HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2024.12.02 Regular MeetingCity Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers/Zoom7:00 PMMonday, December 2, 2024
Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this City Council Meeting will
be held via Zoom in addition to in person.
To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public
access, members of the public can observe the meeting from home or attend the
meeting in person. Below is information on how the public may observe and
participate in the meeting.
To Attend the Meeting in Person:
Location: Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010
To Attend the Meeting via Zoom:
To access the meeting by computer:
Go to www.zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 848 4407 4566
Passcode: 226091
To access the meeting via phone:
Dial 1-669-900-6833
Meeting ID: 848 4407 4566
Passcode: 226091
To Provide Public Comment in Person:
Members of the public wishing to speak will be asked to fill out a "Request to
Speak" card located on the table by the door and then hand it to staff. The
provisions of a name, address, or other identifying information is optional.
Speakers are limited to three minutes each, however, the Mayor may adjust the
time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/27/2024
December 2, 2024City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
To Provide Public Comment via Email:
Members of the public may provide written comments by email to
publiccomment@burlingame.org. Emailed comments will not be read out loud,
but they will be noted for the record. Your email should include the specific
agenda item on which you are commenting. Please note if your comment
concerns an item that is not on the agenda.
Emailed public comments that are received by 4:00 p.m. on Monday, December
2, 2024, will be included in a supplemental packet that will be sent to the City
Council prior to the meeting and published on the website here:
https://www.burlingame.org/169/City-Council---Agendas-and-Minutes.
LEVINE ACT
The Levine Act (California Government Code Section 84308) prohibits, in certain
cases, campaign contributions to members of the City Council by those who
have proceedings (e.g., applications for land use and other entitlements,
contracts, etc.) pending before the City Council and by those who may have an
interest in proceedings (including those acting as agents for applicants or
potential contractors). Moreover, the Levine Act may require disclosure of
contributions by such individuals. The law is complex and this brief description
is not legal advice. If you or an agent have made any campaign contributions to
a City Councilmember in the 12 months before a proceeding in which you have
an interest or you are contemplating making a contribution within the 12 months
after such a proceeding, you are urged to review the Levine Act and consider
consulting an attorney. A 2023 version of the Levine Act and a Fair Political
Practices Commission summary of it can be found here:
https://www.burlingame.org/1206/Levine-Act-Information.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Zoom
To access the meeting by computer:
Go to www.zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 848 4407 4566
Passcode: 226091
To access the meeting via phone:
Dial 1-669-900-6833
Meeting ID: 848 4407 4566
Passcode: 226091
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/27/2024
December 2, 2024City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
3. ROLL CALL
4. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Announcements/consideration and approval of requests by Councilmembers to participate pursuant to
AB 2449 (Government Code Section 54943(f)).
5. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
6. UPCOMING EVENTS
7. PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation Recognizing Assistant Public Works Director Art Morimotoa.
8. 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.
9. 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.
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Burlingame Bicycle Boulevard and Mercy
Neighborhood Traffic Calming, City Project No. 86640, by Bayside Stripe & Seal, Inc.
a.
Staff Report
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the City -Wide Pedestrian Safe Routes and Mobility
Improvements, City Project No. 86510, by Ray’s Electric
b.
Staff Report
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/27/2024
December 2, 2024City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 to
Extend the Term of the Professional Services Agreement with ICF Jones & Stokes,
Inc. (ICF) to December 31, 2027, to Perform Environmental Review Services for the
Proposed Development of a New Public Nature /Recreation Park and Education Center
Building at 410 Airport Boulevard
c.
Staff Report
Resolution
Draft Amendment No. 2
Original Agreement for Professional Services
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing an Eleventh Amendment of the City Manager's
Employment Agreement and Approving the City of Burlingame Pay Rates and Ranges
(Salary Schedules)
d.
Staff Report
Resolution
Amendment
Salary Schedule - Merit Classifications 12-2-2024
Salary Schedule - Merit Classifications 12-30-2024
Salary Schedule - Casual Classifications 12-30-2024
Employment Agreement
Attachments:
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Burlingame Amending Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.40 of Article 3; Chapter
25.48 of Article 4; Chapter 25.60 of Article 6; Chapter 25.88 of Article 6; Chapter 25.98
of Article 6; and Chapter 25.100 of Article 7, Related to Accessory Dwelling Units;
CEQA Determination: Exempt Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15282,
15378, and 15061(b)(3)
a.
Staff Report
Proposed Ordinance - Redline Version
Proposed Ordinance - Clean Version
Attachments:
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/27/2024
December 2, 2024City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Introduction and First Reading of Updated Tree Ordinance – Repealing Chapters 11.04
and 11.06 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Title 11 (Trees and Vegetation) and
Adopting a New Chapter 11.06 (Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection ); CEQA
Determination: Exempt Pursuant To State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 And
15308
Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule to Adopt a Tree
Replacement In-Lieu Fee and Fee Increase for Appeals of Beautification Committee
Decisions; and Authorizing the Finance Director to Make Such Amendments to the
Master Fee Schedule; CEQA Determination: Exempt Pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15078, 15061(b)(3)
b.
Staff Report
Proposed Ordinance
Staff Reports and Minutes from Prior Hearings
Memorandum - CEQA Categorial Exemption Qualification
Resolution Amending Master Fee Schedule
Attachments:
Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Burlingame Amending Chapter 8.19 of Title 8 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to
Allow Existing Tobacco Retailer Permit Holders an Exemption From Certain Relocation
Distance Requirements for a Period of Two Years, Eliminating Certain Restrictions on
Retailer Permit Transfers and Discontinuing the Issuance of New Tobacco Retailer
Permits; CEQA Determination: Exempt Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section
15378 and 15061(b)(3)
c.
Staff Report
Proposed Ordinance
Ordinance No. 2026
Attachments:
11. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
Consideration of Three Appointments to the Beautification Commissiona.
Staff ReportAttachments:
Consideration of Two Appointments to the Parks & Recreation Commissionb.
Staff ReportAttachments:
12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/27/2024
December 2, 2024City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic Safety and Parking
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Library Board of
Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org.
15. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees who require assistance, a disability related modification, or language
assistance in order to participate in the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, December 2, 2024 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 are distributed at the meeting should contact Meaghan
Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, December 2, 2024 at (650) 558-7203 or at
mhasselshearer@burlingame.org.
Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the CIty to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure that the meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Regular City Council Meeting and City Council Reorganization on Monday, December
16, 2024
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE
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.
Page 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/27/2024
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9a
MEETING DATE: December 2, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: December 2, 2024
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Andrew Yang, Senior Engineer – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Burlingame Bicycle Boulevard and
Mercy Neighborhood Traffic Calming, City Project No. 86640, by Bayside
Stripe & Seal, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Burlingame
Bicycle Boulevard and Mercy Neighborhood Traffic Calming, City Project No. 86640, in the amount
of $270,187.50.
BACKGROUND
On December 4, 2023, the City Council awarded the Burlingame Bicycle Boulevard and Mercy
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project to Bayside Stripe & Seal, Inc., in the amount of $245,625
(Resolution No. 143-2023).
The Burlingame Bicycle Boulevard and Mercy Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project aimed to
enhance safety and mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. The scope included upgrading
crosswalks with high-visibility designs and advanced stop bars and adding striped curb extensions,
red curbing, and Class III bike lane improvements (Bike Boulevards) with sharrows. Additionally,
the project involved installing speed cushions and implementing traffic calming measures along
Carmelita Avenue (from California Drive to Vancouver Avenue), Paloma Avenue (between Grove
Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue), Capuchino Avenue (between Grove Avenue and Carmelita
Avenue), and Grove Avenue (between California Drive and Capuchino Avenue).
DISCUSSION
The project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The
final project construction cost is $270,187.50, which is $24,562.50 higher than the original contract
amount. The increase in cost is within the Council-approved contingency and was due to extra
striping work, extra traffic control, and adjustments based on unforeseen field conditions. The
effectiveness of the speed cushions installed on Carmelita Avenue will be monitored and re-
evaluated and adjusted as necessary as part of the ongoing monitoring efforts.
Acceptance of Burlingame Bicycle Boulevard and
Mercy Neighborhood Traffic Calming, City Project No. 86640 December 2, 2024
2
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated Project Expenditures:
The following are the estimated project construction expenditures.
Construction $270,187.50
Construction Management and Inspection $17,630.00
Engineering Administration $29,200.00
Total $317,017.50
Funding Availability:
The project is funded by a combination of San Mateo County Measure A funds and General Funds.
There are adequate funds available in the CIP Program as follows:
CIP 329-86640 – Bike Boulevards Phase 1 $330,000.00
Total $330,000.00
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Final Progress Payment
• Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS – BURLINGAME BICYCLE BOULEVARD AND MERCY
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT BY BAYSIDE STRIPE & SEAL, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 86640
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2023, the City Council awarded the Burlingame Bicycle
Boulevard and Mercy Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project to Bayside Stripe & Seal, Inc., in the
amount of $245,625 (Resolution No. 143-2023); and
WHEREAS, the Burlingame Bicycle Boulevard and Mercy Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Project aimed to enhance safety and mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers; the scope
included upgrading crosswalks with high-visibility designs and advanced stop bars and adding striped
curb extensions, red curbing, and Class III bike lane improvements (Bike Boulevards) with sharrows;
additionally, the project involved installing speed cushions and implementing traffic calming measures
along Carmelita Avenue (from California Drive to Vancouver Avenue), Paloma Avenue (between
Grove Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue), Capuchino Avenue (between Grove Avenue and Carmelita
Avenue), and Grove Avenue (between California Drive and Capuchino Avenue); and
WHEREAS, the project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and
specifications.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame,
California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by Bayside Stripe &
Seal, Inc., under the terms of its contract with the City dated February 20, 2024, has been completed
in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 86640.
3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted.
__________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of
December, 2024, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk
DATE :
2 FOR THE MONTH OF :July 1, 2024 September 30, 2024
ITEM UNIT BID UNIT BID PREV PREV %Pay This AMOUNT :Total Quantity :Total Amount
#ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE QUANTITY SIZE AMOUNT Quantity PAID PAID Month This Month :to Date :to Date
1 Pavement Marking White Sharrows 5.00$ 656 SF 3,280.00$ 798.00 3990.00 121.65%-$ :798.00$ :3,990.00$
2 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking (Yellow)10.00$ 956 SF 9,560.00$ 1071.00 10710.00 112.03%-$ 1,071.00$ 10,710.00$
3 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking (White)10.00$ 3,871 SF 38,710.00$ 4048.00 40480.00 104.57%-$ 4,048.00$ 40,480.00$
4 Methyl Methacrylate Pavement Marking (Green)25.00$ 2,400 SF 60,000.00$ 3040.00 76000.00 126.67%-$ 3,040.00$ 76,000.00$
5 Red Curb Paint 5.00$ 825 LF 4,125.00$ 0.00 0.00 0.00%321.50 1,607.50$ 321.50$ 1,607.50$
6 Roadside Sign - One Post (Metal)500.00$ 7 Each 3,500.00$ 18.00 9000.00 257.14%-$ 18.00$ 9,000.00$
7 Remove Sign Panel 150.00$ 3 Each 450.00$ 2.00 300.00 66.67%-$ 2.00$ 300.00$
8 Speed Hump 8,500.00$ 11 Each 93,500.00$ 11.00 93500.00 100.00%0.2471 2,100.00$ 11.25$ 95,600.00$
9 Traffic Control & Construction Area Signs 20,000.00$ 1 LS 20,000.00$ 0.75 15000.00 75.00%0.25 5,000.00$ 1.00$ 20,000.00$
10 Remove Pavement Marking 12,500.00$ 1 LS 12,500.00$ 1.00 12500.00 100.00%-$ 1.00$ 12,500.00$
SUBTOTAL 245,625.00$ 261,480.00$ 8,707.50$ 270,187.50$
PROJECT TOTAL 245,625.00$ 8,707.50$ -$ 270,187.50$
PREPARED BY: SubTotal 8,707.50$ 270,187.50$
CONTRACTOR: Ramsey Mughannam DATE 5% Ret (435.38)$
APPROVED BY 10/1/2024
CONSULTANT: Nick Panayotou DATE
APPROVED BY Total to Pay 8,272.13$
CITY PM: Andrew Yang DATE
Bicycle Boulevard Project October 1, 2024
CITY PROJECT NO. 86640
PAYMENT NO.
CONTRACTOR: Bayside Striping
10/7/2024
Date
9/25/2024
Invoice #
5522
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Bayside Stripe and Seal, Inc.
P.O. Box 703
Petaluma, CA 94953
Total
707-765-2871 Phone
707-765-2773 Fax
ramy@baysidessi.com
Burlingame Bike Blvd
DescriptionItem #Qty Rate Amount
Red Curb Paint5 321.5 5.00 1,607.50
Traffic Control & Construction Area Signs9 0.25 20,000.00 5,000.00
PCO #1 - Install Owner Provided Speed Hump 1 2,100.00 2,100.00
$8,707.50
Burlingame Bike Blvd Measured Quantities
Final Move Quantities
Grove Mills Capuchino Paloma Carmelita Total
1
Painted Pavement Marking
(White) - Sharrows 0 5.00$ -$
2
Thermoplastic Pavement
Marking (Yellow)0 10.00$ -$
3
Thermoplastic Pavement
Marking (White)0 10.00$ -$
4
Methyl Methacrylate
Pavement Marking (Green)0 25.00$ -$
5 Red Curb Paint 321.5 321.5 5.00$ 1,607.50$
6
Roadside Sign - One Post
(Metal)0 500.00$ -$
7 Remove Sign Panel 0 150.00$ -$
8 Speed Hump 0 8,500.00$ -$
9
Traffic Control and
Construction Area Signs 0.25 0.25 20,000.00$ 5,000.00$
10 Remove Pavement Marking 0 12,500.00$ -$
CCO # 1 1 1 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$
Total 8,707.50$
Contract 245,625.00$
12" White Crosswalk Billed 261,480.00$
24" White Crosswalk This Bill 8,707.50$
Total 0 0 0 0 0 Total 270,187.50$
12" Yellow Crosswalk
24" Yellow Crosswalk
Total 0
Contract + 10%270,187.50$
Total Billing 270,187.50$
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
BURLINGAME BICYCLE BOULEVARD
AND MERCY NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 86640
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9b
MEETING DATE: December 2, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: December 2, 2024
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Andrew Yang, Senior Engineer – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the City-Wide Pedestrian Safe Routes
and Mobility Improvements, City Project No. 86510, by Ray’s Electric
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the City-Wide
Pedestrian Safe Routes and Mobility Improvements, City Project No. 86510, in the amount of
$335,898.29.
BACKGROUND
On December 4, 2023, the City Council awarded the City-Wide Pedestrian Safe Routes and
Mobility Improvements Project to Ray’s Electric in the amount of $306,455.10 (Resolution No. 142-
2023).
The City-Wide Pedestrian Safe Routes and Mobility Improvements Project focused on enhancing
pedestrian safety and mobility across the city. The scope included the implementation of quick-
build pedestrian improvements; upgrading existing crosswalks to high-visibility designs with
advanced stop bars; adding striped curb extensions, red curbing, and delineators; and installing
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons to further ensure pedestrian safety and accessibility.
DISCUSSION
The project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The
final project construction cost is $335,898.29, which is $29,443.19 higher than the original contract
price. The increase in cost is within the Council-approved 15% contingency and was due to extra
delineators and adjustments due to unforeseen field conditions. In addition, up to $200,000 of the
$335,898.29 expenditure will be reimbursed by federal funds as part of the MTC Quick Strike
program grant funds.
Acceptance of City-Wide Pedestrian Safe Routes and Mobility Improvements December 2, 2024
2
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated Project Expenditures:
The following are the estimated project construction expenditures:
Construction $335,898.29
Construction Inspection, Testing and Public Relations $62,730.00
Engineering Administration $28,906.00
Total $427,534.29
Funding Availability:
The project is funded through a combination of sources, including the Federal One Bay Area Grant
(OBAG) Program, Gas Tax revenues, and General Funds. There are adequate funds in the CIP
Program to cover the project costs as follows:
CIP 329-86510 – MTC Quick Strike Ped Safety
Grant Project
$230,000.00
CIP 329-85650 – Pedestrian Improvements $100,000.00
CIP 329-86400 – Street Resurfacing Program 2023 $100,000.00
Total $430,000.00
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Final Progress Payment
• Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS – CITYWIDE PEDESTRIAN SAFE ROUTES & MOBILITY
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BY GRUENDL DBA RAY’S ELECTRIC
CITY PROJECT NO. 86510
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. CML-5171(026)
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2023, the City Council awarded the City-Wide Pedestrian Safe
Routes and Mobility Improvements Project to Ray’s Electric, in the amount of $306,455.10
(Resolution No. 142-2023); and
WHEREAS, the City-Wide Pedestrian Safe Routes and Mobility Improvements Project
focused on enhancing pedestrian safety and mobility across the City; and
WHEREAS, the project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and
specifications;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame,
California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by Ray’s Electric, under
the terms of its contract with the City dated December 22, 2023, has been completed in
accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 86510 and Federal Aid Project No.
CML-5171(026).
3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted.
__________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of
December, 2024, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk
8/7/24
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
CITY-WIDE PEDESTRIAN SAFE ROUTES & MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 86510
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. CML-5171(026)
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9c
MEETING DATE: December 2, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: December 2, 2024
From: Neda Zayer, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute
Amendment No. 2 to Extend the Term of the Professional Services
Agreement with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (ICF) to December 31, 2027, to
Perform Environmental Review Services Related to the Proposed
Development of a New Public Nature/Recreation Park and Education Center
Building at 410 Airport Boulevard
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute
Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement (“Amendment No. 2) to extend the term
of the Professional Services Agreement with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (ICF) for environmental
review services for the proposed development of a new public nature/recreation park and education
center building at 410 Airport Boulevard.
BACKGROUND
The City of Burlingame received an application from the SPHERE Institute on July 28, 2021, for
Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Parking
Variance for a new public nature/recreation park and education center building at 410 Airport
Boulevard. The proposed project is a collaboration between SPHERE (not-for-profit) and the San
Mateo Resource Conservation District to transform the vacant parcel of bayfront land into a public
nature and recreation park with an education center building.
The project is subject to environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and requires an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). On December 5,
2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 141-2022, which authorized the City Manager to
execute an Agreement for Professional Services with ICF to perform the environmental review
services for the proposed project, in an amount not to exceed $116,609.32.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission reviewed the project on February 14, 2022, and provided comments.
Since then, the Applicant has revised the project/plans in response to Planning Commission and
Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) comments. The Applicant has also been
working on securing funding to complete the environmental review for the project. ICF began
Professional Services Agreement with ICF – Amendment December 2, 2024
2
working on the environmental document in November 2023. Staff would note that during
preparation of the environmental document, the Applicant placed the project on hold for various
internal reasons but is now actively working with the City and ICF to complete the environmental
analysis.
The term of the original Professional Services Agreement was through December 31, 2023, and
was extended once to December 31, 2024, through Amendment No. 1. For the reasons noted
above, ICF’s consulting services will need to be extended again. Staff recommends extending the
term in the Agreement to December 31, 2027, in order to avoid any future requests for amendments
to the Agreement.
Environmental review is a duty imposed on the lead agency under state law, required for a
development applicant. Although the contract is with the City of Burlingame, the applicant will pay
the City to cover the costs of the environmental review.
Attached is the draft Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement for Professional Services with ICF to
extend the term to perform the planning services required for the 410 Airport Boulevard application
to December 31, 2027. Because the cost of the original agreement exceeds $100,000, Council
approval of the amendment is required.
No other changes to the Agreement or budget are proposed.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the project's environmental review is provided by the project applicant. Therefore, there
will be no fiscal impact to the City's budget.
Exhibits:
• Proposed Resolution
• Draft Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Professional Services
• Originally Executed Agreement for Professional Services, March 2, 2023, including ICF Scope
of Work
1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH ICF JONES & STOKES, INC. (ICF) TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW SERVICES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 410 AIRPORT
BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 141-2022, the City of Burlingame
(“City”) executed a professional services agreement (“Agreement”) with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc.
(ICF) (“Consultant”) for $116,609.32, dated March 2, 2023, for the preparation of a CEQA
document for the public nature/recreation park and education center building at 410 Airport
Boulevard (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, through the approval of Amendment No. 1, the term of the Agreement was
extended to terminate on December 31, 2024, in order to accommodate the duration of time
needed to complete the environmental review of the development application for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant placed the Project on hold for some time, which paused work
on the environmental document; therefore, the parties wish to extend the term of the Agreement
to terminate on December 31, 2027, in order to accommodate the additional time needed to
complete the environmental review of the development application for the Project; and
WHEREAS, because this Amendment No. 2 is to an agreement that was previously
authorized by City Council as the work was in excess of $100,000, City Council approval is
required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into Amendment No. 2 to the
Professional Services Agreement with ICF to provide environmental review services for
the 410 Airport Boulevard development application, with a term to be extended to
December 31, 2027.
2. Except as expressly amended in this Amendment No. 2, all other terms and conditions
contained in the Agreement and Amendment No. 1 shall remain in full force and effect.
3. The City Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager upon execution of
the Amendment No. 2.
_______________________________
Mayor
2
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
December, 2024, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_______________________________
City Clerk
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME AND ICF JONES & STOKES, INC. (ICF) TO PERFORM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW PUBLIC NATURE/RECREATION PARK AND
EDUCATION CENTER BUILDING AT 410 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, BURLINGAME
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(“Amendment No. 2”) is by and between ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (ICF) (“Consultant”) engaged in
preparation of a CEQA document for the public nature/recreation park and education center building
at 410 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of
California ("City"), amends the Agreement for Professional Services between the parties dated March
2, 2023, hereinafter called the “Agreement”.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the parties wish to extend the term of the Agreement to terminate on December
31, 2027, in order to accommodate the duration of time needed to complete the environmental review
of the development application for the project at 410 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into Amendment No. 2 to the
Professional Services Agreement with ICF to provide environmental review services
for the 410 Airport Boulevard development application, with a term to be extended to
December 31, 2027.
2. Except as expressly amended in this Amendment No. 2, all other terms and conditions
contained in the Agreement and Amendment No. 1 shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Amendment No. 2 to the
Agreement.
CITY OF BURLINGAME CONSULTANT
501 Primrose Road ICF JONES & STOKES, INC.
Burlingame, CA 94010 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94105
By: By:
Lisa K. Goldman Teaka Manley
City Manager Contracts Administrator
Date: Date:
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Professional Services between ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (ICF) and
the City of Burlingame
2
Attest: Federal Employer ID Number:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer License Number: N/A
City Clerk Expiration Date: N/A
Approved as to form:
Michael Guina
City Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Originally Executed Contract, Scope of Work and Certificate of Liability Insurance
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME AND ICF JONES & STOKES, INC. (ICF)
TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW PUBLIC NATURE/RECREATION PARK
AND EDUCATION CENTER BUILDING AT 410 AIRPORT BOULEVARD IN THE
AMOUNT OF $116,609.32
THIS AGREEMENT is by and between ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (ICF) (“Consultant”)
and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California (“City”). Consultant and City
agree:
1. Services. Consultant shall provide the Services set forth in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
2. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and
materials in excess of said Maximum compensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform all of
the Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for $116,609.32, as stated in their response to
the request for proposals, including all materials and other reimbursable amounts (“Maximum
Compensation”), to perform environmental review services related to the proposed development of
a new public nature/recreation park and education center building at 410 Airport Boulevard,
Burlingame. Consultant shall submit invoices on a monthly basis. All bills submitted by
Consultant shall contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and
payable is accurate. Bills shall include a brief description of services performed, the date services
were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred
and the Consultant’s signature.
3. Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof and terminates on
December 31, 2023, unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof.
Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to
completion and in accordance with any schedules specified herein. In the performance of this
Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant’s control,
other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City’s Contract
Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion date.
4. Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering
into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this
Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without the
prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that Consultant
is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City.
5. Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the
duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance
coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance coverage prior to the
commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance
to City.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
2
6. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors,
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims,
suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the negligence,
recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on
account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim arising out of
the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to
defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that
allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8. Acceptance of insurance certificates and
endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this
indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall
apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of
such damages or claims for damages.
7. Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time by
City for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such termination,
Consultant shall be entitled to pro-rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior to
the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such
compensation upon Consultant's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the
event the Consultant ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the
project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall,
without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance of
this Agreement. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services
performed up to the time of Consultant’s cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any
damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment.
8. Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished
nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs,
computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions, prepared
or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the property of
City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but not limited to notes,
sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other material referenced in this
Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be made available, upon
request, to City at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation on their use. Upon
City’s request, Consultant shall execute appropriate documents to assign to the City the copyright
or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall return all City property
in Consultant’s control or possession immediately upon termination.
9. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall
abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of
California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warrants that all
work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws,
statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a license or
registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by law,
Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
3
Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any
applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
10. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presently
has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render the
services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state, local,
or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter arise,
Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that the City
may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its compliance
with the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.) respecting this Agreement.
11. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or
oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof.
The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of
this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein. This
Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both Consultant and the
City Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such document shall expressly state
that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and conditions of this Agreement. The
waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not
constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a
different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but the
parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City Clerk is the version of the
Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the
document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State
of California.
12. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to the
other party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into
this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this
Agreement.
13. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision by
a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority
of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder
of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this
Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the
intentions of the parties.
14. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be in
writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i)
depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such
notice by means of Federal Express or similar overnight commercial courier (“Courier”), postage
paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
4
facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by the
sending facsimile machine’s acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv) by
personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the
receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the
address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent.
15. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the
term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be
considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or
complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor.
Capitalized terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement.
When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine, the
feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes the plural.
The terms “shall”, “will”, “must” and “agree” are mandatory. The term “may” is
permissive.
The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall
not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a
different provision of this Agreement.
When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost
and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is made
otherwise.
Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to restrain
any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees, contractors,
subcontractors and employees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement.
CITY OF BURLINGAME ICF JONES & STOKES, INC.
501 Primrose Road 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Francisco, CA 94105
By: By:
Lisa Goldman Trina L. Prince
City Manager Contracts Administrator III
Date: Date:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
3/1/20233/2/2023
5
Attest: Federal Employer ID Number: 94-1730361
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer License Number:
City Clerk Expiration Date:
Approved as to form:
Michael Guina
City Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A Scope of Work
Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
201 Mission Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94105 USA +1.415.677.7100 +1.415.677.7177 fax icf.com
November 30, 2022
Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager
501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: Proposal to Prepare Environmental Documentation for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project
Dear Mr. Hurin,
ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (“ICF”) is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare an Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the 410 Airport Boulevard Project. We have
assembled a skilled team to help the City of Burlingame (City) successfully and efficiently
prepare an IS/MND in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We
understand that the City will work in collaboration with the State Lands Commission (SLC) as a
responsible agency under CEQA. This scope of work reflects the Project information provided in
the Request for Proposals (RFP), our knowledge of the area, our experience working on other
projects in Burlingame, and our experience working with the SLC. We offer a team of highly
skilled environmental professionals who will produce legally defensible and comprehensive
CEQA documentation, allowing the project to be environmentally cleared and developed as
expeditiously as possible.
The 10.23-acre project site is comprised of two parcels leased from the SLC that border the
Sanchez Channel and San Francisco Bay. The project site is vacant and includes a Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) tower, an unimproved portion of the Bay Trail along the bay side,
and two substandard parking surfaces. The Project would transform the vacant parcel into a
public nature and recreation park with an 8,564-square foot (sf) education center/event building,
a 682-sf trash enclosure, and 28 parking spaces. The Project would also restore the natural tidal
marsh ecology of the portion of the San Francisco Bay shoreline, among other improvements,
including (but not limited to) sea level rise resiliency measures, a fishing overlook, and
secondary trails throughout the site.
As demonstrated in our proposal, ICF has formed a team of expert staff to successfully and
efficiently provide environmental review services for the City. We are excited to work with you
on this important project and believe we are the best fit for your needs. This submittal includes
our scope of work, cost estimate, and tentative schedule for the IS/MND. ICF proposes to
invoice costs monthly, on a time-and-materials basis. This proposal is valid for a period of 90
days, at which time ICF reserves the right to revise the contents or extend the validity date, if
needed. ICF looks forward to negotiating mutually acceptable terms and conditions and can
provide evidence of insurance before the start of the project. To discuss further how ICF can
assist you on this project, please feel free to contact Heidi Mekkelson, our proposed Project
Director, at Heidi.Mekkelson@icf.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Trina L. Prince, Contracts Administrator III
Exhibit A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 1
1.INTRODUCTION
ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc., hereafter referred to as “ICF”, a global
consulting and technology services provider, is the bidding entity for
this proposal and a subsidiary of parent company ICF International,
Inc. (NASDAQ:ICFI). We are business analysts, public policy
experts, technologists, researchers, digital strategists, social
scientists, and creatives delivering for our clients for over 50 years.
Since our founding, by a Tuskegee Airman in 1969, Government and
commercial clients have worked with ICF to overcome their toughest
challenges on issues that matter profoundly to their success. We
help clients turn big goals into realities every day.
ICF is a recognized leader in CEQA compliance and has prepared thousands of environmental
impact studies and related documents since 1970. Today, ICF’s Environment & Planning
division has more than 300 environmental professionals in several states, with northern
California offices in San Francisco and Sacramento.
ICF provides our clients with high quality, objective environmental planning services
emphasizing compliance with an increasingly complex array of environmental laws and
regulations. We have decades of experience helping local clients implement the requirements of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), including extensive local experience preparing environmental documentation and
technical analyses for high-profile projects. Our recent local experience in the City of
Burlingame includes the 567 Airport Boulevard Project (IS/MND), 1499 Bayshore Project
(IS/MND), 1766 El Camino Real Project (Class 32 Infill Exemption and IS/MND), 1868 Ogden
Drive Project (EIR), 220 Park Road Project (Initial Study Checklist), and the Burlingame Point
Project (EIR and EIR Addendum). We’ve collaborated closely with the City on all of these
projects to produce complete and thorough environmental analyses.
In addition, as discussed in more detail in the following section, ICF has experience that is
directly relevant to the needs of the State Lands Commission (SLC or Commission). ICF is
committed to providing Commission staff with the highest-quality service and support for the
project and tasks by:
Being available to respond rapidly to requests.
Conducting thorough and defensible biological and cultural resource evaluations and other
services to support California Environmental Quality Act compliance.
Identifying resource and regulatory constraints early to assist in avoiding significant impacts
and costly mitigation.
Accurately assessing impacts of projects and presenting accurate and unbiased results in a
timely fashion.
Providing up-front and proactive regulatory guidance to help Commission staff understand
and develop regulatory compliance strategies.
Providing complete, edited, and peer-reviewed deliverables.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 2
Our long-standing relationships with the City of Burlingame and other major cities in the region
have enabled us to gain efficiencies in our approach, while gaining an understanding of the
intricacies of doing environmental review work in the Bay Area. With our deep bench of talented
technical staff and our efficient management approach, ICF knows how to streamline the
environmental review process to accommodate aggressive and challenging schedules while
complying with regulatory requirements and effectively meeting our clients’ needs.
2. ICF TEAM AND PROJECT EXPERIENCE
ICF is proposing a team of dedicated professionals who are familiar with the City of Burlingame,
who are knowledgeable about local issues, and who have the capacity to provide timely and
exceptional environmental services for the 410 Airport Boulevard Project (Project). We have
deliberately put forth the same management team that has recently worked on or is currently
working on several other projects with the City of Burlingame. Each proposed specialist has a
key area of expertise to contribute and will work closely with the Project team on all aspects of
the Project to keep the process cohesive. Resumes for key staff are included in Attachment C.
Additional staff resumes are available upon request.
City of Burlingame
State Lands Commission
Land Use
Devan Atteberry
Aesthetics
Kirsten Chapman
Transportation
Victoria Chung
Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas
Jacqueline Mansoor
Cory Matsui
Pierre Glaize
Energy
Pierre Glaize
Devan Atteberry
Noise
Peter Hardie
Noah Schumaker
Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resources
Jennifer Wildt
Jon Rusch
Tait Elder
Biological Resources
Ross Wilming (Wildlife)
Lisa Webber (Wetlands)
Jeff Kozlowski (Marine)
Geology and Soils
Diana Roberts
Heidi Mekkelson, Project Director
Devan Atteberry, Project Manager
Victoria Chung, Deputy Project Manager
Hydrology and Water Quality
Katrina Sukola
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Diana Roberts
Mario Barrera
Population and Housing
Kate Thompson
Public Services/Utilities/Recreation
Victoria Chung
Kate Thompson
Document Production and Graphics
John Mathias
John Conley
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 3
Project Experience
ICF has a long reputation as a leader in the preparation of documents on infill development and
commercial, housing, infrastructure, and transportation projects throughout the Bay Area. ICF
has worked on several projects throughout Burlingame, including ongoing office, residential, and
mixed-use projects. Our project experience includes multiple projects within the Bayfront area,
including the 1499 Bayshore Project, the Burlingame Point Project, and the 567 Airport
Boulevard Project, which is adjacent to the Project site. We also have extensive experience
working with the SLC on projects in the Public Trust. The following highlights the ICF team’s
experience preparing CEQA documentation for relevant projects within the City of Burlingame
and with the SLC.
Experience in Burlingame
567 Airport Boulevard Project (Completed October 2021)
The project would include the construction of an eight-story, 241,679 sf office/research and
development (R&D) building and a 5.5-level parking structure on the site of an existing parking
lot. The new parking structure, as well as surface parking lots, would include 1,520 parking
spaces for the new and existing buildings within the Bay Park Plaza. The Project would also
provide new landscaped areas, including promenades, outdoor seating areas, walkways, patios,
look-outs, plazas, and stormwater treatment areas. ICF prepared an IS/MND for the project.
Burlingame Point Project (Previously known as 300 Airport Boulevard Project) (Completed July
2016)
The EIR for the project, previously known as the 300
Airport Boulevard Project, was certified in 2012.
Subsequent to the certification of the EIR, changes to
the project were made, which required additional
environmental analysis. ICF prepared an EIR
Addendum analyzing changes in the building area and
footprints, new project elements, and new construction
phasing.
1499 Bayshore Project IS/MND (Completed September 2019)
The project site is located on a 2.19-acre parcel in the
Bayfront area of the City of Burlingame. ICF prepared
an IS/MND for this project, which entails demolishing
two existing two-story office buildings and surface
parking in order to construct a 154-foot tall, 12-story
hotel building and a detached 28-foot tall restaurant on
the site. The project required design review and a
conditional use permit.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 4
The Village at Burlingame Project (Completed December 2018)
ICF prepared a Class 32 Infill Exemption for this project that
included the development of two existing surface parking lot
sites, within the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, into a
137,460-gross-square-foot residential building with parking,
and a five-story public parking garage for 388 vehicles.
Since the project site is within the Burlingame Downtown
Specific Plan, the Project is subject to the Standard
Conditions of Approval (SCA), which apply to all projects
within the Specific Plan area.
Experience with the Public Trust
Subsea Cable Projects (Ongoing)
ICF assisted the State Lands Commission with the
preparation of CEQA documents for the international
subsea RTI Solutions’ Subsea Cables Projects and
coordinated with local, state, and federal agencies
(USACE/CWA Section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 10; USFWS and NMFS ESA; State Historic
Preservation Office/National Historic Preservation Act
[NHPA] Section 106; state agencies/CWA Section 401
and 402; CZMA permits; and multiple state agencies). The USACE is the federal lead agency.
ICF was involved with the marine biological reports, marine wildlife monitoring and contingency
plans, aquatic resources delineations, terrestrial and marine cultural reports (to Section 106
standards), marine archaeological resources avoidance plans, and biological assessments
(BAs)/Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessments to support USFWS and NMFS consultations.
On behalf of the state lead agency, ICF is currently monitoring terrestrial and marine biological
and cultural resources and documenting compliance with environmental commitments and
permit conditions for the California Pacific Coast Subsea Cables Projects.
Stagecoach Solar Project (Ongoing)
ICF prepared a habitat conservation plan and desert tortoise translocation plan for the
Stagecoach Solar Project. The effort supported an application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA) for desert tortoise. The plan area is in central San Bernardino County and covers 3,655
acres. Included within that area are the 1,860-acre solar facility area, the desert tortoise
translocation area, the mitigation area, the gen-tie corridor, and access roads. The plan also
covers construction of a 9.1-mile overhead line and a 5.9-mile underground line. The
Commission owns and manages the facility siting area and manages lands for segments of the
gen-tie corridor.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 5
Mission Rock Project EIR (Completed December 2018)
ICF prepared an EIR for a project located within the Port
of San Francisco for an approximately 27-acre site
consisting of Seawall Lot 337, Block P20 (both
properties are designated as CA State Lands
Commission public land trusts) and Pier 48, known as
the Mission Rock Mixed-Use Project. The Project
included the development of a mixed-use, multi-phase
waterfront development of Seawall Lot 337, rehabilitation
and reuse of Pier 48, and construction of approximately
5.4 acres of net new open space, for a total of 8 acres of open space on site. The Project also
includes public access areas, assembly areas, and an internal grid of public streets, shared
public ways, and utilities infrastructure.
Other Local Experience
In addition to the projects above, our team has extensive experience working on CEQA
documents for jurisdictions in the Peninsula/Silicon Valley/South Bay, as listed below. This is
not an exhaustive list of projects completed by ICF in the area. Additional project information is
available upon request.
Adrian Court Project Class 32 Infill Exemption—City of Burlingame
126 Lorton Avenue Project Class 32 Infill Exemption—City of Burlingame
601 California Drive Project Class 32 Infill Exemption—City of Burlingame
30 Ingold Project Class 32 Infill Exemption—City of Burlingame
1868 Ogden Drive Project EIR—City of Burlingame
1100 El Camino Real Sustainable Communities Environmental Asssessment (SCEA)—City
of Millbrae
959 El Camino Real Class 32 Infill Exemption—City of Millbrae
West Oakland Link IS/MND—Bay Area Toll Authority
San Francisco Housing Element 2022 Update EIR—City and County of San Francisco
Planning Department
The Hub Plan and Multiple Projects in the Market Octavia Area Program/Project EIR—City
and County of San Francisco Planning Department
3700 California Street EIR—City and County of San Francisco Planning Department
Various Community Plan Exemptions— City and County of San Francisco Planning
Department
Southline Specific Plan Project EIR—City of South San Francisco
751 Gateway Project EIR—City of South San Francisco
Bayhill Specific Plan EIR—City of San Bruno
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 6
Multiple Office and Research and development Project EIRs—City of Menlo Park
Willow Village Master Plan Project EIR—City of Menlo Park
Various CEQA Streamlining Infill Projects—City of Oakland
3. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH
The 10.23-acre Project site at 410 Airport Boulevard is currently vacant with an existing FAA
tower, an unimproved portion of the Bay Trail along the bay side, and two substandard parking
surfaces. The Proposed Project, a collaboration between the SPHERE Institute and the San
Mateo Resource Conservation District, would transform the vacant parcel into a public nature
and recreation park with an 8,564-sf education center/event building, a 682-sf trash enclosure,
and a drop-off loop and one-way drive that would enter the Project site from Airport Boulevard
and exit onto Bay View Place. The one-way drive would contain 23 off-street parking spaces, for
a total of 28 parking spaces to be provided on-site. In addition, the Project would also restore
the natural tidal marsh ecology of the portion of the San Francisco Bay shoreline within the
Project site with native plant species, among other improvements, including improving the Bay
Trail Section and water access and recreation (kayak launch and kitesurfing ramp), and
providing new viewing decks and patios, a small take-out café, multi-purpose and lawn areas, a
fishing overlook, secondary trails throughout the site, an interpretive program, and a sea level
rise resiliency demonstration. Further, the Project would incorporate a small building (20’ x 20’)
to store two jet skis, personal protective equipment, and rescue equipment required by the
Central County Fire Department (CCFD) in order to serve a potential increase in water rescue
incidents.
ICF has reviewed the information included with the RFP. Based on our preliminary review, we
believe an IS/MND can provide the required level of environmental review under CEQA. This
submittal includes a scope of work, cost estimate, and tentative schedule for ICF to prepare an
IS/MND. The IS/MND will incorporate the technical studies prepared by the applicant, including
the Transportation Study prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., (August 2021),
the Hydrology Technical Memorandum prepared by CBEC Eco Engineering (November 2021),
the Soil Management Plan prepared by Langan (July 2021), the Biological Resources Report
prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates (November 2021), the Records Search and Literature
Review conducted by PaleoWest (January 2022), and the Noise and Vibration Assessment
prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin (February 2022). Please note that if it becomes evident that
the Project would have the potential to result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the
environment, an EIR will be required. If this is the case, ICF will submit an amended scope of
work and budget for an EIR.
Overall, ICF’s approach is to rely, where appropriate, on the conclusions made in the Envision
Burlingame General Plan EIR. Where site-specific analysis is required, this scope of work
includes additional analysis to consider site specific impacts from the Project. In addition, the
Bayfront Specific Plan will be referenced where needed.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 7
4. SCOPE OF WORK
This scope of work (SOW) assumes that an IS/MND will be prepared for the Project in
accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, as outlined below. For all deliverables, this scope
assumes that comments from multiple reviewers (e.g., City and SLC staff) will be consolidated
and that conflicting comments will be resolved prior to transmitting the comments to ICF. If the
City allows the applicant to review draft reports, we assume the City will review and consolidate
applicant comments prior to transmitting the comments to ICF. This scope also assumes that
reviewer comments will not result in substantial revisions or changes to the analysis
methodology or assumptions. If additional effort is required to address reviewer comments, ICF
will submit a budget amendment request.
Task 1: Kick-Off Meeting/Data Collection
This task includes initiating the CEQA process/kick-off meeting; preparing a comprehensive
data needs list; conducting a site visit (as permitted); reviewing site plans and preliminary
studies; and refining the scope of work and schedule. At the kick-off meeting with City staff, SLC
staff, and the applicant (at the City’s discretion), the following will be discussed: procedures for
contacting the applicant team, City staff, SLC staff, and public agencies; data needs required to
complete the IS/MND; the proposed scope of work; and schedule.
Deliverables: One draft and one final SOW; refined schedule; kick-off meeting agenda; data
needs request; and summary of kick-off meeting.
Task 2: Project Description
A clear and accurate Project Description is essential to the IS/MND analysis. ICF will prepare a
Project Description based on information provided by the City and applicant team, a site visit,
data needs responses, and review of the project application, plan sets, and supplemental
reports. The Project Description will include the following:
Project Overview and Background
Project Site Location
Environmental Setting
Project Components
Site plan
Site access, circulation, and parking
Project design, architectural themes, massing, building design, potential sustainable
design features, and materials
Amenities such as landscaping, lighting, signage, and gathering spaces
Utilities
Recycling and Waste
Construction
Project Approvals
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 8
This scope of work assumes the preparation of up to six figures for the Project Description. ICF
will prepare or obtain all graphics, charts, maps, and photographs for the IS/MND but may
request input from the applicant to help make such exhibits.
ICF will address reviewer comments on the draft of the Project Description. The second draft of
the Project Description will be included in the Administrative Draft IS/MND (Task 3, below).
Deliverables: One electronic copy of the draft Project Description in both MS Word and PDF
formats.
Task 3: Preparation of Administrative Draft IS/MND
ICF will prepare an Administrative Draft IS/MND in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15063.
The IS/MND will use Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form). The
IS/MND will include existing conditions, impacts associated with the proposed development,
recommended mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential significant adverse
environmental impacts where necessary, and any associated technical analysis. After receiving
comments on the Project Description from the City, ICF will finalize and begin the IS/MND
analysis.
For this task, principal activities would include:
Synthesizing information from existing background documents
Reviewing the Burlingame General Plan and applying applicable information to the Project,
including mitigation measures, as warranted
Evaluating changes to existing conditions and presenting the analysis at full buildout of the
Project
Performing the analysis and making determinations of impact significance
Recommending additional mitigation measures to reduce impacts, if needed
The analysis will be based on standard methodologies and techniques, and will focus on the net
changes anticipated at the Project site. The text will clearly link measures to impacts and
indicate their effectiveness (i.e., ability to reduce an impact to a less-than-significant level),
identify the responsible agency or party, and distinguish whether measures are proposed as
part of the Project, are already being implemented (such as existing regulations), or are to be
considered. This approach facilitates preparation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP).
Topics with No Impacts
Based on our preliminary review, we anticipate that the project would result in no impacts to the
following environmental topics.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources. ICF will describe existing conditions at the Project
site, identify the existing General Plan designation, and document the lack of agricultural
and forestry uses in the area, per the General Plan EIR (Table 6-1).
Mineral Resources. ICF will describe existing conditions at the Project site and identify the
mineral resources zone classification for soils at the site. It is anticipated that the site does
not contain significant mineral resources, per the General Plan EIR (Page 9-1).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 9
Wildfire. ICF will describe existing conditions at the Project site. The Project site is not
located near any Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and is not within a High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone in the State Responsibility Area (SRA). Therefore, the project is not subject to
detailed CEQA review of potential wildfire hazards. It is expected that the Project would not
increase the potential for wildfire hazards in the vicinity, especially considering the urban
setting and proximity to the Bay.
Aesthetics
The Project site is comprised of two parcels leased from the SLC. The site is currently vacant
with an existing FAA tower, an unimproved portion of the Bay Trail along the bay side, and two
substandard parking surfaces (one gravel and one concrete). The areas surrounding the Project
site (west, south and east) are developed areas with existing multi-tenant office/life science
buildings, hotels, restaurants and associated paved surface parking lots. The Project site is a
waterfront property bordering the San Francisco Bay and Sanchez Canal to the north. The
Project would result in new structures on-site including an educational center/event building and
associated support structures. ICF will address visual resources/aesthetics as they relate to
scenic vistas, scenic resources (including trees), visual character and quality, and light and
glare. ICF will also evaluate the Project’s consistency with the City’s Design Review which is
required for new commercial buildings pursuant to C.S. 25.57.010(c)(1) and consistency with
the City’s View Corridor zoning requirements for the Anza Area. This scope assumes a Design
Review Study will be provided, which ICF will review and incorporate into the IS/MND.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ICF will prepare the air quality and GHG sections of the IS/MND. The setting sections will briefly
describe the pollutants of concern generated by the project, summarize meteorological and
climatological data for the project area, identify the general locations of existing sensitive
receptors, and discuss applicable air quality and climate change goals, policies, and plans. ICF
will use the BAAQMD’s most recent CEQA Guidelines to evaluate project impacts. ICF will
describe the air quality thresholds used to identify significant impacts based on the BAAQMD’s
Guidelines and guidance provided by BAAQMD staff, as well as the methodology used to
estimate construction and operational emissions. To the extent appropriate and feasible, ICF
will rely on information from the General Plan EIR and the 2019 Climate Action Plan. The
following site-specific analysis will be conducted to evaluate air quality and GHG impacts, and
the IS/MND will address the following topics:
Construction Impacts. Project construction activities would involve the use of off-road
construction equipment and on-road vehicles, which would generate emissions of ROG,
NOX CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and GHGs. In addition, off-road construction equipment
traveling over unpaved surfaces and performing earthmoving activities such as site clearing
or grading would generate fugitive dust emissions, while architectural coating and paving
activities would generate evaporative ROG emissions. BAAQMD has screening tables that
identify certain land use types that are not expected to result in air quality or GHG impacts
from construction; however, those tables can only be used if the project would not involve
demolition; simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases; extensive site
preparation; or extensive material transport. ICF assumes that the Project would not meet
these criteria and a quantitative analysis of construction criteria pollutants would be
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 10
necessary. Construction emissions will be quantified using the CalEEMod emissions model
or a similar methodology and data collected from the project applicant. The analysis of
construction impacts will also address construction-related mitigation measures
recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD), including
adherence to BAAQMD rules and regulations. Estimated criteria pollutant emissions will be
compared to the BAAQMD’s construction emission thresholds to determine project
significance for construction activities. If emissions are found to be significant, mitigation
measures will be developed and quantified to the extent feasible to address identified
impacts. Estimated GHG emissions will also be discussed, as well as compliance with
BAAQMD’s recommended GHG emission reduction measures.
Operational Impacts. BAAQMD has screening tables that identify certain land use types that
are not expected to result in air quality or GHG impacts from long-term operation. The size
for the proposed land use – nine acres – is less than the screening levels for the
corresponding land use type screening criteria for operational criteria pollutants (e.g., a city
park). Accordingly, ICF will qualitatively discuss criteria pollutant impacts using the
BAAQMD screening criteria.
Localized carbon monoxide hot spots. ICF will review traffic data from the transportation
analysis for affected intersections (i.e., Level of Service (LOS]) and the BAAQMD’s CO
screening criteria to determine the need for localized CO modeling and evaluate CO
impacts. If a hotspot analysis is determined to be necessary, ICF will use peak hour traffic
volumes from the traffic consultant, the CALINE4 dispersion model, and the latest version of
EMFAC to estimate CO concentrations at up to three (3) locations. CO impacts will be
assessed comparing estimated CO concentrations to the ambient air quality standards.
Toxic Air Contaminants. There are no apparent sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the
Project site, and thus a quantitative Health Risk Assessment (HRA) may not be necessary
based on current BAAQMD guidelines. However, ICF understands that BAAQMD may be
releasing new CEQA guidance in 2022 for HRAs that recommends that off-site workers be
classified as sensitive receptors. Under such guidelines, there would be multiple sensitive
receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project site, because there are several office
developments and hotels where workers are located. As such, our scope includes an
optional task to prepare a quantitative HRA to evaluate the impacts of construction of the
Project on off-site workers in the area. ICF assumes that no sources of toxic air
contaminants would be present during project operations (only during construction). This
scope of work assumes that toxic air contaminants from construction will be addressed
qualitatively and no modeling will be conducted.
o Optional task – For the reasons discussed above, health risk modeling would be
conducted if the optional task is selected and would include a project-level
analysis and cumulative analysis that incorporates BAAQMD background data.
Odors. ICF will qualitatively evaluate the potential for odor impacts during construction and
long-term operation of the project.
