
Service ❑ Businesses that sell services. Examples are beauty and barber shops,
repair shops that do not sell goods, contractors, auto shops, etc.
Professional ❑ Includes engineering firms, architects, attorneys, dentists, optometrists,
physicians, realtors, insurance offices, etc.
Financial ❑ Banks, savings and loans, household finance companies, etc.
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
BROADWAY AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL - FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
LICENSE
CODE
FEE
#EMP
NAME
CONTACT
ADDRESS
%of TOTAL
905991
DI
$450.00
9
CAFE FIGARO
CIHAN AKKAYA
1318 BROADWAY
1.58%
914722
D1
$450.00
6
PRESTON'S CANDY & ICE CREAM
IRENE PRESTON
1170 BROADWAY
1.58%
917378
DI
$450.00
5
WEIMAX CORPORATION
WEIMAX CORPORATION
1178 BROADWAY
1.58%
917948
D1
$450.00
18
BROADWAY PRIME
TIANMAR INC.
1316 BROADWAY
1.58%
918813
1 DI
$450.00
22
WALGREENS #06655-LICENSING
WALGREEN CO.
1160 BROADWAY
1.58%
920029
D1
$450.00
7
REBARTS INTERIORS/HUNTER-DOUGLAS GALL
BART T SAN DIEGO III
1352 BROADWAY
1.58%
921407
D1
$450.00
12
RISTORANTE ROCCA
ROCCA KURT'S BROTHERS, INC.
1205 BROADWAY
1.58%
922678
D1
$450.00
6
MIVAN RESTAURANT
FIKRET DEMIRKOL
1232 BROADWAY
1.58%
923782
DI
$450.00
6
SUBWAY SANDWICH
FAMILY FOOD, INC. / NINA WARAICH
1308 BROADWAY AVE
1.58%
925714
D1
$450.00
6
BURLINGAME FARMERS MARKET
TOM & ASHRAF GHISHAN
1236 BROADWAY
1.58%
929855
DI
$450.00
5
YOUNG CAN WOK CHINESE BISTRO
YONG WANG & LEANNA WANG
1200 BROADWAY
1.58%
929996
D1
$450.00
4
YANGON
FRANK CHUNG WEI WANG
1136 BROADWAY
1.58%
930198
DI
$450.00
8
ROYAL DONUT CAFE, INC.
VAUNG CHHUO
1165 BROADWAY
1.58%
930407
D1
$450.00
19
COFFEE HOUSE HOLDINGS INC DBA STARBUCK #6871
CLARICE TURNER
1230 BROADWAY
1.58%
930410
D1
$450.00
18
VILLAGE HOST
1201 BROADWAY
1.58%
932134
D1
$450.00
10
CAPPO MGMT IX, INC DBA OCEAN HONDA OF BURLINGAME
JEFFREY E CAPPO
1070 BROADWAY
1.58%
932699
D1
$450.00
7
BONNE SANTE BROADWAY
LYONS ANGELOS PARTNERSHIP
1431 BROADWAY
1.58%
933000
D1
$450.00
7
BROADWAY CENTRO PIZZA
ELIO D'URZO
1326 BROADWAY
1.58%
933131
DI
$450.00
4
IL PICCOLO CAFFE
PICCOLO CAFE INC.
1219 BROADWAY
1.58%
950383
D1
$450.00
5
LAM FAM LLC
LINDA LAM
1199 BROADWAY SUITE 2
1.58%
950757
D1
$450.00
5
BROADWAY GRILL LLC
DZIUGAS DZIKARAS
1400 BROADWAY
1.58%
951038
D1
$450.00
6
E.B. LIITT CORP. DBA SEQUOIA FOODS
ERIC LIITTSCHWAGER
1399 BROADWAY
1.58%
951531
DI
$450.00
8
TOM SAM CORPORATION
MINGYUE CHEN
1251 BROADWAY
1.58%
951664
D1
$450.00
7
STIX
EMILY HUI
1355 BROADWAY
1.58%
909905
D2
$300.00
1
WILLIAM WARMBOE ANTIQUES
WILLIAM WARMBOE
1305 BROADWAY
1.05%
911683
D2
$300.00
2
NUTS FOR CANDY
NOURIJAN & NORA KEVRANIAN
1241 BROADWAY
1.05%
912486
D2
$300.00
2
MR. Z'S
PAMAELA P. VOGT
1301 BROADWAY
1.05%
913026
D2
$300.00
3
DOLAN'S WINDOWS AND DOORS
DOLAN'S OF CONCORD INC
1410 BROADWAY
1.05%
922412
D2
$300.00
3
CAMINO COMPANY CO.
