Loading...
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)