Greenhouse Gases. The City’s 2019 Climate Action Plan (CAP) is considered to be a
qualified reduction strategy for CEQA purposes. As discussed above, ICF will quantify the
project’s construction GHG emissions using CalEEMod or similar methodology to fully
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 11
disclose GHG emissions, but operational GHG emissions will not be presented. The City’s
CAP includes 2020 and 2030 GHG reduction targets and identifies GHG reduction
measures to sufficiently meet those goals. This scope of work assumes that the project
applicant will implement all applicable and feasible greenhouse gas emission reduction
measures from the CAP, in order to satisfy the CAP tiering requirements. Consequently, ICF
assumes that the GHG discussion will be consolidated to focus on the project’s consistency
with the CAP, and that the level of detail and background information will be abbreviated
relative to a non-tiered analysis. If the project is determined by the City to not be consistent
with the CAP, an alternative approach to evaluating GHG impacts may be required at an
additional cost.
BAAQMD adopted GHG emissions thresholds for the post-2020 period in April 2022. Those
thresholds allow for projects to either demonstrate consistency with a greenhouse gas
reduction strategy (i.e., a CAP), or incorporate certain building design elements and attain a
VMT reduction of 15 percent relative to existing conditions. At this time, ICF anticipates that
GHG impacts will be evaluated by documenting the project’s consistency with the City’s
CAP. If the project is not able to tier from the City’s CAP, ICF will work with the City to
develop an alternative approach (potentially at an additional cost).
For all air quality and greenhouse gas impact categories discussed above, where significant
impacts are identified, ICF will identify mitigation measures (including those recommended
and required by BAAQMD) to reduce the significance of Project-related air impacts. This
scope assumes that all impacts will be minimized to a less-than-significant level. If any
impacts cannot be defensibly mitigated to less-than-significant, then an Environmental
Impact Report would be required at an additional cost.
Biological Resources
Biological resources present or potentially present at the project site have been described in a
Biological Resources Report (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2021), provided to the City with the
project application. The project site is a vacant parcel immediately adjacent to the San
Francisco Bay. The project includes several important biological components such as the
restoration of tidal salt marsh habitat and adjacent habitats, and its proximity to the Bay must be
considered in the assessment. Resources with potentially significant impacts that may require
mitigation have been initially identified in the Biological Resources Report and primarily include
special-status fish species, wetlands, and protected trees.
Qualified ICF biologists will conduct a review of the Biological Resources Report to
determine if it is adequate to prepare the IS/MND. If additional information needs are
identified, or clarifications are needed in the report, ICF will prepare a short memorandum
for the City to use to request the additional information.
Following review of the technical report, and receipt of any requested additional information,
ICF biologists will prepare the biological resources section of the IS/MND. Generally, this will
include preparation of a brief overview of the regulatory environment, existing conditions,
and biological resources present, and an assessment of impacts using standard CEQA
significance criteria. ICF is familiar with this area and a site visit is not considered necessary.
Mitigation measures, if needed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, will be
developed based on standard practices, guidelines, and expectations of the agencies (e.g.,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 12
NMFS, CDFW, etc.) and will consider the measures proposed by the Applicant in the
Biological Resources Report.
Cultural Resources/Tribal Resources
The Project site does not appear to contain any above-ground built-environment resources
(buildings, structures, objects, or districts) that would have the potential to qualify as CEQA
historical resources, and it is located on fill dating to the second half of the 20th century.
However, the IS/MND will document ICF’s investigations into the potential presence of
significant historical resources and Tribal cultural resources. If such resources are identified, the
IS/MND would assess Project impacts to those resources.
To prepare the Cultural and Tribal Resources sections of the IS/MND, ICF will conduct the
following tasks:
Qualified ICF Cultural Resource specialists will conduct a review of the Cultural Resources
Technical Report conducted by PaleoWest to determine if it is adequate to prepare the
IS/MND. If additional information needs are identified, or clarifications are needed in the
report, ICF will prepare a short memorandum for the City to use to request the additional
information.
Following review of the Cultural Resources Technical Report, and receipt of any requested
additional information, ICF will review our corporate library of existing cultural resources
documentation from the project vicinity, including previous EIR documents and the Existing
Conditions Report for the General Plan EIR (Page 6-95).
ICF will conduct a records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) to identify
any previously recorded cultural resources and cultural resource investigations within half a
mile of the Project site.
ICF will assist the City in conducting AB 52 consultation by conducting the following tasks.
ICF will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and request that the
NAHC review their sacred lands file and to provide a list of Native American individuals who
may have knowledge of cultural resources within the project vicinity. ICF will draft AB 52
notification letters for the City to send to the identified tribes. If any tribes request
consultation, the City as the lead agency will be responsible for consulting with the tribe(s).
However, ICF will be available to advise the City if questions arise. We assume the City will
provide a summary of any consultation efforts, which ICF will summarize in the IS/MND.
Due to ground disturbance during construction, impacts to archaeological resources are
possible. Readily available background information will be reviewed to confirm whether
there is a potential for adverse impacts to occur.
This scope of work assumes that the CEQA study area will be limited to the project site,
given the low likelihood of the project causing substantial adverse change in the setting of
any nearby historical resources.
This scope of work assumes no historic-aged (over 50 years old) built environment
resources are located within the study area, and that no built or archaeological resources
will be identified within the study area as a result of the records search.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 13
Energy
ICF will prepare a section on Energy in the IS/MND based on an evaluation of how the Project
will affect energy resources, generation, and transmission, and will assess any potential impacts
associated with wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption during Project
construction or operation. The analysis will be based on energy use outputs from the CalEEMod
emissions model. In addition, ICF will evaluate the Project’s consistency with state and local
energy efficiency goals.
Geology/Soils and Paleontological Resources
The General Plan EIR identifies that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less-
than-significant impact on geology/soils, after compliance with existing regulations and goals
and policies from the General Plan. One of these policies (CS-7.3) requires the preparation of a
geotechnical report. ICF will prepare the Geology and Soils section of the IS/MND using the
Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project. ICF will rely on the information
included in the General Plan EIR and the Preliminary Geotechnical Report to characterize the
existing setting for geology and soils.
In addition, the General Plan EIR identifies that implementation of the General Plan would result
in a less-than-significant impact with mitigation on paleontological resources. ICF will use
existing California Geological Survey regional geologic mapping, a database search at the
University of California Museum of Paleontology, and the scientific literature to characterize the
existing setting for paleontological resources.
ICF will conduct the following tasks:
Describe existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to geology, soils, and
seismicity, and paleontological resources.
Describe Project grading, excavation, and foundation systems designed to support the
proposed structures.
Describe proposed maximum depth of excavation.
Describe the recommendations made in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, which would
be implemented to reduce any impacts.
Mitigation measures will be developed, as needed, to reduce or eliminate any significant
impacts to a less-than-significant level, if feasible. Typical mitigation measures for
paleontological resources includes assessment by a qualified paleontological professional
on the need for the paleontological monitoring, and if recommended, worker awareness
training.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The General Plan EIR identifies that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less-
than-significant impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials, after compliance with
existing regulations and goals and policies from the General Plan. ICF will conduct a limited
Phase I Environmental Site Asessment (ESA) of the 410 Airport Boulevard Project site. The
objective of the limited Phase I ESA is to identify and evaluate potential environmental issues
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 14
associated with past and/or current land uses at the property. Our scope of work for the limited
Phase I ESA includes the following tasks:
Conduct a search of environmental-related information present in publicly accessible
databases using EDR lightbox or similar platform.
Conduct a review of readily available aerial photographs and topographic maps to identify
former land uses and potential areas of concern.
Prepare a technical memorandum summarizing the above findings.
Review of Publicly Available Databases—ICF will conduct a search for environmental-related
information present in publicly accessible databases using EDR Lightbox. The information
provided in these databases serve as an indicator if prior land uses have had the potential to
negatively impact the site. The report will be reviewed to determine if the Project site is listed in
any environmental databases.
Aerial Photograph and Topographic Map Review—To develop a more complete
understanding of historical land uses of the Project site, ICF will review and interpret aerial
photographs and topographic maps that will be requested from EDR Lightbox along with the
environmental database report.
Technical Memorandum—Once the above tasks are completed, ICF will prepare a technical
memorandum summarizing the information obtained and conclusions as to whether any of the
information reviewed presents potential deleterious conditions that could impact implementation
of the Proposed Project. These findings will then be used in support of the CEQA analysis.
Environmental Analysis—Upon completion of the limited Phase I ESA, ICF will rely on the
information included in the General Plan EIR and the Phase I ESA technical memorandum to
characterize the existing setting for hazards and hazardous materials. ICF will prepare the
Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the IS/MND, which will include the following
information:
Summary of the limited Phase I ESA prepared for the Project to describe the regulatory
framework for hazardous materials use and storage as well as existing conditions for
hazardous materials.
Evaluate available information regarding other public health and safety hazards required to
be analyzed under CEQA, such as potential interference with emergency response and
evacuation plans and construction within public airport safety zones.
Describe how applicable federal, state, and local regulations apply to the project and reduce
the potential for hazards impacts.
Hydrology/Water Quality
The Existing Conditions Report for the General Plan EIR includes information about the existing
setting related to surface waters, groundwater, and water quality (Page 6-131). This Report
would be used to describe the existing setting for the Project. ICF will prepare the
Hydrology/Water Quality section of the IS/MND and will conduct the following tasks:
The General Plan EIR identifies that implementation of the General Plan would result in a
less-than-significant impact on hydrology/water quality after implementation of existing
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 15
regulation and goals and policies from the General Plan. ICF will describe the existing
regulatory environment, including, but not limited to, the Construction General Permit,
Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater discharges (including how the project relates to
C.3 requirements), the City Code, and the California Building Code. These regulations
require specific measures for reducing potential impacts on hydrology and water quality.
Review the CEQA Impacts Assessment in the Hydrology Technical Memorandum prepared
for the Project.
Review the Soil Management Plan prepared for the Project.
Review the site drainage, utilities, and stormwater treatment concepts prepared for the
project.
Assess potential Project hydrology, water quality, and groundwater impacts in light of
existing regulations and policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts, including
the potential increase in new impervious area. This scope of work assumes that the
Hydrology Technical Memorandum provides all necessary hydrology/hydraulic analysis of
potential site flooding and adequate storm drain capacity. Pertinent regulatory requirements
will be explicitly identified so that the nexus between regulations and minimized impacts is
apparent.
Identify mitigation measures, where feasible, to minimize potentially significant or significant
project impacts.
It is assumed that the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows. The proposed
building would be designed to account for sea-level rise due to the proximity of the Bay.
This scope of work does not include hydrological or hydraulic modelling.
Land Use
The Project site is zoned as Anza Area (AA) within the Bayfront Specific Plan Area, with a land
use designation of Bayfront Commercial. The Project would include a public nature and
recreation park with an education center building, but would not be publicly owned. Therefore,
the Project would require a Conditional Use Permit to be consistent with the land use
designation of the parcels. Land use and planning generally considers the compatibility of a
project with neighboring areas, change to, or displacement of existing uses, compliance with
zoning regulations, and consistency of a project with relevant local land use policies that have
been adopted with the intent to mitigate or avoid an environmental effect. With respect to land
use conflicts or compatibility issues, the magnitude of these impacts depends on how a project
affects the existing development pattern, development intensity, traffic circulation, noise, and
visual setting in the immediately surrounding area, which are generally discussed in the
respective sections. Because the Project is consistent with the general plan and zoning, it would
be consistent with planned land uses. ICF will summarize how the Project is consistent with the
General Plan, Bayfront Specific Plan, and zoning. ICF will prepare the Land Use section of the
IS/MND and will conduct the following tasks:
Describe existing land uses, intensities, and patterns at the Project site and in the vicinity
and the compatibility of the proposed land use and zoning with current onsite and offsite
development.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 16
Describe the Project’s potential to divide an established community due to the proposed
increase in building heights.
Evaluate any potential conflicts between the proposed and current land uses that would
result in environmental impacts. These conflicts could include a use that would create a
nuisance for adjacent properties or result in incompatibility with surrounding land uses, such
as differences in the physical scale of development, noise levels, and traffic levels.
Consider plans and policies for other agencies that have discretion over the Project site,
including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)/Airport Land Use Committee, BCDC,
and State Lands Commission.
Noise
ICF will prepare a noise and vibration impact analysis for the 410 Airport Boulevard Project. It is
understood that a technical report has been prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin. ICF will review
the prepared technical report and provide one (1) round of comments on the report’s adequacy.
It is assumed that the report will not require any additional rounds of review and that all
comments will be adequately addressed by the author. The technical report will be used to
prepare the noise section of the environmental document.
Key noise issues to be addressed in the noise section will include:
Exposure of existing noise-sensitive land uses to noise and vibration associated with
construction activity.
Exposure of existing noise sensitive land uses to Project-related changes in traffic noise.
Exposure of existing noise sensitive land uses to operational noise from the Project site.
In the existing conditions discussion, ICF will identify existing sources of noise in the Project
area along with existing noise-sensitive land uses in the Project area. Existing noise conditions
in the Project area will be described based on available information from the City General Plan.
Noise monitoring is not proposed. In the regulatory setting discussion, ICF will summarize the
relevant guidelines and criteria from the City Noise Ordinance and the General Plan, along with
other applicable guidelines and criteria. CEQA significance thresholds will be defined based on
applicable guidelines and standards.
Impacts will be based on federal, State, or applicable local standards (as appropriate). Noise
mitigation will be described, where applicable, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level,
and will be at a level of detail appropriate for environmental review and not at a design level of
detail.
This scope of work includes the following assumptions:
Field measurements were conducted to support the noise technical report, therefore, no
additional measurements will be conducted.
No additional noise analysis will be prepared. All noise sources (construction, traffic,
stationary noise sources, etc.) will be addressed in the technical report and ICF will
summarize the analysis in the IS/MND.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 17
Population/Housing
The General Plan EIR identifies that implementation of the General Plan EIR would result in a
less-than-significant impact on population and housing, after implementation of existing
regulations and goals and policies from the General Plan. ICF will review the pertinent General
Plan policies and will demonstrate how the Project would be consistent with the General Plan.
This analysis will rely on the Project’s consistency with the General Plan, to demonstrate that
the growth associated with the project is planned. The analysis will focus on the population
increase as a result of the employees generated by the proposed public recreation uses. Given
the Project’s size, it is not anticipated that the Project would directly induce substantial
population growth or displace people.
Public Services and Recreation
ICF will analyze the Project’s effect on Public Services including police services, fire services,
schools, parks, libraries, and recreation to determine if the Project will result in adverse physical
impacts associated with new governmental facilities and the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives. ICF will describe the existing conditions (identifying
responsible agencies, response times and facilities capacity) and include the associated public
facilities impact fees based on the analysis of the potential impacts at the Project site. ICF will
work with the City and applicant to address project impacts due to the incorporation of an
additional public services facilities on site, specifically for fire services. This scope of work
assumes that a small building (20’ x 20’) to store two jet skis, personal protective equipment,
and rescue equipment required by the Central County Fire Department (CCFD) would be
incorporated as part of the Project in order to serve potential increased water rescue incidents.
Transportation
A Transportation Study has been prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., in
August 2021. For purposes of this scope, it is assumed that the Transportation Study has been
reviewed by the City and can be used in the IS/MND. ICF will prepare the Transportation
section of the IS/MND by incorporating the relevant setting information and summarizing the
impact analysis from the Transportation Study.
Utilities/Service Systems
ICF will examine the Project’s effect on water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste
disposal. ICF will describe the existing conditions (capacity and current consumption levels) and
the potential impacts at the Project site. ICF will work with the City and applicant to identify the
utility demand from the Project and will evaluate the net change in the demand for water,
wastewater, solid waste, and energy, relative to existing and planned capacity for the utilities.
Deliverables: One electronic copy (in both MS Word and PDF formats) of the Administrative
Draft IS/MND document.
Task 4: Screencheck Draft IS/MND
The purpose of this task is to prepare the Screencheck IS/MND for the City and SLC’s review.
ICF will prepare a Screencheck IS/MND to respond to comments on the Administrative Draft
IS/MND from the City and SLC. This scope assumes that comments from multiple reviewers will
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 18
be consolidated with any conflicting comments resolved, and that comments do not result in
substantial revisions or additional analyses.
Deliverables: One electronic copy (in both MS Word [clean and track] and PDF format) of the
Screencheck Draft IS/MND.
Task 5: Draft IS/MND
The purpose of this task is to prepare and submit the Draft IS/MND to the City for distribution to
the public. ICF will revise the Screencheck Draft IS/MND to incorporate modifications identified
by the City and SLC. The revised documents will be circulated among the public agencies and
the general public as well as specific individuals, organizations, and agencies expressing an
interest in receiving the document. During this task, ICF will also compile the appendices that
will be distributed with the Draft IS/MND and produce a version of the full documents that can be
uploaded onto the City’s website. This scope of work assumes that ICF will prepare and submit
all State Clearinghouse items (including the Notice of Completion) as well as perform any
required coordination with the State Clearinghouse. This scope of work also assumes that the
City will distribute the IS/MND to all other recipients, file the Notice of Intent (NOI) with the
County Clerk, and handle any additional noticing such as newspaper noticing and posting at the
site.
Deliverables: Twenty (20) hard copies of the Draft IS/MND. Additional hard copies may be
provided at an additional cost (approximately $30 per copy). One electronic copy of the Draft
IS/MND document in both MS Word and PDF formats.
Task 6: Prepare Responses to Comments and Administrative Final IS/MND
The purpose of this task is to prepare responses to the comments received on the Draft IS/MND
(if necessary) and incorporate these responses into an Administrative Final IS/MND. The
Administrative Final IS/MND will include:
Comments received on the Draft IS/MND, including a list of all commenters and the full
comment letters and public meeting transcripts with individual comments marked and
numbered;
Responses to all comments; and
Revisions to the Draft IS/MND in errata format as necessary in response to comments.
If the Draft IS/MND revisions are particularly lengthy, then a “full” revision could be prepared,
but this is not assumed in the current budget. All substantive comments for each written and
oral comment will be reviewed, bracketed, and coded for a response. This scope of work
assumes ICF will prepare responses for up to 20 substantive discrete, non-repeating comments
for the Draft IS/MND.
Frequently raised comments of a substantive nature may be responded to in a Master
Response, which allows for a comprehensive response to be presented upfront for all interested
commenters. ICF will identify and recommend possible Master Reponses for City and SLC
consideration during the initial meeting to discuss strategies for preparing responses.
Following the strategy session, ICF will prepare Master Responses (as appropriate) and
individual responses to the bracketed and coded comments. Individual responses to each
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 19
comment letter will be placed immediately after the comment letter. As necessary, responses
may indicate text revisions, in addition to clarifications and explanations. All text changes
stemming from the responses to the comments, as well as those suggested by City and SLC
staff, will be compiled into an errata included as part of the Final IS/MND.
Following City’s and SLC’s review of the Administrative Final IS/MND, ICF will address all
comments received and prepare a Screencheck Final IS/MND and Screencheck Final EIRs for
City and SLC review to ensure that all comments on the Draft were adequately addressed.
Deliverables: One electronic copy of the Administrative and Screencheck Final IS/MND
document in MS Word and in PDF formats.
Task 7: Prepare Final IS/MND
Based on comments received from City and SLC staff, the Screencheck Final IS/MND will be
revised and appropriate revisions to the IS/MND will be noted. The Final IS/MND will consist of
the Draft IS/MND and the Responses to Comments document. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND
will be presented as a separate chapter in the Final IS/MND. The revised Responses to
Comments document will be submitted to the City for discussion by the decisionmakers.
Deliverables: Twenty (20) hard copies of the Final IS/MND. One electronic copy of the Final
IS/MND document in MS Word and in PDF formats.
Task 8: Adoption Hearings, MMRP, and Administrative Record
The purpose of this task is to attend meetings to adopt the IS/MND. ICF team members will
attend and participate in up to two public meetings. If requested by City staff, ICF will present
the conclusions of the IS/MND and a summary of the comments and responses.
As part of this task, ICF will also prepare a draft and final MMRP, as required by Section 15097
of the State CEQA Guidelines. The MMRP will be in a tabular format and include:
The mitigation measures to be implemented
The entity responsible for implementing a particular measure
The entity responsible for verifying that a particular measure has been completed
A monitoring milestone(s) or action(s) to mark implementation/completion of the mitigation
ICF will also compile all the references that are cited as sources in the IS/MND.
At the request of the City or SLC, ICF would attend additional public meetings as needed. At
that time, the remaining budget would be examined and ICF would try to accommodate
additional meetings within the budget. However, should additional budget be needed, each
meeting would cost approximately $500-$800.
Deliverables: One electronic copy of the Draft MMRP in MS Word and PDF formats; five (5)
hard copies of the Final MMRP; one electronic copy of the Final MMRP in MS Word and PDF
formats; one CD copy of the References cited in the IS/MND. ICF will also complete the Notice
of Determination (NOD). The City will post the NOD with the County Clerk and ICF will file with
the State Clearinghouse.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Proposal to Prepare an IS/MND for the 410 Airport
Boulevard Project in Burlingame, CA August 2022
Page 20
Task 9. Project Management and Meetings
The purpose of this task is to effectively manage the above tasks and maintain communication
with City and SLC staff. The ICF project management team will be responsible for coordination
activities, will maintain QA/QC requirements for document preparation, and will monitor
schedule and performance for MND tasks. Project management subtasks also include
maintaining internal communications among ICF staff and with City/SLC staff and other team
members through emails and frequent phone contact, as well as the preparation of all
correspondence. The Project Manager will coordinate internal staff, project guidance, and
analysis criteria.
This task also includes attending conference calls to accomplish the above tasks. Team
members will attend and participate in meetings on an as-needed basis. This scope of work
assumes bi-weekly zoom conference calls for this Project. Additional meeting attendance,
including in-person meetings should they be permitted, can be provided at additional cost.
In terms of progress reporting, ICF will prepare a brief progress report every month for the
Project documenting the key accomplishments on the CEQA process, schedule progress, and
identification of any key issues that have arisen that may affect the document, budget, or
schedule. ICF proposes to invoice the City monthly on a time-and-materials basis.
5. COST ESTIMATE
The cost estimate for the services described above is included as Attachment A to this proposal.
ICF will invoice monthly, on a time and materials basis. Invoices are due net thirty (30) days
from receipt.