CAMINO COMPANY, LLC.
1301 BROADWAY
1.05%
923883
D2
$300.00
2
ANGEL DANAE LLC
KAREN LAWSON
1126 BROADWAY STE 7
1.05%
926637
D2
$300.00
1
I WIRELESS INC
I WIRELESS INC.
1212 BROADWAY
1.05%
927389
D2
$300.00
1
SHELTER DESIGN BUILD
JEFFREY WONG
1433 BROADWAY
1.05%
927642
D2
$300.00
2
POT-POURRI
ANTHONY DIEZ
1235 BROADWAY
1.05%
930004
D2
$300.00
1
SUTTERFIELD CONSIGNMENT
GREGORY P. HOLTMANN
1174 BROADWAY
1.05%
930427
D2
$300.00
3
BEHAN'S "AN IRISH PUB"
GERARD MITCHELL
1327 BROADWAY
1.05%
932188
D2
$300.00
2
ISTANBUL MARKET SF
EVSEM INC
1199 BROADWAY #3
1.05%
932805
D2
$300.00
2
SKY RAMEN, INC
SKY RAMEN INC
1320 BROADWAYAVE
1.05%
932961
D2
$300.00
3
BAYROOT LEBANESE CUISINE
1130 BROADWAY
1.05%
933182
D2
$300.00
2
ARCH IN BUZZ INC DBA BURLINGAME LIQUORS
ARCH IN BUZZ INC
1408 BROADWAY
1.05%
LICENSE
CODE
FEE
#EMP
NAME
CONTACT
ADDRESS
%of TOTAL
942339
D2
$300.00
1
ALL THAT GLITTERS
ISABELLE DE PAZ
1454 BROADWAY
1.05%
950176
D2
$300.00
FUUMI
JIN YUAN LEI
1190 BROADWAY
1.05%
950450
D2
$300.00
1
BURLINGAME LAGUNA FLORIST AND GIFT
LUCY LOEURTH DUL
1202 BROADWAY
1.05%
950485
D2
$300.00
3
AJISHO USA LLC
NORIAKI KOJIMA & MASAYUKI
1204 BROADWAY
1.05%
951116
D2
$300.00
1
WALLBEDSSF, INC. DBA WALLBEDS'N' MORE
ERIC PARTRIDGE
1405 BROADWAY
1.05%
951364
D2
$300.00
2
LE CROISSANT CAFE
VISETH SEN
1151 BROADWAY
1.05%
951555
D2
$300.00
3
MIMOSA AMERICAN BISTRO
MURAT KORKMAZ
1232 BROADWAY
1.05%
951663
D2
$300.00
1
URBAN CIGAR AND SMOKE SHOP
ABDUL SATTAR A ALBANEH
1199 BROADWAY
1.05%
907232
D3
$250.00
6
CHEVRON STATIONS INC. #1504
CHEVRON STATIONS INC
1101 BROADWAY
0.88%
917408
D3
$250.00
3
TUNISS COMPUTER
OSAMA ABBOUSHI
1124 BROADWAY
0.88%
920765
D3
$250.00
3
TRENZ SALON
L PUDLO-CORIC / D CHIOLO
1211 BROADWAY
0.88%
922681
D3
$250.00
5
R & M BROADWAY 76 INC
ROGER & MAHER ABUYAGHI
1480 BROADWAY
0.88%
928773
D3
$250.00
3
NABI SALON, INC
SU BLACKMUN
1361 BROADWAY
0.88%
928811
D3
$250.00
4
FOCUS-N-FLY, INC.
THOMAS MCGLYNN
1425 BROADWAY STE 7
0.88%
929478
D3
$250.00
4
SPA ELYSEE
ANTHONY PHAM
1360 BROADWAY
0.88%
929585
D3
$250.00
3
A&A GAS & MART
GHULAM ALI
1100 BROADWAY
0.88%
930348
D3
$250.00
5
PPW 1300 BROADWAY, LLC.
PPW 1300 BROADWAY, LLC
1300 BROADWAY
0.88%
931934
D3
$250.00
7
PAWSITIVELY GROOMED LLC
CARLOS CHAVES
1427 BROADWAY
0.88%
932336
D3
$250.00
5
EPRINTS & DOCUMENT SERVICES
S SHARABIANLOU
1120 BROADWAY
0.88%
950778
D3
$250.00
4
SALLY'S SPA
HUONG BUI
1360 BROADWAY
0.88%
950928
D3
$250.00
5
MANI PEDI NAILS SPA
HUONG THI THU BUI
1224 BROADWAY
0.88%
951763
D3
$250.00
3
BELLA'S BEAUTY SPA INC.
JIE HU
1224 BROADWAY
0.88%
951768
D3
$250.00
5
SALLY NAIL SPA
HUONG BUI
1360 BROADWAY
0.88%
906003
D4
$150.00
1
GATEWAYS TO THE WORLD
D. & G. GROEBNER
1122 BROADWAY
0.53%
908225
D4
$150.00
1
HJS PROP. & INVEST./ SECURED ASSET MGT
HANK SAUER
1425 BROADWAY #12
0.53%
908621
D4
$150.00
1
CHIC
AZITA FATEMI
1249 BROADWAY
0.53%
909412
D4
$150.00
1
ADAMS FINE TAILORING
ADEM ARPACI
1324 BROADWAY
0.53%
913181
D4
$150.00
1
BRIAN FORNESI INSURANCE AGENT
BRIAN FORNESI
1243 BROADWAY STE 2
0.53%
913277
D4
$150.00
1
BROADWAY CLEANERS
PANDORA LAI
1234 BROADWAY
0.53%
916449
D4
$150.00
1
BELLALUNA-AVON PRODUCTS
LINDABULLIS
1310 BROADWAY
0.53%
917348
D4
$150.00
1
ON BROADWAY
ANOUSH HOVANESSIAN
1163 BROADWAY
0.53%
921324
D4
$150.00
2
BROADWAY REALTY
1199 BROADWAY STE 5
0.53%
922244
D4
$150.00
1
CHEVRON USA (PA) 91909
CHEVRON U.S.A.
1101 BROADWAY
0.53%
922587
D4
$150.00
2
YOUR CLEANERS
SO YOUNG PAIK
1321 BROADWAY
0.53%
922626
D4
$150.00
1
MARK PLANTE CONSULTING
MARK PLANTE
1425 BROADWAY STE 3
0.53%
923462
D4
$150.00
1
ERIN PENSINGER
ERIN PENSINGER
1425 BROADWAY STE 5
0.53%
924018
D4
$150.00
1
DYLAN SALON
DYLAN PHAM
1199 CHULA VISTA AVE
0.53%
924114
D4
$150.00
1
BURLINGAME SHOES AND REPAIR
SAL SULEYMAN KILIC
1323 BROADWAY
0.53%
929603
D4
$150.00
1
COSMO NAIL & BEAUTY SPA
TRAM HUYEN THI TRAN
1359 BROADWAY
0.53%
932794
D4
$150.00
1
ECONOMY SMOG CHECK LLC
JONATHAN JUSTICE
1480 BROADWAY
0.53%
932923
D4
1 $150.00
1
LUSH LYFE STUDIO
THUY LAN THI CAO
11134 BROADWAY
0.53%
LICENSE
CODE
FEE
#EMP
NAME
CONTACT
ADDRESS
%of TOTAL
933175
D4
$150.00
2
GROOMINGDALES
ANTHONY MARK OLIVEIRA
1130 CHULA VISTA AVE
0.53%
933494
D4
$150.00
2
THE AFTER GLO STUDIO
JAMIE RIMANDO, MICHELLE
1126 BROADWAY #4
0.53%
950513
D4
$150.00
1
EXCLUSIVE LIFESTYLES, INC. DBA CORCORAN GLOBAL LIVING
EXCLUSIVE LIFESTYLES, INC., DBA
1126 BROADWAY #8
0.53%
950530
D4
$150.00
1
BIG LEAGUE COACHING
WILLIAM LASKEY
1425 BROADWAY #19
0.53%
951180
D4
$150.00
1
BROADWAY SPA
YOU ZHEN WU
1122 BROADWAY
0.53%
951388
D4
$150.00
1
GENTEEL SOCIETY
KRISTHANESS BERNARDO
1207 CAPUCHINO AVE
0.53%
951482
D4
$150.00
1
ARIA BEAUTY BAR INC.
JI KIM
1365 BROADWAY
0.53%
914434
D5
$200.00
3
AVR REALTY, INC.
AVR REALTY, INC
1169 BROADWAY
0.70%
917316
D5
$200.00
3
BROADWAY EYE CENTER
DR ANDREW SOSS
1159 BROADWAY
0.70%
951708
D5
$200.00
4
CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE ALLIANCE
ORHAN TOLU
1243 BROADWAY
0.70%
910050
D6
$150.00
1
CELEBRITY CONNECTION
WILLIAM LASKEY
1425 BROADWAY STE 19
0.53%
911918
D6
$150.00
1
TRIO CONSULTING
SUZANNE GRILL
1425 BROADWAY STE 20
0.53%
913602
D6
$150.00
2
T C KITA, O.D.