6. SCHEDULE
Our preliminary project schedule is included as Attachment B.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Attachment A
Proposed 410 Airport Boulevard Cost
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
410 Airport Boulevard Project IS/MND
Mekkelson Atteberry Chung Thompson Matsui Mansoor Glaize Hardie Schumaker Roberts Sukola Barrera Unsworth Rusch Wildt Elder Wilming Webber Kozlowski Conley Editor TBD
Heidi Devan Victoria Kate Cory Jacqueline Pierre Jon Noah Diana Katrina Mario Ellen Jonathon Jennifer James Ross Lisa Jeffrey John
Labor Classification Tech Dir Assoc
Consult II
Assoc
Consult III Asst Consult Sr Consult II Assoc
Consult III Sr Consult II Sr Tech
Analyst
Assoc
Consult I Sr Consult I Assoc
Consult II
Assoc
Consult III Sr Consult II Sr Consult II Sr Consult II Mng
Consult Sr Consult I Sr Consult
III
Sr Tech
Analyst Sr Consult I Editor
Task Subtotal Subtotal Labor Total Direct Costs Total Price
Task 1. Kick Off Meeting/ Data Collection 2.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 $2,286.00 $0.00 $2,286.00 $2,303.15
Task 2. Project Description 2.0 6.0 8.0 16.0 4.0 $4,490.00 4.00 $548.00 $5,038.00 $5,075.79
Task 3. Admin Draft IS/MND 12.0 37.0 31.0 32.0 6.0 45.0 12.0 12.0 32.0 15.0 26.0 1.0 6.0 16.0 2.0 40.0 16.0 24.0 2.0 $55,912.00 24.00 $3,288.00 $59,200.00 $59,644.00
Optional Task 3a. HRA 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 45.0 $10,950.00 $0.00 $10,950.00 $11,032.13
Task 4. Screencheck Draft IS/MND 6.0 14.0 12.0 14.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 $7,829.00 16.00 $2,192.00 $10,021.00 $10,096.16
Task 5. Draft IS/MND 1.0 12.0 8.0 5.0 4.0 $3,985.00 8.00 $1,096.00 $5,081.00 $5,119.11
Task 6. Response to Comments and Admin Final IS/MND 3.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 2.0 $5,550.00 2.00 $274.00 $5,824.00 $5,867.68
Task 7. Final IS/MND 2.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 $2,142.00 1.00 $137.00 $2,279.00 $2,296.09
Task 8. Adoption Hearings, MMRP, and Admin Record 4.0 4.0 4.0 18.0 $3,770.00 1.00 $137.00 $3,907.00 $3,936.30
Task 9. Project Management and Meetings 10.0 32.0 18.0 $9,190.00 $0.00 $9,190.00 $9,258.93
Total hours 778.0 47.0 132.0 101.0 113.0 10.0 50.0 45.0 13.0 15.0 36.0 17.0 26.0 1.0 8.0 18.0 2.0 40.0 16.0 24.0 8.0 56.0
Billing Rates $256.00 $129.00 $139.00 $93.00 $168.00 $139.00 $164.00 $247.00 $104.00 $151.00 $121.00 $146.00 $164.00 $159.00 $169.00 $206.00 $149.00 $184.00 $226.00 $151.00 $137.00
Subtotal $12,032.00 $17,028.00 $14,039.00 $10,509.00 $1,680.00 $6,950.00 $7,380.00 $3,211.00 $1,560.00 $5,436.00 $2,057.00 $3,796.00 $164.00 $1,272.00 $3,042.00 $412.00 $5,960.00 $2,944.00 $5,424.00 $1,208.00 $106,104.00 $7,672.00 $7,672.00 $113,776.00
Total escalation, Period 2 of 3%, year 2023 $90.24 $127.71 $105.29 $78.82 $12.60 $52.13 $55.35 $24.08 $11.70 $40.77 $15.43 $28.47 $1.23 $9.54 $22.82 $3.09 $44.70 $22.08 $40.68 $9.06 $795.78 $57.54 $57.54 $853.32
Subtotal (including escalation)$12,122.24 $17,155.71 $14,144.29 $10,587.82 $1,692.60 $7,002.13 $7,435.35 $3,235.08 $1,571.70 $5,476.77 $2,072.43 $3,824.47 $165.23 $1,281.54 $3,064.82 $415.09 $6,004.70 $2,966.08 $5,464.68 $1,217.06 $106,899.78 $7,729.54 $7,729.54 $114,629.32
Other Direct Costs
523.02 Reproductions $800.00
523.04 Postage and Delivery $100.00
523.07 Surveys and Reports $900.00
Mark-up on Direct Expenses :10%$180.00
Direct expense subtotal $1,980.00
Total price $116,609.32
Total price without Optional Tasks $105,577.20
Consulting Staff ICF Production Staff
Employee Name
X0A0T
Date printed 8/31/2022 4:12 PM Approved by Finance { sh }Burlingame_410_AirportBlvd_Cost_Rev_082922(client)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Attachment B
Proposed 410 Airport Boulevard Schedule
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
0 410 Airport Boulevard Project IS/MND 156 days Mon 10/3/22 Mon 5/8/23
1 Project Initiation/Project Description 23 days Mon 10/3/22 Wed 11/2/22
2 Kick-Off, Scoping, and Team Meeting 1 day Mon 10/3/22 Mon 10/3/22
3 Prepare Project Description/Data Needs 10 days Tue 10/4/22 Mon 10/17/22
4 City/Applicant Reviews PD and Addresses Data Needs 12 days Tue 10/18/22 Wed 11/2/22
5 IS/MND 92 days Thu 11/3/22 Fri 3/10/23
6 ICF Prepares Admin Draft IS/MND 40 days Thu 11/3/22 Wed 12/28/22
7 City/Applicant Reviews Admin Draft IS/MND 10 days Thu 12/29/22 Wed 1/11/23
8 ICF Prepares Public Review Draft IS/MND 10 days Thu 1/12/23 Wed 1/25/23
9 City/Applicant Reviews Public Draft IS/MND 5 days Thu 1/26/23 Wed 2/1/23
10 ICF Finalizes Draft IS/MND 5 days Thu 2/2/23 Wed 2/8/23
11 Review Period 30 edays Wed 2/8/23 Fri 3/10/23
12 Final IS/MND 41 days Mon 3/13/23 Mon 5/8/23
13 ICF Prepares Admin Draft Responses to Comments 12 days Mon 3/13/23 Tue 3/28/23
14 City/Applicant Reviews Draft Responses to Comments6 days Wed 3/29/23 Wed 4/5/23
15 ICF Prepares Final IS/MND 6 days Thu 4/6/23 Thu 4/13/23
16 ICF Prepares Draft MMRP 5 days Fri 4/14/23 Thu 4/20/23
17 City/Applicant Reviews Draft MMRP 3 days Fri 4/21/23 Tue 4/25/23
18 ICF Prepares Final MMRP 2 days Wed 4/26/23 Thu 4/27/23
19 Public Meetings 7 days Fri 4/28/23 Mon 5/8/23
S N J M M J
Half 2, 2022 Half 1, 2023
2022 2023
Attachment B. Preliminary 410 Airport Boulevard IS/MND Schedule
Thu 8/25/22 4:04 PM Page 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Attachment C
Key Staff Resumes
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Heidi Mekkelson
Managing Director/Principal
Ms. Mekkelson is a managing director/principal with ICF’s
Environment and Planning Division. She has over 18 years of
experience in the preparation and management of environmental
analysis documentation pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Ms. Mekkelson has worked on documents for large residential
projects; mixed-use, urban infill developments; commercial/retail
projects; major league sports/entertainment venues; adaptive reuse
projects; transportation projects; and affordable housing. She has
also prepared numerous programmatic analyses for general plans,
specific plans, and habitat conservation plans. She is skilled at
preparing CEQA streamlining documents and has conducted
numerous trainings on the topic. Ms. Mekkelson focuses her work on
the Bay Area and Southern California, and she has extensive
experience managing private development projects in the cities of
Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Project Experience
1766 El Camino Real Project Class 32 Infill Exemption—City of
Burlingame Planning Division, Burlingame, California, 01/2022 –
06/2022
Project Director. Ms. Mekkelson served as project director for a
Class 32 Categorical Exemption document for a project that would
demolish an existing two-story mixed-use building that is currently
vacant, and construct a new eight-story, multiunit residential building
with 311 residential units, 319 vehicle spaces, 172 bicycle parking
spaces, and 14,132 sf of leasing and amenity space, as well as
25,892 sf of open space. ICF previously prepared an IS/MND for a
different project at the same location, and to the extent possible, the
analysis for this project relied on and/or updated the previous
analysis that was included as part of the IS/MND where relevant to
the currently proposed project.
Southline Specific Plan EIR—City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department, South San
Francisco, California, 03/2020 – present
Project Manager. Ms. Mekkelson is serving as project manager to
prepare an EIR for a new Specific Plan that would redevelop a 26.5-
acre industrial site in the City of South San Francisco adjacent to the
San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station with a transit-
oriented office/research and development (R&D) campus with a
maximum anticipated building area of 2.8 million square feet. New
development would include commercial buildings, a four-story
supportive amenities building, approximately 3,000 underground
parking spaces at various locations throughout the project site, a
nine-story parking structure, a new east-west connection road
(Southline Avenue), supportive utilities and related infrastructure, and
approximately 300,000 square feet of open space. The City intends
to use the EIR as a streamlining document for development
applications under the Specific Plan.
Years of Experience
Professional start date: 06/2003
ICF start date: 02/2016
Education
BS, Environmental Studies/
Biology, University of Southern
California, 2003
MSL, Water and Environmental
Law, University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law,
expected completion 2024
Professional Affiliations
Association of Environmental
Professionals
San Francisco Planning and
Urban Research Association
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
751 Gateway Boulevard EIR—City of South San Francisco Economic and Community
Development Department, South San Francisco, California, 11/2019 – 02/2021
Project Director. Ms. Mekkelson served as project director to prepare an EIR for the 751 Gateway
Boulevard project in the City of South San Francisco. The project would involve the redevelopment of an
approximately 7.4-acre, irregularly shaped site within the city’s Gateway Specific Plan planning area with
a research and development (R&D) facility and office building. The project site is currently occupied by an
existing 6-story, approximately 176,235-square foot (sf) office building at 701 Gateway Boulevard and a
surface parking lot containing approximately 558 parking spaces. The proposed project would require
entitlements to enable development of the project site, including, but not limited to, design review, precise
plan approval, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan approval, and a Conditional Use Permit
required for a parking reduction.
Bayhill Specific Plan EIR and Streamlined CEQA Documents—City of San Bruno Planning
Department, San Bruno, California, 07/2017 – present
Project Manager. Ms. Mekkelson served as project manager to prepare an EIR for a new Specific Plan
for the 73-acre Bayhill Office Park, which is San Bruno’s largest employment cluster, employing about
one-third of the 15,000 employees in the City, including You-Tube, Walmart.com, Kaiser Permanente,
Oracle, and others. The office park currently contains about 1.5 million square feet of office space. The
project site, which abuts the City’s adopted Transit Corridors Specific Plan area, also includes the
adjacent 10-acre Bayhill Shopping Center. The Specific Plan would allow for the development of up to
2.46 million net new square feet of office uses on the Project Site. The Specific Plan would also establish
housing and mixed-use overlay zones on a total of 20.5 acres in the southern portion of the Project Site
that would allow for the development of up to 573 multi-family residential units. The project would
accommodate the anticipated expansion of YouTube by adding additional office square footage while
also creating a pedestrian-friendly and cohesive mixed-use community that enhances the area’s identity
and image and provides greater linkages to nearby public transportation opportunities. The project was
approved and the EIR was certified by unanimous vote by the San Bruno City Council in October 2021.
The EIR now serves as a streamlining document for development applications under the Specific Plan.
With the EIR complete, ICF provides assistance to the City in reviewing development applications for
consistency with the Specific Plan, identifying the appropriate level of CEQA review, and preparing
streamlined analyses.
Skyline College Residential Project Addendum— City of San Bruno Planning Department, San
Bruno, California, 06/2017 – 03/2018
Project Manager. Ms. Mekkelson served as project manager for the preparation of an EIR Addendum for
a 71-unit residential project on an 8-acre site adjacent to the San Mateo County Community College
District’s (SMCCD) Skyline College Campus. The project was a component of the campus master plan for
Skyline College and was analyzed in a 2016 Program EIR (also prepared by ICF) for SMCCD’s updated
campus master plan for its three community college campuses. The Addendum examined the revised
residential project in the context of the 2016 Program EIR focusing on changes to environmental impacts
would result from the revisions to the project. ICF worked closely with SMCCD (the lead agency for the
campus master plan) and the City of San Bruno (the lead agency for the residential project) to prepare
the Addendum. The project was approved by the San Bruno City Council in 2018.
1100 El Camino Real Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA)—City of
Millbrae Community Development Department, City of Millbrae, California, 06/2020 – 03/2022
Project Director. Ms. Mekkelson served as project director for the preparation of a SCEA and associated
technical studies for a residential project at 1100 El Camino Real in the City of Millbrae. A SCEA is a type
of CEQA streamlining document that was created under Senate Bill 375. The proposed project would
include a five-story, 384-unit apartment building with a five-level parking garage and surface parking. The
project site is currently occupied by a 220-room hotel, a restaurant, two single-family homes, and a
surface parking lot. The existing uses would be demolished under the project. The project was approved
by the Millbrae Planning Commission in 2022.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Devan Atteberry
Senior Environmental Planner
Devan Atteberry is a senior environmental planner and graduate
from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo with a
B.S. in Environmental Management and Protection, and a minor in
Biology. She has four years of experience and knowledge conducting
environmental analyses in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). She has also worked on sections for various
forms of environmental documentation, including environmental
impact reports (EIRs), environmental impact statements (EISs), and
initial studies and mitigated negative declarations (IS/MNDs), as well
as categorical exemptions (CEs). Devan has worked on a wide range
of projects, including development, transportation, and habitat
conservation plans. Ms. Atteberry focuses her work on the Bay Area,
and she has extensive experience working on projects within the
Peninsula.
Project Experience
1766 El Camino Real Project Class 32 Infill Exemption—City of
Burlingame Planning Division, Burlingame, California, 01/2022 –
06/2022
Deputy Project Manager and Project Manager. Ms. Atteberry
served as deputy project manager and then project manager for a
Class 32 Categorical Exemption document for a project that would
demolish an existing two-story mixed-use building that is currently
vacant, and construct a new eight-story, multiunit residential building
with 311 residential units, 319 vehicle spaces, 172 bicycle parking
spaces, and 14,132 sf of leasing and amenity space, as well as
25,892 sf of open space. ICF previously prepared an IS/MND for a
different project at the same location, and to the extent possible, the
analysis for this project relied on and/or updated the previous
analysis that was included as part of the IS/MND where relevant to
the currently proposed project.
30 Ingold Road Project—City of Burlingame, Burlingame,
California, 05/202- 09/2020
Deputy Project Manager and Section Author. Served as deputy
project manager and section author to prepare a CE for the
demolition of a commercial building, surface parking and
landscaping, and the construction of a new 7-story building with 298
residential units, commercial uses, and a new park that would be
dedicated to the City. This project was approved in September 2020,
4.5-months after ICF held its kick-off meeting to start the CEQA
documentation. Devan drafted the project description and multiple
sections within the CE document, and helped to keep other section
authors on schedule.
601 California Drive Project—City of Burlingame, Burlingame,
California, 03/2020-09/2020
Deputy Project Manager and Section Author. Served as deputy
project manager and section author to prepare a CE for the
development of a new 5-story building with 25 live/work units. The
project was located in the City of Burlingame’s Downtown Specific
Years of Experience
Professional start date: 08/2018
ICF start date: 08/2018
Education
Bachelor’s Degree, Environmental
Management and Protection,
California Polytechnic State
University San Luis Obispo, 2018
Professional Affiliations
Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP), Member,
2018-Present
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Plan area. The project was approved in September 2020, 6-months after ICF held its kick-off meeting to
start the CEQA documentation. Devan drafted the project description and multiple sections within the CE
document, and helped to keep other section authors on schedule.
Southline Specific Plan EIR—City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco, California,
03/2020- ongoing
Deputy Project Manager and Section Author. Serving as deputy project manager and section author to
prepare an EIR for a new Specific Plan for the 26-acre Southline Specific Plan Area. The proposed
project would demolish all existing industrial uses on-site and construct seven office buildings, an
amenities building, underground parking throughout the site, a parking structure, a new road connection,
and approximately 369,000-square feet of open space. Development of the proposed project would be
phased, including a Phase I. In total, the project is anticipated to have a maximum building area of 2.8
million-square feet. Devan drafted the energy, wildfire, public services, and alternatives sections, and is
currently working on the final EIR.
751 Gateway Boulevard Project EIR—City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco,
California, 10/2019- 01/2021
Deputy Project Manager and Section Author. Served as deputy project manager and section author for
a project that would involve the redevelopment of an approximately 7.4-acre site within the city’s Gateway
Specific Plan planning area with a research and development (R&D) facility and office building. The
proposed project would require entitlements to enable development of the project site, including, but not
limited to, design review, precise plan approval, and a Conditional Use Permit required for a parking
reduction. Devan is drafted the energy, land use/planning, population/housing, public services, recreation,
utilities, and wildfire sections.
Lot 3 North: 1350 Adams Court Project EIR and IS/MND—City of Menlo Park, Menlo Park,
California, 08/2018-Ongoing
Project Manager and Section Author. Serving as project manager and section author for a project that
would redevelop a portion of the existing Menlo Park Labs Campus. The project site currently consists of
both an undeveloped vacant area on the northern portion at 1350 Adams Court (referred to as Lot 3
North) and an existing building on the southern portion at 1305 O’Brien Drive. The project would construct
an approximately 255,000 gsf, five-story life sciences building on Lot 3 North with parking. The existing
building at 1305 O’Brien Drive, and the campus property outside of the project site would remain in its
existing condition. ICF prepared an Initial Study and a focused DEIR. Devan drafted the energy, waterline
analysis, other CEQA, and alternatives sections, and is currently working on the FEIR.
1489 West Sunset Boulevard Project—City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, 09/2020-
Ongoing
Project Manager and Section Author. Serving as project manager and section author for the
preparation of a CE for the demolition of a parking lot and two commercial buildings, retaining two
buildings, and constructing a residential and commercial mixed-use building with two subterranean
parking levels, and five above-ground residential levels. The project would include a mixed-use building
with 136 residential units, 8,000 square feet of restaurant space, 985 square feet of outdoor eating areas,
a 930 square foot lobby and mailroom, and 2,050 square feet of residential amenity space. Devan is
managing the scope, schedule, and budget, and has drafted the project description and multiple sections
within the CE document.
1100 El Camino Real Project SCEA—City of Millbrae, Millbrae, California, 11/2021-03/2022
Deputy Project Manager and Section Author. Served as deputy project manager and section author for
the preparation of a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the redevelopment
of a 6.7-acre site that is currently developed with a hotel and two residential buildings that are surrounded
by surface parking. The project would demolish the existing uses, and construct a new five-story
apartment complex and parking garage on 5.5 acres of the site, and potentially construct a seven-story
hotel on the remaining 1.2 acres of the project site. Devan drafted the project description and multiple
sections within the SCEA document.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Victoria R. Chung, MURP
Senior Environmental Planner
Ms. Chung is a Senior Environmental Planner and a San Francisco
resident. She has a Master’s in Urban and Regional Planning
(MURP) from UC Irvine. She has over four years of experience
preparing environmental documents in accordance with CEQA for
various types of land use projects throughout California. She has
worked on General Plan updates, transportation infrastructure
improvements, specific plans, multi-family and single-family
residential, urban in-fill, bridge shelters, logistics warehouses, and
school projects. Her most recent project experience includes
preparing documents in the Central Valley region of California,
including the City of Kerman General Plan Update EIR, a Specific
Plan EIR for Madera County as well as several Initial Studies and
EIR Addendums. Prior to becoming an Environmental Planner, she
worked in State and local government in southern California
specializing in public policy, community engagement, special events,
public relations, and social justice advocacy.
Project Experience
Transportation
Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities
Environmental Impact Report–San Joaquin County Association
of Governments, San Joaquin County, 10/2021 – 04/2022*
Assistant Project Manager/Environmental Planner. Prepared a
Program Environmental Impact Report for the SJCOG Envision 2050
Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS). Envision 2050 would result in the 2022 RTP/SCS that
has policies and strategies to meet future challenges of the San
Joaquin region such as growth of the e-economy resulting in
increased telecommuting and internet shopping, and the widespread
use of autonomous and connected electric vehicles. Ms. Chung is
responsible for preparing multiple sections of the EIR including
Aesthetics, Geology and Soils, and Wildfire.
2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Environmental Impact Report–Santa Barbara
County Association of Governments, Santa Barbara County,
05/2021 – 03/2022*
Assistant Project Manager/Environmental Planner. Prepared a
Program Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the SBCAG
Fast Forward 2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy. The Regional Transportation Plan component
includes a list of all transportation improvement projects planned in
Santa Barbara County. The Sustainable Communities Strategy
identified a countywide land use scenario for the region that would
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through mixed-use
development, transit-oriented development, and active transportation
modes. Ms. Chung served as a planner for the SBCAG Fast Forward
2040 RTS/SCS Environmental Impact Report effort. Ms. Chung
prepared sections of the EIR including the Air Quality, Energy and
Aesthetics sections.
Years of Experience
Professional start date: 05/2016
ICF start date: 05/2022
Education
Master’s Degree, Urban and
Regional Planning, UC Irvine,
2018
Bachelor’s Degree, Political
Science, CSU Long Beach, 2013
Professional Affiliations
APACA Central Section, Special
Projects Coordinator, 2019-
Current
Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP), Member,
2018-Present
APACA Orange Section Board,
Member 2016-2018
Urban Planning Student
Association, UC Irvine, APA
Student Representative, 2016–
2017
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Construction Package No. 1, Ballast Track to Slab Track Re-Examination – California High Speed
Rail Authority – Merced to Fresno, Merced, and Fresno Counties*
Environmental Planner. Rincon is currently providing environmental compliance oversight as a member
of the Project Construction Management team for the Merced to Fresno Construction Package No. 1
portion of the California High-Speed Rail project. The re-examination documents minor modifications to
the project since approval of the original environmental document (Final EIR/EIS). Ms. Chung assisted in
preparing the re-examination of the Final EIR/EIS for the proposed Ballast track to Slab track. This
includes all aspects of environmental compliance such as biological resources, cultural resources, storm
water pollution prevention, paleontological resources, air quality, noise, hazardous materials, and
aesthetics.
San Ysidro Road Roundabout Addendum–County of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County*
Environmental Planner. Ms. Chung was the lead author of the Addendum to the Santa Barbara County
South Coast 101 HOV Lane Project. The Addendum evaluated the proposed project’s potential
environmental issues as it pertains to the Caltrans 101 HOV lane project. The analysis included
incorporation of several technical documents including a Visual Impact Assessment, a Natural
Environment Study-Minimal Impact, Tree Root Analysis and a Tree Replacement Plan.
Land Use/Contract Planning
1125 O’Brien EIR–City of Menlo Park, Menlo Park, 05/2022-Present
Project Manager/Environmental Planner. Ms. Chung manages the EIR for the project for this contract
which includes the redevelopment of an existing office park and would construct an approximately
131,284-square-foot (sf) building for research and development (R&D) uses and surface parking. The
project includes the preparation of an initial study tiered from the ConnectMenlo Program EIR and
subsequent Focused EIR. Ms. Chung prepared sections of the EIR including the executive summary and
alternatives.
Circuit Planning and Engineering–Fresno Council of Governments, Fresno County, 06/2019 –
05/2022 *
Assistant Project Manager/Environmental Planner. Ms. Chung provides support to the project
manager for this contract which includes the 13 smaller cities in Fresno County, implementing Blueprint
Smart Growth principles in conducting specific planning and engineering projects tailored to each City.
Circuit Planning and Engineering–Fresno Council of Governments, Fresno County, 06/2019 –
05/2022*
Assistant Project Manager/Environmental Planner. Ms. Chung provides support to the project
manager for this contract which includes the 13 smaller cities in Fresno County, implementing Blueprint
Smart Growth principles in conducting specific planning and engineering projects tailored to each City.
Recognition and Commendations
Awards
• APA California, Comprehensive Plan Award (Small), Kerman General Plan Update and Program
EIR, 2021
• APA Central Section, Merit in Planning Award-Comprehensive Planning; Small Jurisdiction
Category, City of Kerman General Plan Update and Program EIR, 2021
• California Planning Foundation, Scholarship Recipient, 2017
• 30 Under 30 Honoree, 70th Assembly District, Assembly Member Bonnie Lowenthal, 2013
Employment History
Rincon Consultants, Inc. Assistant Project Manager/Environmental Planner. Fresno, CA. 05/2019 – 05/2022.
FirstCarbon Solutions. Environmental Services Analyst. Irvine, CA. 04/2018 – 05/2019.
City of Long Beach. First District, Communications Director. Long Beach, CA. 10/2014 – 08/2016.
State of California. 70th Assembly District, Field Representative. Long Beach, CA. 05/2013 – 10/2014.
*These projects were completed at Rincon Consultants, Inc.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Exhibit B
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries
to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the
work hereunder and the results of that work by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 04
covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products-completed operations, personal &
advertising injury, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit
applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the
general aggregate limit shall be $2,000,000.
2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if
Contractor has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less
than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits,
and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily
injury or disease.
4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriate to the Contractor’s
profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.
If the contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be
entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the contractor.
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status
The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds on the auto
policy with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on
behalf of the contractor and on the general liability policy with respect to liability arising out of work or
operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished
in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an
endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20
10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).
Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance
as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after
thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the City.
Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor
may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Contractor
agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this
provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement
from the insurer.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may
require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of
ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the
retention.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless
otherwise acceptable to the City.
Claims Made Policies (note – should be applicable only to professional liability, see below)
If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage:
1. The Retroactive Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the
beginning of contract work.
2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5)
years after completion of the contract of work.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form
with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase
“extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.
Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the
applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements
are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the
required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide
them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies,
including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk,
prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2FA8CC53-494D-4464-831A-E6F2DC1EA475
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9d
MEETING DATE: December 2, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: December 2, 2024
From: Maria Saguisag-Sid, Human Resources Director– (650) 558-7209
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing an Eleventh Amendment of the City
Manager’s Employment Agreement and Approving the City of Burlingame
Pay Rates and Ranges (Salary Schedules)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor
to execute an Eleventh Amendment to City Manager Lisa K. Goldman’s Employment
Agreement to provide an 11% equity adjustment to her salary effective December 2, 2024,
a 5% salary increase effective December 30, 2024, and approving the City of Burlingame
pay rates and ranges for employees (salary schedules).
BACKGROUND
City Manager Lisa Goldman began her service with the City of Burlingame on December
27, 2012, pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement between the City and Ms.
Goldman. On November 13, 2024, the City Council met with Ms. Goldman in a closed
session to review her performance after her twelfth year as City Manager. Per Paragraph
7, Employment Benefits, of the Employment Agreement, Ms. Goldman receives the same
benefits provided to City Department Heads.
DISCUSSION
Following their evaluation of her performance, the Council discussed Ms. Goldman’s
compensation in Closed Session on November 13, 2024. In recognition of Ms. Goldman’s
positive performance evaluation, and after reviewing a recent market study of City
Managers in the area, the City Council discussed a proposal to provide 1) an equity
adjustment to the City Manager’s salary of 11% effective December 2, 2024, and 2) a
salary adjustment at the same time and in the same amount received by the Department
Head group of 5% effective December 30, 2024. Per the current Compensation and
Benefits Plan for Department Heads and Unrepresented Classifications, the Department
Head group is scheduled to receive a salary adjustment of 5%, effective December 30,
2024.