T C KITA, O.D.
1322 BROADWAY
0.53%
917010
D6
$150.00
2
PENINSULA ACUPUNCTURE CENTER INC
HUI LIN - HO WAI CHEUNG
1425 BROADWAY STE 8
0.53%
922599
D6
$150.00
1
JIM RUTHERFORD CONSULTATION
JIM RUTHERFORD
1425 BROADWAY STE 4
0.53%
923961
D6
$150.00
1
EMILY KOEL, PHD
EMILY KOEL
1425 BROADWAY STE 22
0.53%
924282
D6
$150.00
1
FAMILY INVESTMENTS
MAHMOUD OLOUMI
1425 BROADWAY STE 16
0.53%
928243
D6
$150.00
1
FARMERS INSURANCE
CRAIG DELLINGES
1425 BROADWAY STE 23
0.53%
908831
F2
$500.00
16
WELLS FARGO BANK NA
1145 BROADWAY
1.75%
917390
F2
$500.00
3
STERLING BANK & TRUST FSB
THOMAS M. O'BRIEN
11210 BROADWAY
I 1.750o
925833
F2
$500.00
1 6
jJPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
11188 EL CAMINO REAL
1.75%
$28,500.00
BUR— N�An�� AGENDA NO: 10a
1... STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 2, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 2, 2022
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7253
Joseph Sanfilippo, Economic Development & Housing Specialist —
(650) 558-7264
Subject: Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter in Response to Letter Received from
YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance Regarding the Housing Element Update
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter to YIMBY Law and
Greenbelt Alliance in response to their letter to the City Council dated April 21, 2022.
BACKGROUND
The City Council received a letter dated April 21, 2022 from YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance
regarding the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. The letter cited three years of residential building
permit history, and based on that data, made conclusions regarding the City's zoning capacity.
DISCUSSION
The response letter from the City Council outlines flaws in the YIMBY Law/Greenbelt Alliance
methodology and provides a more complete overview of the City's housing production. It further
describes the City's land use and zoning framework, and invites YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance
to engage in the Housing Element Update in a more informed and constructive manner.
Staff has communicated with colleagues in other San Mateo County municipalities and understands
that other jurisdictions received similar letters. Colleagues report that the letters are nearly identical,
except for the specific building permit numbers reported in the letters. In some instances, 2021 data
was included in the letter, whereas in others (including the letter sent to the Burlingame City
Council), 2021 data was not included. The conclusions of the letters regarding zoning capacity are
the same in each letter.
Staff has contacted each of the signatories of the YIMBY Law/Greenbelt Alliance letter and has
arranged a consultation meeting with both organizations.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with sending this letter.
YIMBY Law / Greenbelt Alliance Letter
May 2, 2022
Exhibits:
• Draft letter
• YIMBY Law/Greenbelt Alliance letter dated April 21, 2022
RICARDO ORTIZ, MAYOR
MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, VICE MAYOR
DONNA COLSON
EMILY BEACH
ANN O'BRIEN KEIGHRAN
May 2, 2022
Sid Kapur
East Bay YIMBY
Oakland, CA
Rafa Sonnenfeld
YIMBY Law
1260 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Zoe Siegel
Greenbelt Alliance
312 Sutter Street, Suite 402
San Francisco, CA 94108
Re: 61h Cycle Housing Element Update
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL -- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
Dear Sid Kapur, Rafa Sonnenfeld, and Zoe Siegel,
(via Email)
TEL: (650) 558-7201
www.burlinoame.oro
The Burlingame City Council has received your letter dated April 21, 2022 regarding the 61h Cycle Housing Element Update.
The letter cites three years of residential building permit history, and based on that limited data, concludes that the City's zoning
capacity is insufficient to meet its 6'h cycle RHNA target of 3,257 units. However, this methodology and the conclusion it led to are
both deeply flawed.
From the letter, it is not clear why only three years of residential building permits was cited, and why 2021 figures were omitted. Had
the letter included 2021 data, it would have indicated that 474 net new residential building permits were issued in 2021. Furthermore,
had the letter included data from the full eight -year RHNA 5 cycle, it would have indicated that the City of Burlingame has issued
building permits for 1,222 net new residential units since the cycle commenced in 2015. This represents 141.6% of the RHNA 5
allocation of 863 total new housing units. Given that these figures are reported each year in the Housing Element Annual Progress
Report (APR) and published on the Housing Element page of the City's website at www.burlingame.org/housingelement (in addition
to being submitted to California Department of Housing and Community Development), it is not clear why only the years 2018, 2019,
and 2020 served as the basis for the conclusions presented in the letter.
Regarding the City's zoning capacity, the letter fails to recognize that a comprehensive update of the City's zoning code was
completed in December 2021. This followed a full update of the City's General Plan in 2019, and the adoption of interim zoning
intended to implement newly -adopted residential land uses without delay. It is unclear why the letter did not indicate these facts, given
it would have been simple to verify with a short visit to the City's Planning Division website. Information on the zoning code can be
found at www.burlingame.org/zoning, and the General Plan at both www.burlingame.org and www.envisionburlingame.org.
East Bay YIMBY, YIMBY Law, and Greenbelt Alliance
May 2, 2022
Page 2
The changes to the land use designations in the General Plan and the corresponding zoning included significant increases in
residential development capacity, with ample capacity to meet the RHNA 6 targets. Indeed, as of April 2022, there are 2,299 units in
the development review pipeline that will be eligible to be applied to the next cycle, provided they are built as proposed. This
represents more than 70% of the total allocation of units for the next cycle, even before the cycle begins. This production is a direct
result of the significant increases to residential zoning capacity provided by the General Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Update,
which included new residential land uses, increased building heights, and increased densities.
The City is committed to housing production, and in particular affirmatively furthering fair housing. Given the ample residential capacity
provided by the General Plan, the Housing Element Update has been focusing on identifying policies and programs that respond to
the varied needs of the community, and present opportunities for inclusion. While there are goals to further streamline development
and achieve beneficial and measurable goals, there are also goals to increase shares of affordable housing to further serve lower
income households and to serve special needs households.
We welcome input from stakeholders like yourselves and simply ask that it be based on facts and defendable methodology. We
suggest that you contact our Community Development Department staff to learn more about the City's housing production, and how
you may further contribute to the Housing Element Update in the most informed and constructive manner.
Sincerely,
Ricardo Ortiz
Mayor
cc: Lisa Goldman, City Manager
Michael Guina, City Attorney
Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director
The Honorable Josh Becker, California State Senate District 13
The Honorable Kevin Mullin, California State Assembly District 22
Sonja Trauss, YIMBY Law Executive Director
Amanda Brown -Stevens, Greenbelt Alliance Executive Director
❑ Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.burlingame.or. /enews. ❑
N 0 WA AF ii 16�M�q� zi am
YIMBY LAW GREENBELT ALLIANCE
April 21, 2022
Dear Burlingame City Council:
We are writing on behalf of YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance regarding Burlingame's 6th Cycle Housing
Element Update. YIMBY Law is a legal nonprofit working to make housing in California more accessible and
affordable through enforcement of state law. Greenbelt Alliance is an environmental nonprofit working to en-
sure that the Bay Area's lands and communities are resilient to a changing climate.
We are writing to remind you of Burlingame's obligation to include sufficient sites in your upcoming Housing
Element to accommodate your Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 3,257 units.
In the Annual Progress Reports that Burlingame submitted to HCD, we observe the following trend of hous-
ing units permitted in the last three years:
Year
Housing units permitted
2018
300
2019
10
2020
287
Average, 2018-2020
199
To meet the 6th cycle RHNA target, the rate of new housing permits in Burlingame would need to increase
from 199 units per year in 2018-2020 to 407 units per year in the next 8 years. This is a 105% increase from re-
cent years. If the current pace were to continue, Burlingame would meet only 49% of its new housing target.
Based on these trends, it is unlikely that Burlingame's existing realistic zoning capacity is sufficient to meet its
6th cycle RHNA target. According to HCD's Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, housing elements
must analyze the realistic capacity of their sites, which may include considerations of "[1]ocal or regional track
records", "past production trends", and "the rate at which similar parcels were developed during the previous
planning period". A housing element that does not include a significant rezoning component is therefore un-
likely to be compliant with state law.
We urge Burlingame to include a major rezoning component in its Housing Element —a rezoning large enough
to close the gap between recent housing production trends and the RHNA target. The rezoning should be
within existing communities and should comply with the city's obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Hous-
ing. We also urge Burlingame to ease any other constraints, such as discretionary approval processes or impact
fees, that may impede the rate of development on your city's housing sites.
Thank you,
Sid Kapur, East Bay YIMBY (sidharthkapurl @gmail.com)
Rafa Sonnenfeld, YIMBY Law (rafa@yimbylaw.org)
Zoe Siegel, Greenbelt Alliance (zsiegel@greenbelt.org)