Amendment to the City Manager’s Employment Agreement and Salary Schedule Update December 2, 2024
2
To enact these changes, Section 5 of the Employment Agreement must be amended to
increase the monthly salary from $24,015.23 per month to $26,656.90 per month effective
December 2, 2024, and to $27,989.75 per month effective December 30, 2024.
The proposed increases for the City Manager require the City Council to authorize a new
salary schedule that, once approved, will be made available to the public via the City of
Burlingame website. The recommended new salary schedules are attached. The salary
schedules effective December 30, 2024, also contain the previously approved increases
for the City Council, the City Attorney, various employee groups (i.e. Burlingame
Association of Middle Managers, Department Heads/Unrepresented, Police
Administrators, Police Officers Association, Police Sergeants Association, Teamsters) and
related Casual/Seasonal classifications that are tied to the affected employee groups.
FISCAL IMPACT
The financial impact of this increase for the remainder of the fiscal year is approximately
$32,784. The City Manager’s Office budget can absorb the increase using existing funds
for the remainder of the current fiscal year.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Eleventh Amendment to City Manager’s Employment Agreement
• Employment Agreement
• Salary Schedule effective December 2, 2024
• Salary Schedules effective December 30, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING AN ELEVENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CITY MANAGER’S
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE PAY INCREASES AND REVISION TO
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MERIT AND CASUAL SALARY SCHEDULES
WHEREAS, City Manager Lisa K. Goldman began her service with the City on
December 27, 2012 pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement between the City
and Ms. Goldman; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted performance evaluations for Ms.
Goldman upon completion of each year with the City, all of which have been positive; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined, following its evaluation of Ms. Goldman
on November 13, 2024, that an equity adjustment salary increase of 11% was warranted
in recognition of Ms. Goldman’s successful performance, effective December 2, 2024;
and
WHEREAS, the City Department Head and Unrepresented unit is to receive a 5%
increase effective December 30, 2024, as approved in their current Compensation and
Benefit Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further determined that Ms. Goldman should receive
a salary pay adjustment in the same amount (5%) and at the same time as the City
Department Heads, effective December 30, 2024; and
WHEREAS, all other terms and conditions of Ms. Goldman’s employment are to
remain as provided in her current Employment Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Salary Schedules have been revised in
accordance with these actions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Salary Schedules have also been revised to
reflect the previously approved pay increases granted by the City Council in applicable
MOUs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Burlingame
1) Authorizes the Mayor to execute the attached Eleventh Amendment to Ms.
Goldman’s City Manager Employment Agreement, to increase Ms. Goldman’s
base salary by 11%, effective December 2, 2024, by 5% effective December 30,
2024, and leaving all other terms and conditions of employment as provided in the
City Manager Employment Agreement.
2) Authorizes and adopts the revised City of Burlingame Salary Schedule effective
December 2, 2024.
3) Authorizes and adopts the revised City of Burlingame Salary Schedules, effective
December 30, 2024.
Donna Colson, 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 December 2024, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
ELEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME AND LISA K. GOLDMAN FOR EMPLOYMENT AS CITY
MANAGER OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
This Eleventh Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Eleventh Amendment”) is
entered into this 2nd day of December 2024, by and between the City of Burlingame, a
Municipal Corporation existing under the laws of the State of California, herein called the
“City,” and Lisa K. Goldman (“Ms. Goldman”), as follows:
RECITALS
A. Ms. Goldman is currently serving as City Manager for the City of Burlingame pursuant
to that contract denominated “Agreement Between the City of Burlingame and Lisa
K. Goldman for Employment as City Manager of the City of Burlingame”
(“Employment Agreement”), entered into on November 19, 2012, and amended on
January 6, 2014, January 5, 2015, January 3, 2017, January 16, 2018, January 7, 2019,
January 6, 2020, January 3, 2022, January 17, 2023, January 16, 2024 and March 18,
2024.
B. Ms. Goldman has successfully completed her twelfth year with the City. Subsequent
to a performance evaluation, the City Council determined that her salary should be
increased with an equity adjustment of 11% effective December 2, 2024.
C. The City Council has further determined that Ms. Goldman should receive a salary
adjustment in the same amount and at the same time as provided to Department Heads,
which will be 5% effective December 30, 2024.
D. Both parties are amenable to these changes and desire that all other terms and
conditions of the existing Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect.
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Paragraph 5, Monthly Compensation, of the Employment Agreement shall be
amended to provide that the City shall pay Ms. Goldman a salary of $26,656.90 per
month effective December 2, 2024, and $27,989.75 per month effective December 30,
2024.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Ms. Goldman have executed this Eleventh
Amendment as of the date indicated above.
CITY OF BURLINGAME LISA K. GOLDMAN
Donna Colson, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk Michael Guina, City Attorney
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E
ANNUAL $90,817.85 $95,381.04 $100,135.71 $105,081.85 $110,347.18
MONTHLY $7,568.15 $7,948.42 $8,344.64 $8,756.82 $9,195.60
BI-WEEKLY $3,492.99 $3,668.50 $3,851.37 $4,041.61 $4,244.12
HOURLY RATE $43.6624 $45.8563 $48.1421 $50.5201 $53.0515
ANNUAL $95,061.99 $99,784.71 $104,666.98 $109,964.25 $115,452.86
MONTHLY $7,921.83 $8,315.39 $8,722.25 $9,163.69 $9,621.07
BI-WEEKLY $3,656.23 $3,837.87 $4,025.65 $4,229.39 $4,440.49
HOURLY RATE $45.7029 $47.9734 $50.3206 $52.8674 $55.5061
ANNUAL $64,970.19 $68,257.01 $71,671.45 $75,085.85 $78,691.74
MONTHLY $5,414.18 $5,688.08 $5,972.62 $6,257.15 $6,557.65
BI-WEEKLY $2,498.85 $2,625.27 $2,756.59 $2,887.92 $3,026.61
HOURLY RATE $31.2356 $32.8159 $34.4574 $36.0990 $37.8326
ANNUAL $71,671.45 $75,085.85 $78,691.74 $82,329.56 $86,382.24
MONTHLY $5,972.62 $6,257.15 $6,557.65 $6,860.80 $7,198.52
BI-WEEKLY $2,756.59 $2,887.92 $3,026.61 $3,166.52 $3,322.39
HOURLY RATE $34.4574 $36.0990 $37.8326 $39.5815 $41.5299
ANNUAL $82,329.56 $86,382.24 $90,626.38 $95,189.59 $99,944.25
MONTHLY $6,860.80 $7,198.52 $7,552.20 $7,932.47 $8,328.69
BI-WEEKLY $3,166.52 $3,322.39 $3,485.63 $3,661.14 $3,844.01
HOURLY RATE $39.5815 $41.5299 $43.5704 $45.7643 $48.0501
ANNUAL $90,817.85 $95,381.04 $100,135.71 $105,081.85 $110,347.18
MONTHLY $7,568.15 $7,948.42 $8,344.64 $8,756.82 $9,195.60
BI-WEEKLY $3,492.99 $3,668.50 $3,851.37 $4,041.61 $4,244.12
HOURLY RATE $43.6624 $45.8563 $48.1421 $50.5201 $53.0515
ANNUAL $229,308.75 $240,730.20
MONTHLY $19,109.06 $20,060.85
BI-WEEKLY $8,819.57 $9,258.85
HOURLY RATE $110.2446 $115.7356
ANNUAL $78,500.27 $82,584.88 $86,733.23 $91,009.31 $95,381.04
MONTHLY $6,541.69 $6,882.07 $7,227.77 $7,584.11 $7,948.42
BI-WEEKLY $3,019.24 $3,176.34 $3,335.89 $3,500.36 $3,668.50
HOURLY RATE $37.7405 $39.7043 $41.6986 $43.7545 $45.8563
ANNUAL $86,382.24 $90,626.38 $95,125.72 $99,593.26 $104,379.85
MONTHLY $7,198.52 $7,552.20 $7,927.14 $8,299.44 $8,698.32
BI-WEEKLY $3,322.39 $3,485.63 $3,658.68 $3,830.51 $4,014.61
HOURLY RATE $41.5299 $43.5704 $45.7335 $47.8814 $50.1826
ANNUAL $166,525.16 $174,851.39 $183,593.95 $192,773.65 $202,412.33
MONTHLY $13,877.10 $14,570.95 $15,299.50 $16,064.47 $16,867.69
BI-WEEKLY $6,404.81 $6,725.05 $7,061.31 $7,414.37 $7,785.09
HOURLY RATE $80.0601 $84.0631 $88.2664 $92.6796 $97.3136
ANNUAL $180,057.74 $188,848.39 $198,323.40 $208,140.49 $218,675.49
MONTHLY $15,004.81 $15,737.37 $16,526.95 $17,345.04 $18,222.96
BI-WEEKLY $6,925.30 $7,263.40 $7,627.82 $8,005.40 $8,410.60
HOURLY RATE $86.5663 $90.7925 $95.3478 $100.0675 $105.1325
D106 ASSIST CM ADMIN. SVCS. DIR
D502 ASSIST CITY ATTORNEY
A100 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II
A105 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I
D202 ACTING POLICE CHIEF
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SALARY SCHEDULE - MERIT
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/2/2024
JOB DESCRIPTION
A109 ACCOUNTANT I
A103 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN
A102 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT III
A160 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT II
A104 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT I
A117 ACCOUNTANT II
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL $111,400.16 $116,825.03 $122,377.48 $128,791.46 $135,301.25
MONTHLY $9,283.35 $9,735.42 $10,198.12 $10,732.62 $11,275.10
BI-WEEKLY $4,284.62 $4,493.27 $4,706.83 $4,953.52 $5,203.89
HOURLY RATE $53.5578 $56.1659 $58.8354 $61.9190 $65.0486
ANNUAL $103,217.77 $108,379.01 $113,797.73 $119,487.64 $125,462.34
MONTHLY $8,601.48 $9,031.58 $9,483.14 $9,957.30 $10,455.20
BI-WEEKLY $3,969.91 $4,168.42 $4,376.84 $4,595.68 $4,825.47
HOURLY RATE $49.6239 $52.1053 $54.7105 $57.4460 $60.3184
ANNUAL $95,030.05 $99,784.71 $104,698.92 $109,932.31 $115,452.86
MONTHLY $7,919.17 $8,315.39 $8,724.91 $9,161.03 $9,621.07
BI-WEEKLY $3,655.00 $3,837.87 $4,026.88 $4,228.17 $4,440.49
HOURLY RATE $45.6875 $47.9734 $50.3360 $52.8521 $55.5061
ANNUAL $126,821.94 $133,149.26 $139,797.66 $146,803.47 $154,166.82
MONTHLY $10,568.50 $11,095.77 $11,649.81 $12,233.62 $12,847.24
BI-WEEKLY $4,877.77 $5,121.13 $5,376.83 $5,646.29 $5,929.49
HOURLY RATE $60.9721 $64.0141 $67.2104 $70.5786 $74.1186
ANNUAL $122,505.09 $128,504.33 $134,631.18 $141,747.29 $148,895.19
MONTHLY $10,208.76 $10,708.69 $11,219.27 $11,812.27 $12,407.93
BI-WEEKLY $4,711.73 $4,942.47 $5,178.12 $5,451.82 $5,726.74
HOURLY RATE $58.8966 $61.7809 $64.7265 $68.1478 $71.5843
ANNUAL $106,103.04 $111,400.16 $116,984.55 $122,919.94 $129,078.73
MONTHLY $8,841.92 $9,283.35 $9,748.71 $10,243.33 $10,756.56
BI-WEEKLY $4,080.89 $4,284.62 $4,499.41 $4,727.69 $4,964.57
HOURLY RATE $51.0111 $53.5578 $56.2426 $59.0961 $62.0571
ANNUAL $176,228.56 $185,107.10 $194,020.72 $203,956.04 $214,173.25
MONTHLY $14,685.71 $15,425.59 $16,168.39 $16,996.34 $17,847.77
BI-WEEKLY $6,778.02 $7,119.50 $7,462.34 $7,844.46 $8,237.43
HOURLY RATE $84.7253 $88.9938 $93.2793 $98.0558 $102.9679
ANNUAL $52,365.48 $54,918.26 $57,758.27 $60,662.19 $63,598.01
MONTHLY $4,363.79 $4,576.52 $4,813.19 $5,055.18 $5,299.83
BI-WEEKLY $2,014.06 $2,112.24 $2,221.47 $2,333.16 $2,446.08
HOURLY RATE $25.1758 $26.4030 $27.7684 $29.1645 $30.5760
ANNUAL $68,927.06
MONTHLY $5,743.92
BI-WEEKLY $2,651.04
HOURLY RATE $33.1380
ANNUAL $105,369.11 $110,347.18 $116,123.04 $121,611.63 $127,451.22
MONTHLY $8,780.76 $9,195.60 $9,676.92 $10,134.30 $10,620.94
BI-WEEKLY $4,052.66 $4,244.12 $4,466.27 $4,677.37 $4,901.97
HOURLY RATE $50.6583 $53.0515 $55.8284 $58.4671 $61.2746
ANNUAL $110,634.31 $115,867.70 $121,930.68 $127,674.61 $133,833.39
MONTHLY $9,219.53 $9,655.64 $10,160.89 $10,639.55 $11,152.78
BI-WEEKLY $4,255.17 $4,456.45 $4,689.64 $4,910.56 $5,147.44
HOURLY RATE $53.1896 $55.7056 $58.6205 $61.3820 $64.3430
ANNUAL $79,936.26 $84,180.33 $87,594.90 $92,190.02 $96,721.30
MONTHLY $6,661.36 $7,015.03 $7,299.58 $7,682.50 $8,060.11
BI-WEEKLY $3,074.47 $3,237.71 $3,369.03 $3,545.77 $3,720.05
HOURLY RATE $38.4309 $40.4714 $42.1129 $44.3221 $46.5006
ANNUAL $87,816.40 $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,318.03 $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,377.55 $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $42.2194 $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
S603 CCTV LEADWORKER
A101 BUILDING MAINTENANCE
WORKER
A613 BUILDING INSPECTOR II
A603 BUILDING INSPECTOR I
A706 BUILDING ATTENDANT - CS
A705 BUILDING ATTENDANT
B600 ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS
A112 ASSOCIATE PLANNER
A608 ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
D300 ASSISTANT TO THE CITY
MANAGER
A111 ASSISTANT PLANNER
B421 ASSISTANT PARKS SUPERVISOR
A605 ASSISTANT ENGINEER
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL $151,038.05 $158,542.32 $166,363.97 $174,537.63 $183,204.50
MONTHLY $12,586.50 $13,211.86 $13,863.66 $14,544.80 $15,267.04
BI-WEEKLY $5,809.16 $6,097.78 $6,398.61 $6,712.99 $7,046.33
HOURLY RATE $72.6145 $76.2223 $79.9826 $83.9124 $88.0791
ANNUAL $273,716.71
MONTHLY $22,809.73
BI-WEEKLY $10,527.57
HOURLY RATE $131.5946
ANNUAL $187,749.64 $197,085.61 $206,985.90 $217,343.90 $228,160.12
MONTHLY $15,645.80 $16,423.80 $17,248.83 $18,111.99 $19,013.34
BI-WEEKLY $7,221.14 $7,580.22 $7,961.00 $8,359.38 $8,775.39
HOURLY RATE $90.2643 $94.7528 $99.5125 $104.4923 $109.6924
ANNUAL $161,794.66 $170,002.09 $178,209.08 $187,368.44 $196,711.31
MONTHLY $13,482.89 $14,166.84 $14,850.76 $15,614.04 $16,392.61
BI-WEEKLY $6,222.87 $6,538.54 $6,854.20 $7,206.48 $7,565.82
HOURLY RATE $77.7859 $81.7318 $85.6775 $90.0810 $94.5728
ANNUAL $187,749.64 $197,085.61 $206,985.90 $217,343.90 $228,160.12
MONTHLY $15,645.80 $16,423.80 $17,248.83 $18,111.99 $19,013.34
BI-WEEKLY $7,221.14 $7,580.22 $7,961.00 $8,359.38 $8,775.39
HOURLY RATE $90.2643 $94.7528 $99.5125 $104.4923 $109.6924
ANNUAL $319,882.81
MONTHLY $26,656.90
BI-WEEKLY $12,303.19
HOURLY RATE $153.7899
ANNUAL $108,062.71 $113,010.93 $118,689.76 $124,567.75 $130,811.02
MONTHLY $9,005.23 $9,417.58 $9,890.81 $10,380.65 $10,900.92
BI-WEEKLY $4,156.26 $4,346.57 $4,564.99 $4,791.07 $5,031.19
HOURLY RATE $51.9533 $54.3321 $57.0624 $59.8884 $62.8899
ANNUAL $101,561.18 $106,617.91 $111,966.57 $117,535.69 $123,434.63
MONTHLY $8,463.43 $8,884.83 $9,330.55 $9,794.64 $10,286.22
BI-WEEKLY $3,906.20 $4,100.69 $4,306.41 $4,520.60 $4,747.49
HOURLY RATE $48.8275 $51.2586 $53.8301 $56.5075 $59.3436
ANNUAL $187,749.64 $197,085.61 $206,985.90 $217,343.90 $228,160.12
MONTHLY $15,645.80 $16,423.80 $17,248.83 $18,111.99 $19,013.34
BI-WEEKLY $7,221.14 $7,580.22 $7,961.00 $8,359.38 $8,775.39
HOURLY RATE $90.2643 $94.7528 $99.5125 $104.4923 $109.6924
ANNUAL $84,653.90 $88,466.47 $92,685.81 $97,016.91 $101,791.80
MONTHLY $7,054.49 $7,372.21 $7,723.82 $8,084.74 $8,482.65
BI-WEEKLY $3,255.92 $3,402.56 $3,564.84 $3,731.42 $3,915.07
HOURLY RATE $40.6990 $42.5320 $44.5605 $46.6428 $48.9384
ANNUAL $88,836.29 $92,723.07 $97,312.94 $101,791.80 $107,010.86
MONTHLY $7,403.02 $7,726.92 $8,109.41 $8,482.65 $8,917.57
BI-WEEKLY $3,416.78 $3,566.27 $3,742.81 $3,915.07 $4,115.80
HOURLY RATE $42.7098 $44.5784 $46.7851 $48.9384 $51.4475
ANNUAL $7,080.48
MONTHLY $590.04
ANNUAL $65,544.58 $68,544.15 $71,958.57 $75,755.90 $79,649.05
MONTHLY $5,462.05 $5,712.01 $5,996.55 $6,312.99 $6,637.42
BI-WEEKLY $2,520.95 $2,636.31 $2,767.64 $2,913.69 $3,063.43
HOURLY RATE $31.5119 $32.9539 $34.5955 $36.4211 $38.2929
A106 CUSTODIAN
D100 COUNCIL MEMBER
T901 COMMUNICATION DISPATCHER II
T900 COMMUNICATION DISPATCHER I
D108 COMM DEV DIRECTOR
B103 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER
D110 CODE COMP OFF SNR RISK
ANALYST
D200 CITY MANAGER
D801 CITY LIBRARIAN
B602 CITY ENGINEER
D109 CITY CLERK
D102 CITY ATTORNEY
B604 CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL $95,061.99 $99,784.71 $104,666.98 $109,964.25 $115,452.86
MONTHLY $7,921.83 $8,315.39 $8,722.25 $9,163.69 $9,621.07
BI-WEEKLY $3,656.23 $3,837.87 $4,025.65 $4,229.39 $4,440.49
HOURLY RATE $45.7029 $47.9734 $50.3206 $52.8674 $55.5061
ANNUAL $119,397.64 $125,367.53 $131,635.92 $138,217.71 $145,128.57
MONTHLY $9,949.80 $10,447.29 $10,969.66 $11,518.14 $12,094.05
BI-WEEKLY $4,592.22 $4,821.83 $5,062.92 $5,316.07 $5,581.87
HOURLY RATE $57.4028 $60.2729 $63.2865 $66.4509 $69.7734
ANNUAL $161,327.43 $169,429.09 $177,863.99 $186,815.90 $196,064.12
MONTHLY $13,443.95 $14,119.09 $14,822.00 $15,567.99 $16,338.68
BI-WEEKLY $6,204.90 $6,516.50 $6,840.92 $7,185.23 $7,540.93
HOURLY RATE $77.5613 $81.4563 $85.5115 $89.8154 $94.2616
ANNUAL $143,533.79 $150,721.11 $158,260.57 $166,116.99 $174,467.20
MONTHLY $11,961.15 $12,560.09 $13,188.38 $13,843.08 $14,538.93
BI-WEEKLY $5,520.53 $5,796.97 $6,086.95 $6,389.12 $6,710.28
HOURLY RATE $69.0066 $72.4621 $76.0869 $79.8640 $83.8785
ANNUAL $198,530.36 $208,430.27 $218,894.11 $229,816.13 $241,337.13
MONTHLY $16,544.20 $17,369.19 $18,241.18 $19,151.34 $20,111.43
BI-WEEKLY $7,635.78 $8,016.55 $8,419.00 $8,839.08 $9,282.20
HOURLY RATE $95.4473 $100.2069 $105.2375 $110.4885 $116.0275
ANNUAL $115,867.70 $121,675.49 $127,770.42 $134,152.45 $140,853.70
MONTHLY $9,655.64 $10,139.62 $10,647.54 $11,179.37 $11,737.81
BI-WEEKLY $4,456.45 $4,679.83 $4,914.25 $5,159.71 $5,417.45
HOURLY RATE $55.7056 $58.4979 $61.4281 $64.4964 $67.7181
ANNUAL $114,604.95 $119,807.30 $125,889.39 $132,081.14 $138,713.00
MONTHLY $9,550.41 $9,983.94 $10,490.78 $11,006.76 $11,559.42
BI-WEEKLY $4,407.88 $4,607.97 $4,841.90 $5,080.04 $5,335.12
HOURLY RATE $55.0985 $57.5996 $60.5238 $63.5005 $66.6890
ANNUAL $89,700.99 $93,976.93 $98,667.87 $103,741.60 $108,719.67
MONTHLY $7,475.08 $7,831.41 $8,222.32 $8,645.13 $9,059.97
BI-WEEKLY $3,450.04 $3,614.50 $3,794.92 $3,990.06 $4,181.53
HOURLY RATE $43.1255 $45.1813 $47.4365 $49.8758 $52.2691
ANNUAL $89,349.87 $93,881.27 $98,667.87 $103,518.20 $108,624.01
MONTHLY $7,445.82 $7,823.44 $8,222.32 $8,626.52 $9,052.00
BI-WEEKLY $3,436.53 $3,610.82 $3,794.92 $3,981.47 $4,177.85
HOURLY RATE $42.9566 $45.1353 $47.4365 $49.7684 $52.2231
ANNUAL $105,490.26 $110,718.27 $116,340.14 $122,105.20 $128,192.45
MONTHLY $8,790.86 $9,226.52 $9,695.01 $10,175.43 $10,682.70
BI-WEEKLY $4,057.32 $4,258.40 $4,474.62 $4,696.35 $4,930.48
HOURLY RATE $50.7165 $53.2300 $55.9328 $58.7044 $61.6310
ANNUAL $87,476.79 $91,767.36 $96,335.65 $101,181.69 $106,367.31
MONTHLY $7,289.73 $7,647.28 $8,027.97 $8,431.81 $8,863.94
BI-WEEKLY $3,364.49 $3,529.51 $3,705.22 $3,891.60 $4,091.05
HOURLY RATE $42.0561 $44.1189 $46.3153 $48.6450 $51.1381
ANNUAL $90,404.51 $94,526.24 $99,388.39 $104,356.30 $109,605.46
MONTHLY $7,533.71 $7,877.19 $8,282.37 $8,696.36 $9,133.79
BI-WEEKLY $3,477.10 $3,635.62 $3,822.63 $4,013.70 $4,215.59
HOURLY RATE $43.4638 $45.4453 $47.7829 $50.1713 $52.6949
ANNUAL $122,079.04 $128,197.32 $134,609.36 $141,350.71 $148,385.65
MONTHLY $10,173.25 $10,683.11 $11,217.45 $11,779.23 $12,365.47
BI-WEEKLY $4,695.35 $4,930.67 $5,177.28 $5,436.57 $5,707.14
HOURLY RATE $58.6919 $61.6334 $64.7160 $67.9571 $71.3393
B900 FACILITIES AND FLEET MANAGER
D105 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
S607 EQUIPMENT MECHANIC
A625 ENV REG COMPLIANCE
MANAGER
A604 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II
A301 EMERGENCY PREP/FIRE ED
B605 ELECTRICAL SUPERVISOR
A451 ECON DEV & HOUSING
SPECIALIST
D600 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
B107 DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR
B603 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PW OPS
D501 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
A116 CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL $87,816.40 $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,318.03 $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,377.55 $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $42.2194 $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $79,914.48 $84,081.36 $87,692.93 $92,261.23 $96,706.06
MONTHLY $6,659.54 $7,006.78 $7,307.74 $7,688.44 $8,058.84
BI-WEEKLY $3,073.63 $3,233.90 $3,372.81 $3,548.51 $3,719.46
HOURLY RATE $38.4204 $40.4238 $42.1601 $44.3564 $46.4933
ANNUAL $110,102.18 $115,596.59 $121,430.36 $127,511.09 $133,838.78
MONTHLY $9,175.18 $9,633.05 $10,119.20 $10,625.92 $11,153.23
BI-WEEKLY $4,234.70 $4,446.02 $4,670.40 $4,904.27 $5,147.65
HOURLY RATE $52.9338 $55.5753 $58.3800 $61.3034 $64.3456
ANNUAL $196,733.52 $206,563.13 $216,815.51 $227,737.39 $239,082.05
MONTHLY $16,394.46 $17,213.59 $18,067.96 $18,978.12 $19,923.50
BI-WEEKLY $7,566.67 $7,944.74 $8,339.06 $8,759.13 $9,195.46
HOURLY RATE $94.5834 $99.3093 $104.2383 $109.4891 $114.9433
ANNUAL $128,955.72 $135,742.86 $142,887.22 $150,407.60 $158,323.79
MONTHLY $10,746.31 $11,311.91 $11,907.27 $12,533.97 $13,193.65
BI-WEEKLY $4,959.84 $5,220.88 $5,495.66 $5,784.91 $6,089.38
HOURLY RATE $61.9980 $65.2610 $68.6958 $72.3114 $76.1173
ANNUAL $119,331.00 $125,376.39 $131,604.61 $138,163.13 $145,050.96
MONTHLY $9,944.25 $10,448.03 $10,967.05 $11,513.59 $12,087.58
BI-WEEKLY $4,589.65 $4,822.17 $5,061.72 $5,313.97 $5,578.88
HOURLY RATE $57.3706 $60.2771 $63.2715 $66.4246 $69.7360
ANNUAL $110,102.18 $115,596.59 $121,430.36 $127,511.09 $133,838.78
MONTHLY $9,175.18 $9,633.05 $10,119.20 $10,625.92 $11,153.23
BI-WEEKLY $4,234.70 $4,446.02 $4,670.40 $4,904.27 $5,147.65
HOURLY RATE $52.9338 $55.5753 $58.3800 $61.3034 $64.3456
ANNUAL $79,298.06 $83,254.94 $87,403.42 $91,775.17 $96,370.31
MONTHLY $6,608.17 $6,937.91 $7,283.62 $7,647.93 $8,030.86
BI-WEEKLY $3,049.93 $3,202.11 $3,361.67 $3,529.81 $3,706.55
HOURLY RATE $38.1241 $40.0264 $42.0209 $44.1226 $46.3319
ANNUAL $91,775.17 $96,370.31 $101,252.57 $106,230.64 $111,559.70
MONTHLY $7,647.93 $8,030.86 $8,437.71 $8,852.55 $9,296.64
BI-WEEKLY $3,529.81 $3,706.55 $3,894.33 $4,085.79 $4,290.76
HOURLY RATE $44.1226 $46.3319 $48.6791 $51.0724 $53.6345
ANNUAL $105,870.91 $111,191.18 $116,511.15 $122,465.18 $128,630.91
MONTHLY $8,822.58 $9,265.93 $9,709.26 $10,205.43 $10,719.24
BI-WEEKLY $4,071.96 $4,276.58 $4,481.20 $4,710.20 $4,947.34
HOURLY RATE $50.8995 $53.4573 $56.0150 $58.8775 $61.8418
ANNUAL $187,749.64 $197,085.61 $206,985.90 $217,343.90 $228,160.12
MONTHLY $15,645.80 $16,423.80 $17,248.83 $18,111.99 $19,013.34
BI-WEEKLY $7,221.14 $7,580.22 $7,961.00 $8,359.38 $8,775.39
HOURLY RATE $90.2643 $94.7528 $99.5125 $104.4923 $109.6924
ANNUAL $80,553.97 $84,350.71 $88,489.61 $92,902.07 $97,759.15
MONTHLY $6,712.83 $7,029.23 $7,374.13 $7,741.84 $8,146.60
BI-WEEKLY $3,098.23 $3,244.26 $3,403.45 $3,573.16 $3,759.97
HOURLY RATE $38.7279 $40.5533 $42.5431 $44.6645 $46.9996
ANNUAL $87,816.40 $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,318.03 $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,377.55 $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $42.2194 $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
S610 INSTRUMENTATION MECHANIC
TECH
D400 HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN
D805 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
D107 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II
A614 GREEN BUILDING SPECIALIST
A805 GRAPHIC ARTIST
B612 FLEET SUPERVISOR
B606 FLEET MANAGER
B108 FINANCIAL SERVICES MANAGER
D103 FINANCE DIRECTOR
B611 FACILITIES SUPERVISOR
S703 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
WORKER
S704 FACILITIES LEADWORKER
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL $79,574.87 $83,309.72 $87,476.79 $91,767.36 $96,335.65
MONTHLY $6,631.24 $6,942.48 $7,289.73 $7,647.28 $8,027.97
BI-WEEKLY $3,060.57 $3,204.22 $3,364.49 $3,529.51 $3,705.22
HOURLY RATE $38.2571 $40.0528 $42.0561 $44.1189 $46.3153
ANNUAL $101,156.90 $105,975.44 $111,400.16 $116,825.03 $122,377.48
MONTHLY $8,429.74 $8,831.29 $9,283.35 $9,735.42 $10,198.12
BI-WEEKLY $3,890.65 $4,075.98 $4,284.62 $4,493.27 $4,706.83
HOURLY RATE $48.6331 $50.9498 $53.5578 $56.1659 $58.8354
ANNUAL $91,857.07 $96,335.20 $101,160.76 $106,229.12 $111,679.45
MONTHLY $7,654.76 $8,027.93 $8,430.06 $8,852.43 $9,306.62
BI-WEEKLY $3,532.96 $3,705.20 $3,890.80 $4,085.74 $4,295.36
HOURLY RATE $44.1620 $46.3150 $48.6350 $51.0718 $53.6920
ANNUAL $87,816.40 $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,318.03 $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,377.55 $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $42.2194 $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $87,816.40 $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,318.03 $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,377.55 $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $42.2194 $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $83,159.29 $87,180.03 $91,200.77 $95,859.63 $100,422.98
MONTHLY $6,929.94 $7,265.00 $7,600.06 $7,988.30 $8,368.58
BI-WEEKLY $3,198.43 $3,353.08 $3,507.72 $3,686.91 $3,862.42
HOURLY RATE $39.9804 $41.9135 $43.8465 $46.0864 $48.2803
ANNUAL $91,551.77 $96,114.97 $100,742.05 $105,656.24 $111,176.77
MONTHLY $7,629.31 $8,009.58 $8,395.17 $8,804.69 $9,264.73
BI-WEEKLY $3,521.22 $3,696.73 $3,874.69 $4,063.70 $4,276.03
HOURLY RATE $44.0153 $46.2091 $48.4336 $50.7963 $53.4504
ANNUAL $109,988.11 $115,484.22 $121,053.07 $127,318.46 $133,546.78
MONTHLY $9,165.68 $9,623.69 $10,087.76 $10,609.87 $11,128.90
BI-WEEKLY $4,230.31 $4,441.70 $4,655.89 $4,896.86 $5,136.41
HOURLY RATE $52.8789 $55.5213 $58.1986 $61.2108 $64.2051
ANNUAL $63,693.67 $66,980.49 $70,299.24 $73,522.21 $77,383.43
MONTHLY $5,307.81 $5,581.71 $5,858.27 $6,126.85 $6,448.62
BI-WEEKLY $2,449.76 $2,576.17 $2,703.82 $2,827.78 $2,976.29
HOURLY RATE $30.6220 $32.2021 $33.7978 $35.3473 $37.2036
ANNUAL $71,065.11 $74,224.21 $78,213.15 $81,723.23 $85,743.99
MONTHLY $5,922.09 $6,185.35 $6,517.76 $6,810.27 $7,145.33
BI-WEEKLY $2,733.27 $2,854.78 $3,008.20 $3,143.20 $3,297.85
HOURLY RATE $34.1659 $35.6848 $37.6025 $39.2900 $41.2231
ANNUAL $79,330.00 $82,935.88 $87,275.69 $91,615.63 $95,923.51
MONTHLY $6,610.83 $6,911.32 $7,272.97 $7,634.64 $7,993.63
BI-WEEKLY $3,051.15 $3,189.84 $3,356.76 $3,523.68 $3,689.37
HOURLY RATE $38.1394 $39.8730 $41.9595 $44.0460 $46.1171
ANNUAL $86,759.84 $90,862.99 $95,149.59 $100,132.46 $104,748.71
MONTHLY $7,229.99 $7,571.92 $7,929.13 $8,344.37 $8,729.06
BI-WEEKLY $3,336.92 $3,494.73 $3,659.60 $3,851.25 $4,028.80
HOURLY RATE $41.7115 $43.6841 $45.7450 $48.1406 $50.3600
ANNUAL $128,234.07 $134,792.31 $141,460.33 $148,568.48 $156,262.33
MONTHLY $10,686.17 $11,232.69 $11,788.36 $12,380.71 $13,021.86
BI-WEEKLY $4,932.08 $5,184.32 $5,440.78 $5,714.17 $6,010.09
HOURLY RATE $61.6510 $64.8040 $68.0098 $71.4271 $75.1261
B805 LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER
B803 LIBRARY CIRCULATION SUPE
A802 LIBRARY ASSISTANT III
A803 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II
A804 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I
B801 LIBRARIAN III
A800 LIBRARIAN II
A801 LIBRARIAN I
S501 LEAD WATER SYSTEM OPERATOR
S601 LEAD ST MNT & SW COL SYS OPR
S608 LEAD EQUIPMENT MECHANIC
A606 JUNIOR ENGINEER
S404 IRRIGATION REPAIR SPECIALIST
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL $109,988.11 $115,484.22 $121,053.07 $127,318.46 $133,546.78
MONTHLY $9,165.68 $9,623.69 $10,087.76 $10,609.87 $11,128.90
BI-WEEKLY $4,230.31 $4,441.70 $4,655.89 $4,896.86 $5,136.41
HOURLY RATE $52.8789 $55.5213 $58.1986 $61.2108 $64.2051
ANNUAL $98,002.36 $102,910.23 $108,157.52 $113,559.26 $119,300.62
MONTHLY $8,166.86 $8,575.85 $9,013.13 $9,463.27 $9,941.72
BI-WEEKLY $3,769.32 $3,958.09 $4,159.90 $4,367.66 $4,588.49
HOURLY RATE $47.1165 $49.4761 $51.9988 $54.5958 $57.3561
ANNUAL $98,621.90 $103,812.30 $109,276.20 $115,027.56 $121,081.64
MONTHLY $8,218.49 $8,651.03 $9,106.35 $9,585.63 $10,090.14
BI-WEEKLY $3,793.15 $3,992.78 $4,202.93 $4,424.14 $4,656.99
HOURLY RATE $47.4144 $49.9098 $52.5366 $55.3018 $58.2124
ANNUAL $94,710.85 $99,465.66 $104,379.85 $109,645.06 $115,101.85
MONTHLY $7,892.57 $8,288.81 $8,698.32 $9,137.09 $9,591.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,642.73 $3,825.60 $4,014.61 $4,217.12 $4,426.99
HOURLY RATE $45.5341 $47.8200 $50.1826 $52.7140 $55.3374
ANNUAL $62,385.36 $65,544.58 $68,829.89 $72,086.30 $76,011.23
MONTHLY $5,198.78 $5,462.05 $5,735.82 $6,007.19 $6,334.27
BI-WEEKLY $2,399.44 $2,520.95 $2,647.30 $2,772.55 $2,923.51
HOURLY RATE $29.9930 $31.5119 $33.0913 $34.6569 $36.5439
ANNUAL $68,320.75 $71,448.04 $75,022.00 $78,755.61 $82,361.50
MONTHLY $5,693.40 $5,954.00 $6,251.83 $6,562.97 $6,863.46
BI-WEEKLY $2,627.72 $2,748.00 $2,885.46 $3,029.06 $3,167.75
HOURLY RATE $32.8465 $34.3500 $36.0683 $37.8633 $39.5969
ANNUAL $87,816.40 $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,318.03 $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,377.55 $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $42.2194 $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $71,765.63 $75,068.24 $79,266.14 $82,970.16 $86,952.13
MONTHLY $5,980.47 $6,255.69 $6,605.51 $6,914.18 $7,246.01
BI-WEEKLY $2,760.22 $2,887.24 $3,048.70 $3,191.16 $3,344.31
HOURLY RATE $34.5028 $36.0905 $38.1088 $39.8895 $41.8039
ANNUAL $75,068.24 $79,266.14 $82,970.16 $86,952.13 $91,242.48
MONTHLY $6,255.69 $6,605.51 $6,914.18 $7,246.01 $7,603.54
BI-WEEKLY $2,887.24 $3,048.70 $3,191.16 $3,344.31 $3,509.33
HOURLY RATE $36.0905 $38.1088 $39.8895 $41.8039 $43.8666
ANNUAL $69,724.86 $73,043.62 $76,649.50 $80,542.51 $84,563.26
MONTHLY $5,810.41 $6,086.97 $6,387.46 $6,711.88 $7,046.94
BI-WEEKLY $2,681.73 $2,809.37 $2,948.06 $3,097.79 $3,252.43
HOURLY RATE $33.5216 $35.1171 $36.8508 $38.7224 $40.6554
ANNUAL $75,755.90 $79,649.05 $83,318.81 $87,371.49 $91,743.23
MONTHLY $6,312.99 $6,637.42 $6,943.23 $7,280.96 $7,645.27
BI-WEEKLY $2,913.69 $3,063.43 $3,204.57 $3,360.44 $3,528.59
HOURLY RATE $36.4211 $38.2929 $40.0571 $42.0055 $44.1074
ANNUAL $187,749.64 $197,085.61 $206,985.90 $217,343.90 $228,160.12
MONTHLY $15,645.80 $16,423.80 $17,248.83 $18,111.99 $19,013.34
BI-WEEKLY $7,221.14 $7,580.22 $7,961.00 $8,359.38 $8,775.39
HOURLY RATE $90.2643 $94.7528 $99.5125 $104.4923 $109.6924
ANNUAL $112,846.08 $118,671.79 $124,533.91 $130,725.77 $138,786.10
MONTHLY $9,403.84 $9,889.32 $10,377.83 $10,893.81 $11,565.51
BI-WEEKLY $4,340.23 $4,564.30 $4,789.77 $5,027.91 $5,337.93
HOURLY RATE $54.2529 $57.0538 $59.8721 $62.8489 $66.7241
B430 PARKS SUPE/CITY ARBORIST
D705 PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR
A200 PARKING SYSTEM TECHNICIAN
A201 PARKING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER
S406 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER II
S407 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER I
S401 PARK MAINTENANCE LEAD
WORKER
A670 OFFICE ASSISTANT II
A107 OFFICE ASSISTANT I
A120 MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
A121 MANAGEMENT ANALYST
S606 MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN
B802 LIBRARY TECHNICAL SERVICES
MGR
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL $133,316.63 $140,221.82 $147,057.06 $154,490.83 $162,488.40
MONTHLY $11,109.72 $11,685.15 $12,254.76 $12,874.24 $13,540.70
BI-WEEKLY $5,127.56 $5,393.15 $5,656.04 $5,941.96 $6,249.55
HOURLY RATE $64.0945 $67.4144 $70.7005 $74.2745 $78.1194
ANNUAL $110,171.37 $115,776.85 $121,602.50 $127,721.46 $135,598.56
MONTHLY $9,180.95 $9,648.07 $10,133.54 $10,643.46 $11,299.88
BI-WEEKLY $4,237.36 $4,452.96 $4,677.02 $4,912.36 $5,215.33
HOURLY RATE $52.9670 $55.6620 $58.4628 $61.4045 $65.1916
ANNUAL $95,061.99 $99,784.71 $104,666.98 $109,964.25 $115,452.86
MONTHLY $7,921.83 $8,315.39 $8,722.25 $9,163.69 $9,621.07
BI-WEEKLY $3,656.23 $3,837.87 $4,025.65 $4,229.39 $4,440.49
HOURLY RATE $45.7029 $47.9734 $50.3206 $52.8674 $55.5061
ANNUAL $83,446.42 $87,562.95 $92,062.29 $96,561.77 $101,348.37
MONTHLY $6,953.87 $7,296.91 $7,671.86 $8,046.81 $8,445.70
BI-WEEKLY $3,209.48 $3,367.81 $3,540.86 $3,713.91 $3,898.01
HOURLY RATE $40.1185 $42.0976 $44.2608 $46.4239 $48.7251
ANNUAL $106,103.04 $111,368.23 $117,048.42 $122,505.09 $128,791.46
MONTHLY $8,841.92 $9,280.69 $9,754.04 $10,208.76 $10,732.62
BI-WEEKLY $4,080.89 $4,283.39 $4,501.86 $4,711.73 $4,953.52
HOURLY RATE $51.0111 $53.5424 $56.2733 $58.8966 $61.9190
ANNUAL $184,261.81 $193,351.33 $203,145.53 $210,544.38 $223,791.53
MONTHLY $15,355.15 $16,112.61 $16,928.79 $17,545.37 $18,649.29
BI-WEEKLY $7,086.99 $7,436.59 $7,813.29 $8,097.86 $8,607.37
HOURLY RATE $88.5874 $92.9574 $97.6661 $101.2233 $107.5921
ANNUAL $145,999.93 $153,293.00 $160,902.84 $168,971.06 $177,461.61
MONTHLY $12,166.66 $12,774.42 $13,408.57 $14,080.92 $14,788.47
BI-WEEKLY $5,615.38 $5,895.88 $6,188.57 $6,498.89 $6,825.45
HOURLY RATE $70.1923 $73.6985 $77.3571 $81.2361 $85.3181
ANNUAL $81,404.17 $85,456.84 $89,669.04 $93,913.21 $98,412.54
MONTHLY $6,783.68 $7,121.40 $7,472.42 $7,826.10 $8,201.05
BI-WEEKLY $3,130.93 $3,286.80 $3,448.81 $3,612.05 $3,785.10
HOURLY RATE $39.1366 $41.0850 $43.1101 $45.1506 $47.3138
ANNUAL $181,816.22 $190,641.63 $198,978.58 $208,780.91 $218,912.76
MONTHLY $15,151.35 $15,886.80 $16,581.55 $17,398.41 $18,242.73
BI-WEEKLY $6,992.93 $7,332.37 $7,653.02 $8,030.04 $8,419.72
HOURLY RATE $87.4116 $91.6546 $95.6628 $100.3755 $105.2465
ANNUAL $214,515.64 $225,210.83 $236,444.66 $248,144.51 $260,634.74
MONTHLY $17,876.30 $18,767.57 $19,703.72 $20,678.71 $21,719.56
BI-WEEKLY $8,250.60 $8,661.96 $9,094.03 $9,544.02 $10,024.41
HOURLY RATE $103.1325 $108.2745 $113.6754 $119.3003 $125.3051
ANNUAL $64,970.19 $68,257.01 $71,671.45 $75,085.85 $78,691.74
MONTHLY $5,414.18 $5,688.08 $5,972.62 $6,257.15 $6,557.65
BI-WEEKLY $2,498.85 $2,625.27 $2,756.59 $2,887.92 $3,026.61
HOURLY RATE $31.2356 $32.8159 $34.4574 $36.0990 $37.8326
ANNUAL $71,671.45 $75,085.85 $78,691.74 $82,329.56 $86,382.24
MONTHLY $5,972.62 $6,257.15 $6,557.65 $6,860.80 $7,198.52
BI-WEEKLY $2,756.59 $2,887.92 $3,026.61 $3,166.52 $3,322.39
HOURLY RATE $34.4574 $36.0990 $37.8326 $39.5815 $41.5299
ANNUAL $99,465.66
MONTHLY $8,288.81
BI-WEEKLY $3,825.60
HOURLY RATE $47.8200
A204 POLICE CLERK III
A203 POLICE CLERK II
A202 POLICE CLERK I
D201 POLICE CHIEF
M200 POLICE CAPTAIN
A205 POLICE ADM SERVICES COORD
B111 PLANNING MANAGER
D104 PLANNING DIRECTOR
A108 PLANNER
A609 PERMIT TECHNICIAN
A114 PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR
B420 PARKS SUPERVISOR
B410 PARKS SUPERINT/CITY ARBORIST
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL $155,575.30 $163,320.09 $171,506.61 $180,066.64 $189,079.99
MONTHLY $12,964.61 $13,610.01 $14,292.22 $15,005.55 $15,756.67
BI-WEEKLY $5,983.67 $6,281.54 $6,596.41 $6,925.64 $7,272.31
HOURLY RATE $74.7959 $78.5193 $82.4551 $86.5705 $90.9039
ANNUAL $107,013.55 $112,897.33 $118,000.92 $124,209.81 $130,126.07
MONTHLY $8,917.80 $9,408.11 $9,833.41 $10,350.82 $10,843.84
BI-WEEKLY $4,115.91 $4,342.21 $4,538.50 $4,777.30 $5,004.85
HOURLY RATE $51.4489 $54.2776 $56.7313 $59.7163 $62.5606
ANNUAL $102,975.74
MONTHLY $8,581.31
BI-WEEKLY $3,960.61
HOURLY RATE $49.5076
ANNUAL $129,996.13 $136,139.91 $142,901.44 $150,183.00 $157,822.15
MONTHLY $10,833.01 $11,344.99 $11,908.45 $12,515.25 $13,151.85
BI-WEEKLY $4,999.85 $5,236.15 $5,496.21 $5,776.27 $6,070.08
HOURLY RATE $62.4981 $65.4519 $68.7026 $72.2034 $75.8760
ANNUAL $127,391.57 $133,761.39 $140,449.41 $147,471.87 $154,845.57
MONTHLY $10,615.96 $11,146.78 $11,704.12 $12,289.32 $12,903.80
BI-WEEKLY $4,899.68 $5,144.67 $5,401.90 $5,672.00 $5,955.60
HOURLY RATE $61.2460 $64.3084 $67.5238 $70.9000 $74.4450
ANNUAL $56,769.17 $59,577.27 $62,513.09 $65,608.32 $68,927.06
MONTHLY $4,730.76 $4,964.77 $5,209.42 $5,467.36 $5,743.92
BI-WEEKLY $2,183.43 $2,291.43 $2,404.35 $2,523.40 $2,651.04
HOURLY RATE $27.2929 $28.6429 $30.0544 $31.5425 $33.1380
ANNUAL $156,362.29
MONTHLY $13,030.19
BI-WEEKLY $6,013.93
HOURLY RATE $75.1741
ANNUAL $105,049.92 $110,219.43 $115,803.85 $121,579.69 $127,738.49
MONTHLY $8,754.16 $9,184.95 $9,650.32 $10,131.64 $10,644.87
BI-WEEKLY $4,040.38 $4,239.21 $4,453.99 $4,676.14 $4,913.02
HOURLY RATE $50.5048 $52.9901 $55.6749 $58.4518 $61.4128
ANNUAL $62,513.35 $65,608.41 $68,927.06 $72,373.44 $75,991.99
MONTHLY $5,209.45 $5,467.37 $5,743.92 $6,031.12 $6,332.67
BI-WEEKLY $2,404.36 $2,523.40 $2,651.04 $2,783.59 $2,922.77
HOURLY RATE $30.0545 $31.5425 $33.1380 $34.7949 $36.5346
ANNUAL $81,914.69 $85,839.78 $89,892.46 $94,359.86 $99,050.81
MONTHLY $6,826.22 $7,153.32 $7,491.04 $7,863.32 $8,254.23
BI-WEEKLY $3,150.57 $3,301.53 $3,457.40 $3,629.23 $3,809.65
HOURLY RATE $39.3821 $41.2691 $43.2175 $45.3654 $47.6206
ANNUAL $118,417.69 $124,650.18 $131,210.70 $138,116.52 $145,385.80
MONTHLY $9,868.14 $10,387.52 $10,934.23 $11,509.71 $12,115.48
BI-WEEKLY $4,554.53 $4,794.24 $5,046.57 $5,312.17 $5,591.76
HOURLY RATE $56.9316 $59.9280 $63.0821 $66.4021 $69.8970
ANNUAL $128,234.07 $134,829.09 $141,460.33 $148,641.78 $156,299.13
MONTHLY $10,686.17 $11,235.76 $11,788.36 $12,386.82 $13,024.93
BI-WEEKLY $4,932.08 $5,185.73 $5,440.78 $5,716.99 $6,011.51
HOURLY RATE $61.6510 $64.8216 $68.0098 $71.4624 $75.1439
ANNUAL $107,973.03 $113,578.67 $118,818.29 $125,046.58 $131,275.21
MONTHLY $8,997.75 $9,464.89 $9,901.52 $10,420.55 $10,939.60
BI-WEEKLY $4,152.81 $4,368.41 $4,569.93 $4,809.48 $5,049.05
HOURLY RATE $51.9101 $54.6051 $57.1241 $60.1185 $63.1131
B700 RECREATION SUPERVISOR
B710 RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT
B711 RECREATION MANAGER
A701 RECREATION COORDINATOR II
A702 RECREATION COORDINATOR I
A611 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR
A610 PROJECT MGR GIS COORDINATOR
A711 PROGRAM COORDINATOR
B201 POLICE SERVICES MANAGER
M201 POLICE SERGEANT
P201 POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE
P200 POLICE OFFICER
M202 POLICE LIEUTENANT
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL $101,302.47 $106,604.61 $112,280.03 $118,142.23 $124,378.37
MONTHLY $8,441.87 $8,883.72 $9,356.67 $9,845.19 $10,364.86
BI-WEEKLY $3,896.25 $4,100.18 $4,318.46 $4,543.93 $4,783.78
HOURLY RATE $48.7031 $51.2523 $53.9808 $56.7991 $59.7973
ANNUAL $118,197.21 $124,036.79 $129,908.46 $136,801.15 $143,693.87
MONTHLY $9,849.77 $10,336.40 $10,825.71 $11,400.10 $11,974.49
BI-WEEKLY $4,546.05 $4,770.65 $4,996.48 $5,261.58 $5,526.69
HOURLY RATE $56.8256 $59.6331 $62.4560 $65.7698 $69.0836
ANNUAL $154,064.14 $161,758.23 $169,891.88 $178,355.29 $187,331.70
MONTHLY $12,838.68 $13,479.85 $14,157.66 $14,862.94 $15,610.98
BI-WEEKLY $5,925.54 $6,221.47 $6,534.30 $6,859.82 $7,205.07
HOURLY RATE $74.0693 $77.7684 $81.6788 $85.7478 $90.0634
ANNUAL $116,458.00 $122,310.30 $128,162.27 $134,711.69 $141,494.00
MONTHLY $9,704.83 $10,192.53 $10,680.19 $11,225.97 $11,791.17
BI-WEEKLY $4,479.15 $4,704.24 $4,929.32 $5,181.22 $5,442.08
HOURLY RATE $55.9894 $58.8030 $61.6165 $64.7653 $68.0260
ANNUAL $111,196.90 $116,275.06 $122,137.65 $128,186.61 $134,608.99
MONTHLY $9,266.41 $9,689.59 $10,178.14 $10,682.22 $11,217.42
BI-WEEKLY $4,276.80 $4,472.12 $4,697.60 $4,930.25 $5,177.27
HOURLY RATE $53.4600 $55.9015 $58.7200 $61.6281 $64.7159
ANNUAL $128,185.94 $134,540.72 $141,238.15 $148,309.52 $155,785.73
MONTHLY $10,682.16 $11,211.73 $11,769.85 $12,359.13 $12,982.14
BI-WEEKLY $4,930.23 $5,174.64 $5,432.24 $5,704.21 $5,991.76
HOURLY RATE $61.6279 $64.6830 $67.9030 $71.3026 $74.8970
ANNUAL $116,665.49 $122,505.09 $128,504.33 $134,631.18 $141,747.29
MONTHLY $9,722.12 $10,208.76 $10,708.69 $11,219.27 $11,812.27
BI-WEEKLY $4,487.13 $4,711.73 $4,942.47 $5,178.12 $5,451.82
HOURLY RATE $56.0891 $58.8966 $61.7809 $64.7265 $68.1478
ANNUAL $99,117.19 $104,079.93 $109,352.78 $114,729.08 $120,484.47
MONTHLY $8,259.77 $8,673.33 $9,112.73 $9,560.76 $10,040.37
BI-WEEKLY $3,812.20 $4,003.07 $4,205.88 $4,412.66 $4,634.02
HOURLY RATE $47.6525 $50.0384 $52.5735 $55.1583 $57.9253
ANNUAL $110,102.18 $115,596.59 $121,430.36 $127,511.09 $133,838.78
MONTHLY $9,175.18 $9,633.05 $10,119.20 $10,625.92 $11,153.23
BI-WEEKLY $4,234.70 $4,446.02 $4,670.40 $4,904.27 $5,147.65
HOURLY RATE $52.9338 $55.5753 $58.3800 $61.3034 $64.3456
ANNUAL $75,068.24 $79,266.14 $82,970.16 $86,952.13 $91,242.48
MONTHLY $6,255.69 $6,605.51 $6,914.18 $7,246.01 $7,603.54
BI-WEEKLY $2,887.24 $3,048.70 $3,191.16 $3,344.31 $3,509.33
HOURLY RATE $36.0905 $38.1088 $39.8895 $41.8039 $43.8666
ANNUAL $71,456.84 $75,068.24 $79,266.14 $82,970.16 $86,952.13
MONTHLY $5,954.74 $6,255.69 $6,605.51 $6,914.18 $7,246.01
BI-WEEKLY $2,748.34 $2,887.24 $3,048.70 $3,191.16 $3,344.31
HOURLY RATE $34.3543 $36.0905 $38.1088 $39.8895 $41.8039
ANNUAL $122,079.04 $128,197.32 $134,609.36 $141,350.71 $148,385.65
MONTHLY $10,173.25 $10,683.11 $11,217.45 $11,779.23 $12,365.47
BI-WEEKLY $4,695.35 $4,930.67 $5,177.28 $5,436.57 $5,707.14
HOURLY RATE $58.6919 $61.6334 $64.7160 $67.9571 $71.3393
ANNUAL $116,979.51 $122,843.48 $128,968.72 $135,430.04 $142,190.88
MONTHLY $9,748.29 $10,236.96 $10,747.39 $11,285.84 $11,849.24
BI-WEEKLY $4,499.21 $4,724.75 $4,960.34 $5,208.85 $5,468.88
HOURLY RATE $56.2401 $59.0594 $62.0043 $65.1106 $68.3610
A115 SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM MGR
B607 STREETS STORM SEWER DIV MGR
S605 STREET MNT&SEWR COL S OPR
TRN
S604 STREET MNT &SEWER COLL SYS
OPR
B608 STREET & SEWER SUPERVISOR
A615 SR GREEN BUILDING SPECIALIST
A607 SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS
INSPECTOR
A113 SENIOR PLANNER
B610 SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
D111 SENIOR HR ANALYST
B601 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER
A602 SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR
B106 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL $87,816.40 $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,318.03 $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,377.55 $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $42.2194 $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $116,825.03 $122,377.48 $128,791.46 $135,301.25 $142,130.23
MONTHLY $9,735.42 $10,198.12 $10,732.62 $11,275.10 $11,844.19
BI-WEEKLY $4,493.27 $4,706.83 $4,953.52 $5,203.89 $5,466.55
HOURLY RATE $56.1659 $58.8354 $61.9190 $65.0486 $68.3319
ANNUAL $134,695.06 $141,491.96 $148,576.13 $155,947.56 $163,861.32
MONTHLY $11,224.59 $11,791.00 $12,381.34 $12,995.63 $13,655.11
BI-WEEKLY $5,180.58 $5,442.00 $5,714.47 $5,997.98 $6,302.36
HOURLY RATE $64.7573 $68.0250 $71.4309 $74.9748 $78.7795
ANNUAL $136,481.96 $143,374.65 $150,426.91 $158,021.73 $165,903.70
MONTHLY $11,373.50 $11,947.89 $12,535.58 $13,168.48 $13,825.31
BI-WEEKLY $5,249.31 $5,514.41 $5,785.65 $6,077.76 $6,380.91
HOURLY RATE $65.6164 $68.9301 $72.3206 $75.9720 $79.7614
ANNUAL $87,816.40 $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,318.03 $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,377.55 $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $42.2194 $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $76,951.27 $81,334.25 $85,038.27 $89,143.53 $93,526.69
MONTHLY $6,412.61 $6,777.85 $7,086.52 $7,428.63 $7,793.89
BI-WEEKLY $2,959.66 $3,128.24 $3,270.70 $3,428.60 $3,597.18
HOURLY RATE $36.9958 $39.1030 $40.8838 $42.8575 $44.9648
ANNUAL $79,420.61 $83,155.42 $87,353.32 $91,643.91 $96,273.82
MONTHLY $6,618.38 $6,929.62 $7,279.44 $7,636.99 $8,022.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,054.64 $3,198.29 $3,359.74 $3,524.77 $3,702.84
HOURLY RATE $38.1830 $39.9786 $41.9968 $44.0596 $46.2855
ANNUAL $87,816.40 $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,318.03 $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,377.55 $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $42.2194 $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $122,079.04 $128,197.32 $134,609.36 $141,350.71 $148,385.65
MONTHLY $10,173.25 $10,683.11 $11,217.45 $11,779.23 $12,365.47
BI-WEEKLY $4,695.35 $4,930.67 $5,177.28 $5,436.57 $5,707.14
HOURLY RATE $58.6919 $61.6334 $64.7160 $67.9571 $71.3393
ANNUAL $75,809.04 $79,451.40 $83,248.11 $87,414.99 $91,767.36
MONTHLY $6,317.42 $6,620.95 $6,937.34 $7,284.58 $7,647.28
BI-WEEKLY $2,915.73 $3,055.82 $3,201.85 $3,362.12 $3,529.51
HOURLY RATE $36.4466 $38.1978 $40.0231 $42.0265 $44.1189
ANNUAL $110,102.18 $115,596.59 $121,430.36 $127,511.09 $133,838.78
MONTHLY $9,175.18 $9,633.05 $10,119.20 $10,625.92 $11,153.23
BI-WEEKLY $4,234.70 $4,446.02 $4,670.40 $4,904.27 $5,147.65
HOURLY RATE $52.9338 $55.5753 $58.3800 $61.3034 $64.3456
ANNUAL $87,816.40 $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,318.03 $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,377.55 $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $42.2194 $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $79,266.14 $83,217.10 $87,384.15 $91,767.36 $96,335.65
MONTHLY $6,605.51 $6,934.76 $7,282.01 $7,647.28 $8,027.97
BI-WEEKLY $3,048.70 $3,200.66 $3,360.93 $3,529.51 $3,705.22
HOURLY RATE $38.1088 $40.0083 $42.0116 $44.1189 $46.3153
S507 WATER QUALITY AND METER
TECH
S508 WATER QUALITY AND METER
LEAD
B501 WATER OPERATIONS
SUPERVISOR
S502 WATER METER REPAIRER
B500 WATER DIVISION MANAGER
S400 UTILITY LOCATOR/INSPECTOR
S411 TREE WORKER
S409 TREE MAINTENANCE WORKER
S405 TREE LEADWORKER
A612 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
MANAGER
A600 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER
A601 TRAFFIC-CIVIL ENGINEER
S602 TRAFFIC SIGN PAINT LEAD
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL $110,102.18 $115,596.59 $121,430.36 $127,511.09 $133,838.78
MONTHLY $9,175.18 $9,633.05 $10,119.20 $10,625.92 $11,153.23
BI-WEEKLY $4,234.70 $4,446.02 $4,670.40 $4,904.27 $5,147.65
HOURLY RATE $52.9338 $55.5753 $58.3800 $61.3034 $64.3456
ANNUAL $87,816.40 $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,318.03 $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,377.55 $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $42.2194 $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $75,068.24 $79,266.14 $82,970.16 $86,952.13 $91,242.48
MONTHLY $6,255.69 $6,605.51 $6,914.18 $7,246.01 $7,603.54
BI-WEEKLY $2,887.24 $3,048.70 $3,191.16 $3,344.31 $3,509.33
HOURLY RATE $36.0905 $38.1088 $39.8895 $41.8039 $43.8666
ANNUAL $71,456.84 $75,068.24 $79,266.14 $82,970.16 $86,952.13
MONTHLY $5,954.74 $6,255.69 $6,605.51 $6,914.18 $7,246.01
BI-WEEKLY $2,748.34 $2,887.24 $3,048.70 $3,191.16 $3,344.31
HOURLY RATE $34.3543 $36.0905 $38.1088 $39.8895 $41.8039
ANNUAL $90,562.50 $94,934.26 $99,625.19 $104,698.92 $109,804.73
MONTHLY $7,546.88 $7,911.19 $8,302.10 $8,724.91 $9,150.39
BI-WEEKLY $3,483.17 $3,651.32 $3,831.74 $4,026.88 $4,223.26
HOURLY RATE $43.5396 $45.6415 $47.8968 $50.3360 $52.7908
A110 ZONING TECHNICIAN
S611 WATER SYSTEM OPERATOR
TRAINEE
S503 WATER SYSTEM OPERATOR
S505 WATER SERVICE OPSTECH
B503 WATER QUALITY SUPERVISOR
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E
ANNUAL $95,381.04 $100,135.71 $105,081.85 $110,347.18
MONTHLY $7,948.42 $8,344.64 $8,756.82 $9,195.60
BI-WEEKLY $3,668.50 $3,851.37 $4,041.61 $4,244.12
HOURLY RATE $45.8563 $48.1421 $50.5201 $53.0515
ANNUAL $99,784.71 $104,666.98 $109,964.25 $115,452.86
MONTHLY $8,315.39 $8,722.25 $9,163.69 $9,621.07
BI-WEEKLY $3,837.87 $4,025.65 $4,229.39 $4,440.49
HOURLY RATE $47.9734 $50.3206 $52.8674 $55.5061
ANNUAL $68,257.01 $71,671.45 $75,085.85 $78,691.74
MONTHLY $5,688.08 $5,972.62 $6,257.15 $6,557.65
BI-WEEKLY $2,625.27 $2,756.59 $2,887.92 $3,026.61
HOURLY RATE $32.8159 $34.4574 $36.0990 $37.8326
ANNUAL $75,085.85 $78,691.74 $82,329.56 $86,382.24
MONTHLY $6,257.15 $6,557.65 $6,860.80 $7,198.52
BI-WEEKLY $2,887.92 $3,026.61 $3,166.52 $3,322.39
HOURLY RATE $36.0990 $37.8326 $39.5815 $41.5299
ANNUAL $86,382.24 $90,626.38 $95,189.59 $99,944.25
MONTHLY $7,198.52 $7,552.20 $7,932.47 $8,328.69
BI-WEEKLY $3,322.39 $3,485.63 $3,661.14 $3,844.01
HOURLY RATE $41.5299 $43.5704 $45.7643 $48.0501
ANNUAL $95,381.04 $100,135.71 $105,081.85 $110,347.18
MONTHLY $7,948.42 $8,344.64 $8,756.82 $9,195.60
BI-WEEKLY $3,668.50 $3,851.37 $4,041.61 $4,244.12
HOURLY RATE $45.8563 $48.1421 $50.5201 $53.0515
ANNUAL $250,359.41
MONTHLY $20,863.28
BI-WEEKLY $9,629.21
HOURLY RATE $120.3651
ANNUAL $82,584.88 $86,733.23 $91,009.31 $95,381.04
MONTHLY $6,882.07 $7,227.77 $7,584.11 $7,948.42
BI-WEEKLY $3,176.34 $3,335.89 $3,500.36 $3,668.50
HOURLY RATE $39.7043 $41.6986 $43.7545 $45.8563
ANNUAL $90,626.38 $95,125.72 $99,593.26 $104,379.85
MONTHLY $7,552.20 $7,927.14 $8,299.44 $8,698.32
BI-WEEKLY $3,485.63 $3,658.68 $3,830.51 $4,014.61
HOURLY RATE $43.5704 $45.7335 $47.8814 $50.1826
ANNUAL $183,593.96 $192,773.65 $202,412.33 $212,532.95
MONTHLY $15,299.50 $16,064.47 $16,867.69 $17,711.08
BI-WEEKLY $7,061.31 $7,414.37 $7,785.09 $8,174.34
HOURLY RATE $88.2664 $92.6796 $97.3136 $102.1793
ANNUAL $198,290.81 $208,239.57 $218,547.51 $229,609.26
MONTHLY $16,524.23 $17,353.30 $18,212.29 $19,134.11
BI-WEEKLY $7,626.57 $8,009.21 $8,405.67 $8,831.13
HOURLY RATE $95.3321 $100.1151 $105.0709 $110.3891
D106 ASSIST CM ADMIN. SVCS. DIR $189,060.63
$15,755.05
$7,271.56
$90.8945
D502 ASSIST CITY ATTORNEY $174,851.42
$14,570.95
$6,725.05
$84.0631
A100 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II $86,382.24
$7,198.52
$3,322.39
$41.5299
A105 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I $78,500.27
$6,541.69
$3,019.24
$37.7405
D202 ACTING POLICE CHIEF $238,481.10
$19,873.43
$9,172.35
$114.6544
A103 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN $90,817.85
$7,568.15
$3,492.99
$43.6624
A102 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT III $82,329.56
$6,860.80
$3,166.52
$39.5815
A160 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT II $71,671.45
$5,972.62
$2,756.59
$34.4574
A104 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT I $64,970.19
$5,414.18
$2,498.85
$31.2356
A117 ACCOUNTANT II $95,061.99
$7,921.83
$3,656.23
$45.7029
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SALARY SCHEDULE - MERIT
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/30/2024
JOB DESCRIPTION STEP A
A109 ACCOUNTANT I $90,817.85
$7,568.15
$3,492.99
$43.6624
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION STEP A
ANNUAL $116,825.03 $122,377.48 $128,791.46 $135,301.25
MONTHLY $9,735.42 $10,198.12 $10,732.62 $11,275.10
BI-WEEKLY $4,493.27 $4,706.83 $4,953.52 $5,203.89
HOURLY RATE $56.1659 $58.8354 $61.9190 $65.0486
ANNUAL $113,797.96 $119,487.62 $125,462.02 $131,735.46
MONTHLY $9,483.16 $9,957.30 $10,455.17 $10,977.96
BI-WEEKLY $4,376.84 $4,595.68 $4,825.46 $5,066.75
HOURLY RATE $54.7105 $57.4460 $60.3183 $63.3344
ANNUAL $99,784.71 $104,698.92 $109,932.31 $115,452.86
MONTHLY $8,315.39 $8,724.91 $9,161.03 $9,621.07
BI-WEEKLY $3,837.87 $4,026.88 $4,228.17 $4,440.49
HOURLY RATE $47.9734 $50.3360 $52.8521 $55.5061
ANNUAL $139,806.72 $146,787.54 $154,143.64 $161,875.16
MONTHLY $11,650.56 $12,232.30 $12,845.30 $13,489.60
BI-WEEKLY $5,377.18 $5,645.67 $5,928.60 $6,225.97
HOURLY RATE $67.2148 $70.5709 $74.1075 $77.8246
ANNUAL $128,504.33 $134,631.18 $141,747.29 $148,895.19
MONTHLY $10,708.69 $11,219.27 $11,812.27 $12,407.93
BI-WEEKLY $4,942.47 $5,178.12 $5,451.82 $5,726.74
HOURLY RATE $61.7809 $64.7265 $68.1478 $71.5843
ANNUAL $111,400.16 $116,984.55 $122,919.94 $129,078.73
MONTHLY $9,283.35 $9,748.71 $10,243.33 $10,756.56
BI-WEEKLY $4,284.62 $4,499.41 $4,727.69 $4,964.57
HOURLY RATE $53.5578 $56.2426 $59.0961 $62.0571
ANNUAL $194,362.46 $203,721.76 $214,153.84 $224,881.91
MONTHLY $16,196.87 $16,976.81 $17,846.15 $18,740.16
BI-WEEKLY $7,475.48 $7,835.45 $8,236.69 $8,649.30
HOURLY RATE $93.4435 $97.9431 $102.9586 $108.1163
ANNUAL $54,918.26 $57,758.27 $60,662.19 $63,598.01
MONTHLY $4,576.52 $4,813.19 $5,055.18 $5,299.83
BI-WEEKLY $2,112.24 $2,221.47 $2,333.16 $2,446.08
HOURLY RATE $26.4030 $27.7684 $29.1645 $30.5760
ANNUAL
MONTHLY
BI-WEEKLY
HOURLY RATE
ANNUAL $110,347.18 $116,123.04 $121,611.63 $127,451.22
MONTHLY $9,195.60 $9,676.92 $10,134.30 $10,620.94
BI-WEEKLY $4,244.12 $4,466.27 $4,677.37 $4,901.97
HOURLY RATE $53.0515 $55.8284 $58.4671 $61.2746
ANNUAL $115,867.70 $121,930.68 $127,674.61 $133,833.39
MONTHLY $9,655.64 $10,160.89 $10,639.55 $11,152.78
BI-WEEKLY $4,456.45 $4,689.64 $4,910.56 $5,147.44
HOURLY RATE $55.7056 $58.6205 $61.3820 $64.3430
ANNUAL $84,180.33 $87,594.90 $92,190.02 $96,721.30
MONTHLY $7,015.03 $7,299.58 $7,682.50 $8,060.11
BI-WEEKLY $3,237.71 $3,369.03 $3,545.77 $3,720.05
HOURLY RATE $40.4714 $42.1129 $44.3221 $46.5006
ANNUAL $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
S603 CCTV LEADWORKER $87,816.40
$7,318.03
$3,377.55
$42.2194
A101 BUILDING MAINTENANCE
WORKER
$79,936.26
$6,661.36
$3,074.47
$38.4309
A613 BUILDING INSPECTOR II $110,634.31
$9,219.53
$4,255.17
$53.1896
A603 BUILDING INSPECTOR I $105,369.11
$8,780.76
$4,052.66
$50.6583
A706 BUILDING ATTENDANT - CS $68,927.06
$5,743.92
$2,651.04
$33.1380
A705 BUILDING ATTENDANT $52,365.48
$4,363.79
$2,014.06
$25.1758
B600 ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS
$185,039.99
$15,420.00
$7,116.92
$88.9615
A112 ASSOCIATE PLANNER $106,103.04
$8,841.92
$4,080.89
$51.0111
A608 ASSOCIATE ENGINEER $122,505.09
$10,208.76
$4,711.73
$58.8966
D300 ASSISTANT TO THE CITY
MANAGER
$133,163.04
$11,096.92
$5,121.66
$64.0208
A111 ASSISTANT PLANNER $95,030.05
$7,919.17
$3,655.00
$45.6875
B421 ASSISTANT PARKS SUPERVISOR $108,378.66
$9,031.56
$4,168.41
$52.1051
A605 ASSISTANT ENGINEER $111,400.16
$9,283.35
$4,284.62
$53.5578
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION STEP A
ANNUAL $166,469.44 $174,682.17 $183,264.51 $192,364.73
MONTHLY $13,872.45 $14,556.85 $15,272.04 $16,030.39
BI-WEEKLY $6,402.67 $6,718.55 $7,048.64 $7,398.64
HOURLY RATE $80.0334 $83.9819 $88.1080 $92.4830
ANNUAL
MONTHLY
BI-WEEKLY
HOURLY RATE
ANNUAL $206,939.89 $217,335.20 $228,211.10 $239,568.13
MONTHLY $17,244.99 $18,111.27 $19,017.59 $19,964.01
BI-WEEKLY $7,959.23 $8,359.05 $8,777.35 $9,214.16
HOURLY RATE $99.4904 $104.4881 $109.7169 $115.1770
ANNUAL $178,502.19 $187,119.53 $196,736.86 $206,546.88
MONTHLY $14,875.18 $15,593.29 $16,394.74 $17,212.24
BI-WEEKLY $6,865.47 $7,196.91 $7,566.80 $7,944.11
HOURLY RATE $85.8184 $89.9614 $94.5850 $99.3014
ANNUAL $206,939.89 $217,335.20 $228,211.10 $239,568.13
MONTHLY $17,244.99 $18,111.27 $19,017.59 $19,964.01
BI-WEEKLY $7,959.23 $8,359.05 $8,777.35 $9,214.16
HOURLY RATE $99.4904 $104.4881 $109.7169 $115.1770
ANNUAL
MONTHLY
BI-WEEKLY
HOURLY RATE
ANNUAL $118,661.48 $124,624.25 $130,796.14 $137,351.57
MONTHLY $9,888.46 $10,385.35 $10,899.68 $11,445.96
BI-WEEKLY $4,563.90 $4,793.24 $5,030.62 $5,282.75
HOURLY RATE $57.0488 $59.9155 $62.8828 $66.0344
ANNUAL $111,948.81 $117,564.90 $123,412.47 $129,606.36
MONTHLY $9,329.07 $9,797.08 $10,284.37 $10,800.53
BI-WEEKLY $4,305.72 $4,521.73 $4,746.63 $4,984.86
HOURLY RATE $53.8215 $56.5216 $59.3329 $62.3108
ANNUAL $206,939.89 $217,335.20 $228,211.10 $239,568.13
MONTHLY $17,244.99 $18,111.27 $19,017.59 $19,964.01
BI-WEEKLY $7,959.23 $8,359.05 $8,777.35 $9,214.16
HOURLY RATE $99.4904 $104.4881 $109.7169 $115.1770
ANNUAL $92,005.13 $96,393.24 $100,897.59 $105,863.47
MONTHLY $7,667.09 $8,032.77 $8,408.13 $8,821.96
BI-WEEKLY $3,538.66 $3,707.43 $3,880.68 $4,071.67
HOURLY RATE $44.2333 $46.3429 $48.5085 $50.8959
ANNUAL $96,431.99 $101,205.46 $105,863.47 $111,291.29
MONTHLY $8,036.00 $8,433.79 $8,821.96 $9,274.27
BI-WEEKLY $3,708.92 $3,892.52 $4,071.67 $4,280.43
HOURLY RATE $46.3615 $48.6565 $50.8959 $53.5054
ANNUAL
MONTHLY
ANNUAL $68,544.15 $71,958.57 $75,755.90 $79,649.05
MONTHLY $5,712.01 $5,996.55 $6,312.99 $6,637.42
BI-WEEKLY $2,636.31 $2,767.64 $2,913.69 $3,063.43
HOURLY RATE $32.9539 $34.5955 $36.4211 $38.2929
A106 CUSTODIAN $65,544.58
$5,462.05
$2,520.95
$31.5119
D100 COUNCIL MEMBER $11,400.00
$950.00
T901 COMMUNICATION DISPATCHER II $92,389.74
$7,699.15
$3,553.45
$44.4181
T900 COMMUNICATION DISPATCHER I $88,040.06
$7,336.67
$3,386.16
$42.3270
D108 COMM DEV DIRECTOR $197,137.12
$16,428.09
$7,582.20
$94.7775
B103 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER $106,639.24
$8,886.60
$4,101.51
$51.2689
D110 CODE COMP OFF SNR RISK
ANALYST
$113,465.85
$9,455.49
$4,364.07
$54.5509
D200 CITY MANAGER $335,876.95
$27,989.75
$12,918.34
$161.4793
D801 CITY LIBRARIAN $197,137.12
$16,428.09
$7,582.20
$94.7775
B602 CITY ENGINEER $169,884.39
$14,157.03
$6,534.02
$81.6753
D109 CITY CLERK $197,137.12
$16,428.09
$7,582.20
$94.7775
D102 CITY ATTORNEY $287,402.55
$23,950.21
$11,053.94
$138.1743
B604 CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL $158,589.95
$13,215.83
$6,099.61
$76.2451
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION STEP A
ANNUAL $99,784.71 $104,666.98 $109,964.25 $115,452.86
MONTHLY $8,315.39 $8,722.25 $9,163.69 $9,621.07
BI-WEEKLY $3,837.87 $4,025.65 $4,229.39 $4,440.49
HOURLY RATE $47.9734 $50.3206 $52.8674 $55.5061
ANNUAL $131,635.91 $138,217.72 $145,128.60 $152,385.00
MONTHLY $10,969.66 $11,518.14 $12,094.05 $12,698.75
BI-WEEKLY $5,062.92 $5,316.07 $5,581.87 $5,860.96
HOURLY RATE $63.2865 $66.4509 $69.7734 $73.2620
ANNUAL $177,900.54 $186,757.19 $196,156.70 $205,867.33
MONTHLY $14,825.05 $15,563.10 $16,346.39 $17,155.61
BI-WEEKLY $6,842.33 $7,182.97 $7,544.49 $7,917.97
HOURLY RATE $85.5291 $89.7871 $94.3061 $98.9746
ANNUAL $158,257.17 $166,173.60 $174,422.84 $183,190.56
MONTHLY $13,188.10 $13,847.80 $14,535.24 $15,265.88
BI-WEEKLY $6,086.81 $6,391.29 $6,708.57 $7,045.79
HOURLY RATE $76.0851 $79.8911 $83.8571 $88.0724
ANNUAL $218,851.78 $229,838.82 $241,306.94 $253,403.99
MONTHLY $18,237.65 $19,153.24 $20,108.91 $21,117.00
BI-WEEKLY $8,417.38 $8,839.95 $9,281.04 $9,746.31
HOURLY RATE $105.2173 $110.4994 $116.0130 $121.8289
ANNUAL $121,675.49 $127,770.42 $134,152.45 $140,853.70
MONTHLY $10,139.62 $10,647.54 $11,179.37 $11,737.81
BI-WEEKLY $4,679.83 $4,914.25 $5,159.71 $5,417.45
HOURLY RATE $58.4979 $61.4281 $64.4964 $67.7181
ANNUAL $125,797.67 $132,183.86 $138,685.20 $145,648.65
MONTHLY $10,483.14 $11,015.32 $11,557.10 $12,137.39
BI-WEEKLY $4,838.37 $5,083.99 $5,334.05 $5,601.87
HOURLY RATE $60.4796 $63.5499 $66.6756 $70.0234
ANNUAL $93,976.93 $98,667.87 $103,741.60 $108,719.67
MONTHLY $7,831.41 $8,222.32 $8,645.13 $9,059.97
BI-WEEKLY $3,614.50 $3,794.92 $3,990.06 $4,181.53
HOURLY RATE $45.1813 $47.4365 $49.8758 $52.2691
ANNUAL $93,881.27 $98,667.87 $103,518.20 $108,624.01
MONTHLY $7,823.44 $8,222.32 $8,626.52 $9,052.00
BI-WEEKLY $3,610.82 $3,794.92 $3,981.47 $4,177.85
HOURLY RATE $45.1353 $47.4365 $49.7684 $52.2231
ANNUAL $116,254.18 $122,157.15 $128,210.46 $134,602.07
MONTHLY $9,687.85 $10,179.76 $10,684.21 $11,216.84
BI-WEEKLY $4,471.31 $4,698.35 $4,931.17 $5,177.00
HOURLY RATE $55.8914 $58.7294 $61.6396 $64.7125
ANNUAL $91,767.36 $96,335.65 $101,181.69 $106,367.31
MONTHLY $7,647.28 $8,027.97 $8,431.81 $8,863.94
BI-WEEKLY $3,529.51 $3,705.22 $3,891.60 $4,091.05
HOURLY RATE $44.1189 $46.3153 $48.6450 $51.1381
ANNUAL $99,252.55 $104,357.81 $109,574.12 $115,085.73
MONTHLY $8,271.05 $8,696.48 $9,131.18 $9,590.48
BI-WEEKLY $3,817.41 $4,013.76 $4,214.39 $4,426.37
HOURLY RATE $47.7176 $50.1720 $52.6799 $55.3296
ANNUAL $134,607.19 $141,339.83 $148,418.25 $155,804.93
MONTHLY $11,217.27 $11,778.32 $12,368.19 $12,983.74
BI-WEEKLY $5,177.20 $5,436.15 $5,708.39 $5,992.50
HOURLY RATE $64.7150 $67.9519 $71.3549 $74.9063
B900 FACILITIES AND FLEET MANAGER $128,182.99
$10,681.92
$4,930.12
$61.6265
D105 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT $94,924.74
$7,910.40
$3,650.95
$45.6369
S607 EQUIPMENT MECHANIC $87,476.79
$7,289.73
$3,364.49
$42.0561
A625 ENV REG COMPLIANCE
MANAGER
$110,764.77
$9,230.40
$4,260.18
$53.2523
A604 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II $89,349.87
$7,445.82
$3,436.53
$42.9566
A301 EMERGENCY PREP/FIRE ED $89,700.99
$7,475.08
$3,450.04
$43.1255
B605 ELECTRICAL SUPERVISOR $120,335.20
$10,027.93
$4,628.28
$57.8535
A451 ECON DEV & HOUSING
SPECIALIST
$115,867.70
$9,655.64
$4,456.45
$55.7056
D600 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS $208,456.88
$17,371.41
$8,017.57
$100.2196
B107 DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR $150,710.48
$12,559.21
$5,796.56
$72.4570
B603 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PW OPS $169,393.80
$14,116.15
$6,515.15
$81.4394
D501 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY $125,367.52
$10,447.29
$4,821.83
$60.2729
A116 CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR $95,061.99
$7,921.83
$3,656.23
$45.7029
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION STEP A
ANNUAL $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $84,081.36 $87,692.93 $92,261.23 $96,706.06
MONTHLY $7,006.78 $7,307.74 $7,688.44 $8,058.84
BI-WEEKLY $3,233.90 $3,372.81 $3,548.51 $3,719.46
HOURLY RATE $40.4238 $42.1601 $44.3564 $46.4933
ANNUAL $115,596.59 $121,430.36 $127,511.09 $133,838.78
MONTHLY $9,633.05 $10,119.20 $10,625.92 $11,153.23
BI-WEEKLY $4,446.02 $4,670.40 $4,904.27 $5,147.65
HOURLY RATE $55.5753 $58.3800 $61.3034 $64.3456
ANNUAL $216,891.29 $227,656.29 $239,124.26 $251,036.15
MONTHLY $18,074.27 $18,971.36 $19,927.02 $20,919.68
BI-WEEKLY $8,341.97 $8,756.01 $9,197.09 $9,655.24
HOURLY RATE $104.2746 $109.4501 $114.9636 $120.6905
ANNUAL $142,530.00 $150,031.58 $157,927.98 $166,239.98
MONTHLY $11,877.50 $12,502.63 $13,160.67 $13,853.33
BI-WEEKLY $5,481.92 $5,770.45 $6,074.15 $6,393.85
HOURLY RATE $68.5240 $72.1306 $75.9269 $79.9231
ANNUAL $131,645.21 $138,184.84 $145,071.29 $152,303.51
MONTHLY $10,970.43 $11,515.40 $12,089.27 $12,691.96
BI-WEEKLY $5,063.28 $5,314.80 $5,579.67 $5,857.83
HOURLY RATE $63.2910 $66.4350 $69.7459 $73.2229
ANNUAL $115,596.59 $121,430.36 $127,511.09 $133,838.78
MONTHLY $9,633.05 $10,119.20 $10,625.92 $11,153.23
BI-WEEKLY $4,446.02 $4,670.40 $4,904.27 $5,147.65
HOURLY RATE $55.5753 $58.3800 $61.3034 $64.3456
ANNUAL $83,254.94 $87,403.42 $91,775.17 $96,370.31
MONTHLY $6,937.91 $7,283.62 $7,647.93 $8,030.86
BI-WEEKLY $3,202.11 $3,361.67 $3,529.81 $3,706.55
HOURLY RATE $40.0264 $42.0209 $44.1226 $46.3319
ANNUAL $96,370.31 $101,252.57 $106,230.64 $111,559.70
MONTHLY $8,030.86 $8,437.71 $8,852.55 $9,296.64
BI-WEEKLY $3,706.55 $3,894.33 $4,085.79 $4,290.76
HOURLY RATE $46.3319 $48.6791 $51.0724 $53.6345
ANNUAL $116,750.74 $122,336.71 $128,588.44 $135,062.46
MONTHLY $9,729.23 $10,194.73 $10,715.70 $11,255.21
BI-WEEKLY $4,490.41 $4,705.26 $4,945.71 $5,194.71
HOURLY RATE $56.1301 $58.8158 $61.8214 $64.9339
ANNUAL $206,939.89 $217,335.20 $228,211.10 $239,568.13
MONTHLY $17,244.99 $18,111.27 $19,017.59 $19,964.01
BI-WEEKLY $7,959.23 $8,359.05 $8,777.35 $9,214.16
HOURLY RATE $99.4904 $104.4881 $109.7169 $115.1770
ANNUAL $88,568.25 $92,914.09 $97,547.17 $102,647.11
MONTHLY $7,380.69 $7,742.84 $8,128.93 $8,553.93
BI-WEEKLY $3,406.47 $3,573.62 $3,751.81 $3,947.97
HOURLY RATE $42.5809 $44.6703 $46.8976 $49.3496
ANNUAL $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
S610 INSTRUMENTATION MECHANIC
TECH
$87,816.40
$7,318.03
$3,377.55
$42.2194
D400 HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN $84,581.67
$7,048.47
$3,253.14
$40.6643
D805 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR $197,137.12
$16,428.09
$7,582.20
$94.7775
D107 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II $111,164.46
$9,263.71
$4,275.56
$53.4445
A614 GREEN BUILDING SPECIALIST $91,775.17
$7,647.93
$3,529.81
$44.1226
A805 GRAPHIC ARTIST $79,298.06
$6,608.17
$3,049.93
$38.1241
B612 FLEET SUPERVISOR $110,102.18
$9,175.18
$4,234.70
$52.9338
B606 FLEET MANAGER $125,297.55
$10,441.46
$4,819.14
$60.2393
B108 FINANCIAL SERVICES MANAGER $135,403.51
$11,283.63
$5,207.83
$65.0979
D103 FINANCE DIRECTOR $206,570.20
$17,214.18
$7,945.01
$99.3126
B611 FACILITIES SUPERVISOR $110,102.18
$9,175.18
$4,234.70
$52.9338
S703 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
WORKER
$79,914.48
$6,659.54
$3,073.63
$38.4204
S704 FACILITIES LEADWORKER $87,816.40
$7,318.03
$3,377.55
$42.2194
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION STEP A
ANNUAL $83,309.72 $87,476.79 $91,767.36 $96,335.65
MONTHLY $6,942.48 $7,289.73 $7,647.28 $8,027.97
BI-WEEKLY $3,204.22 $3,364.49 $3,529.51 $3,705.22
HOURLY RATE $40.0528 $42.0561 $44.1189 $46.3153
ANNUAL $105,975.44 $111,400.16 $116,825.03 $122,377.48
MONTHLY $8,831.29 $9,283.35 $9,735.42 $10,198.12
BI-WEEKLY $4,075.98 $4,284.62 $4,493.27 $4,706.83
HOURLY RATE $50.9498 $53.5578 $56.1659 $58.8354
ANNUAL $96,335.20 $101,160.76 $106,229.12 $111,679.45
MONTHLY $8,027.93 $8,430.06 $8,852.43 $9,306.62
BI-WEEKLY $3,705.20 $3,890.80 $4,085.74 $4,295.36
HOURLY RATE $46.3150 $48.6350 $51.0718 $53.6920
ANNUAL $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $87,180.03 $91,200.77 $95,859.63 $100,422.98
MONTHLY $7,265.00 $7,600.06 $7,988.30 $8,368.58
BI-WEEKLY $3,353.08 $3,507.72 $3,686.91 $3,862.42
HOURLY RATE $41.9135 $43.8465 $46.0864 $48.2803
ANNUAL $96,114.97 $100,742.05 $105,656.24 $111,176.77
MONTHLY $8,009.58 $8,395.17 $8,804.69 $9,264.73
BI-WEEKLY $3,696.73 $3,874.69 $4,063.70 $4,276.03
HOURLY RATE $46.2091 $48.4336 $50.7963 $53.4504
ANNUAL $121,258.43 $127,105.72 $133,684.38 $140,224.12
MONTHLY $10,104.87 $10,592.14 $11,140.37 $11,685.34
BI-WEEKLY $4,663.79 $4,888.68 $5,141.71 $5,393.24
HOURLY RATE $58.2974 $61.1085 $64.2714 $67.4155
ANNUAL $66,980.49 $70,299.24 $73,522.21 $77,383.43
MONTHLY $5,581.71 $5,858.27 $6,126.85 $6,448.62
BI-WEEKLY $2,576.17 $2,703.82 $2,827.78 $2,976.29
HOURLY RATE $32.2021 $33.7978 $35.3473 $37.2036
ANNUAL $74,224.21 $78,213.15 $81,723.23 $85,743.99
MONTHLY $6,185.35 $6,517.76 $6,810.27 $7,145.33
BI-WEEKLY $2,854.78 $3,008.20 $3,143.20 $3,297.85
HOURLY RATE $35.6848 $37.6025 $39.2900 $41.2231
ANNUAL $82,935.88 $87,275.69 $91,615.63 $95,923.51
MONTHLY $6,911.32 $7,272.97 $7,634.64 $7,993.63
BI-WEEKLY $3,189.84 $3,356.76 $3,523.68 $3,689.37
HOURLY RATE $39.8730 $41.9595 $44.0460 $46.1171
ANNUAL $95,406.14 $99,907.07 $105,139.08 $109,986.15
MONTHLY $7,950.51 $8,325.59 $8,761.59 $9,165.51
BI-WEEKLY $3,669.47 $3,842.58 $4,043.81 $4,230.24
HOURLY RATE $45.8684 $48.0323 $50.5476 $52.8780
ANNUAL $141,531.93 $148,533.35 $155,996.90 $164,075.45
MONTHLY $11,794.33 $12,377.78 $12,999.74 $13,672.95
BI-WEEKLY $5,443.54 $5,712.82 $5,999.88 $6,310.59
HOURLY RATE $68.0443 $71.4103 $74.9985 $78.8824
B805 LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER $134,645.77
$11,220.48
$5,178.68
$64.7335
B803 LIBRARY CIRCULATION SUPE $91,097.83
$7,591.49
$3,503.76
$43.7970
A802 LIBRARY ASSISTANT III $79,330.00
$6,610.83
$3,051.15
$38.1394
A803 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II $71,065.11
$5,922.09
$2,733.27
$34.1659
A804 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I $63,693.67
$5,307.81
$2,449.76
$30.6220
B801 LIBRARIAN III $115,487.52
$9,623.96
$4,441.83
$55.5229
A800 LIBRARIAN II $91,551.77
$7,629.31
$3,521.22
$44.0153
A801 LIBRARIAN I $83,159.29
$6,929.94
$3,198.43
$39.9804
S501 LEAD WATER SYSTEM OPERATOR $87,816.40
$7,318.03
$3,377.55
$42.2194
S601 LEAD ST MNT & SW COL SYS OPR $87,816.40
$7,318.03
$3,377.55
$42.2194
S608 LEAD EQUIPMENT MECHANIC $91,857.07
$7,654.76
$3,532.96
$44.1620
A606 JUNIOR ENGINEER $101,156.90
$8,429.74
$3,890.65
$48.6331
S404 IRRIGATION REPAIR SPECIALIST $79,574.87
$6,631.24
$3,060.57
$38.2571
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION STEP A
ANNUAL $121,258.43 $127,105.72 $133,684.38 $140,224.12
MONTHLY $10,104.87 $10,592.14 $11,140.37 $11,685.34
BI-WEEKLY $4,663.79 $4,888.68 $5,141.71 $5,393.24
HOURLY RATE $58.2974 $61.1085 $64.2714 $67.4155
ANNUAL $102,910.23 $108,157.52 $113,559.26 $119,300.62
MONTHLY $8,575.85 $9,013.13 $9,463.27 $9,941.72
BI-WEEKLY $3,958.09 $4,159.90 $4,367.66 $4,588.49
HOURLY RATE $49.4761 $51.9988 $54.5958 $57.3561
ANNUAL $103,812.30 $109,276.20 $115,027.56 $121,081.64
MONTHLY $8,651.03 $9,106.35 $9,585.63 $10,090.14
BI-WEEKLY $3,992.78 $4,202.93 $4,424.14 $4,656.99
HOURLY RATE $49.9098 $52.5366 $55.3018 $58.2124
ANNUAL $99,465.66 $104,379.85 $109,645.06 $115,101.85
MONTHLY $8,288.81 $8,698.32 $9,137.09 $9,591.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,825.60 $4,014.61 $4,217.12 $4,426.99
HOURLY RATE $47.8200 $50.1826 $52.7140 $55.3374
ANNUAL $65,544.58 $68,829.89 $72,086.30 $76,011.23
MONTHLY $5,462.05 $5,735.82 $6,007.19 $6,334.27
BI-WEEKLY $2,520.95 $2,647.30 $2,772.55 $2,923.51
HOURLY RATE $31.5119 $33.0913 $34.6569 $36.5439
ANNUAL $71,448.04 $75,022.00 $78,755.61 $82,361.50
MONTHLY $5,954.00 $6,251.83 $6,562.97 $6,863.46
BI-WEEKLY $2,748.00 $2,885.46 $3,029.06 $3,167.75
HOURLY RATE $34.3500 $36.0683 $37.8633 $39.5969
ANNUAL $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $75,068.24 $79,266.14 $82,970.16 $86,952.13
MONTHLY $6,255.69 $6,605.51 $6,914.18 $7,246.01
BI-WEEKLY $2,887.24 $3,048.70 $3,191.16 $3,344.31
HOURLY RATE $36.0905 $38.1088 $39.8895 $41.8039
ANNUAL $79,266.14 $82,970.16 $86,952.13 $91,242.48
MONTHLY $6,605.51 $6,914.18 $7,246.01 $7,603.54
BI-WEEKLY $3,048.70 $3,191.16 $3,344.31 $3,509.33
HOURLY RATE $38.1088 $39.8895 $41.8039 $43.8666
ANNUAL $73,043.62 $76,649.50 $80,542.51 $84,563.26
MONTHLY $6,086.97 $6,387.46 $6,711.88 $7,046.94
BI-WEEKLY $2,809.37 $2,948.06 $3,097.79 $3,252.43
HOURLY RATE $35.1171 $36.8508 $38.7224 $40.6554
ANNUAL $79,649.05 $83,318.81 $87,371.49 $91,743.23
MONTHLY $6,637.42 $6,943.23 $7,280.96 $7,645.27
BI-WEEKLY $3,063.43 $3,204.57 $3,360.44 $3,528.59
HOURLY RATE $38.2929 $40.0571 $42.0055 $44.1074
ANNUAL $206,939.89 $217,335.20 $228,211.10 $239,568.13
MONTHLY $17,244.99 $18,111.27 $19,017.59 $19,964.01
BI-WEEKLY $7,959.23 $8,359.05 $8,777.35 $9,214.16
HOURLY RATE $99.4904 $104.4881 $109.7169 $115.1770
ANNUAL $124,605.38 $130,760.61 $137,262.06 $145,725.41
MONTHLY $10,383.78 $10,896.72 $11,438.51 $12,143.78
BI-WEEKLY $4,792.51 $5,029.25 $5,279.31 $5,604.82
HOURLY RATE $59.9064 $62.8656 $65.9914 $70.0603
B430 PARKS SUPE/CITY ARBORIST $118,488.38
$9,874.03
$4,557.25
$56.9656
D705 PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR $197,137.12
$16,428.09
$7,582.20
$94.7775
A200 PARKING SYSTEM TECHNICIAN $75,755.90
$6,312.99
$2,913.69
$36.4211
A201 PARKING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER
$69,724.86
$5,810.41
$2,681.73
$33.5216
S406 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER II $75,068.24
$6,255.69
$2,887.24
$36.0905
S407 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER I $71,765.63
$5,980.47
$2,760.22
$34.5028
S401 PARK MAINTENANCE LEAD
WORKER
$87,816.40
$7,318.03
$3,377.55
$42.2194
A670 OFFICE ASSISTANT II $68,320.75
$5,693.40
$2,627.72
$32.8465
A107 OFFICE ASSISTANT I $62,385.36
$5,198.78
$2,399.44
$29.9930
A120 MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT $94,710.85
$7,892.57
$3,642.73
$45.5341
A121 MANAGEMENT ANALYST $98,621.90
$8,218.49
$3,793.15
$47.4144
S606 MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN $98,002.36
$8,166.86
$3,769.32
$47.1165
B802 LIBRARY TECHNICAL SERVICES
MGR
$115,487.52
$9,623.96
$4,441.83
$55.5229
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION STEP A
ANNUAL $147,232.91 $154,409.91 $162,215.37 $170,612.82
MONTHLY $12,269.41 $12,867.49 $13,517.95 $14,217.74
BI-WEEKLY $5,662.80 $5,938.84 $6,239.05 $6,562.03
HOURLY RATE $70.7850 $74.2355 $77.9881 $82.0254
ANNUAL $121,565.69 $127,682.63 $134,107.53 $142,378.49
MONTHLY $10,130.47 $10,640.22 $11,175.63 $11,864.87
BI-WEEKLY $4,675.60 $4,910.87 $5,157.98 $5,476.10
HOURLY RATE $58.4450 $61.3859 $64.4748 $68.4513
ANNUAL $99,784.71 $104,666.98 $109,964.25 $115,452.86
MONTHLY $8,315.39 $8,722.25 $9,163.69 $9,621.07
BI-WEEKLY $3,837.87 $4,025.65 $4,229.39 $4,440.49
HOURLY RATE $47.9734 $50.3206 $52.8674 $55.5061
ANNUAL $87,562.95 $92,062.29 $96,561.77 $101,348.37
MONTHLY $7,296.91 $7,671.86 $8,046.81 $8,445.70
BI-WEEKLY $3,367.81 $3,540.86 $3,713.91 $3,898.01
HOURLY RATE $42.0976 $44.2608 $46.4239 $48.7251
ANNUAL $111,368.23 $117,048.42 $122,505.09 $128,791.46
MONTHLY $9,280.69 $9,754.04 $10,208.76 $10,732.62
BI-WEEKLY $4,283.39 $4,501.86 $4,711.73 $4,953.52
HOURLY RATE $53.5424 $56.2733 $58.8966 $61.9190
ANNUAL $203,018.90 $213,302.81 $221,071.60 $234,981.11
MONTHLY $16,918.24 $17,775.23 $18,422.63 $19,581.76
BI-WEEKLY $7,808.42 $8,203.95 $8,502.75 $9,037.74
HOURLY RATE $97.6053 $102.5494 $106.2844 $112.9718
ANNUAL $160,957.65 $168,947.98 $177,419.61 $186,334.69
MONTHLY $13,413.14 $14,079.00 $14,784.97 $15,527.89
BI-WEEKLY $6,190.68 $6,498.00 $6,823.83 $7,166.72
HOURLY RATE $77.3835 $81.2250 $85.2979 $89.5840
ANNUAL $85,456.84 $89,669.04 $93,913.21 $98,412.54
MONTHLY $7,121.40 $7,472.42 $7,826.10 $8,201.05
BI-WEEKLY $3,286.80 $3,448.81 $3,612.05 $3,785.10
HOURLY RATE $41.0850 $43.1101 $45.1506 $47.3138
ANNUAL $198,267.30 $206,937.72 $217,132.15 $227,669.27
MONTHLY $16,522.28 $17,244.81 $18,094.35 $18,972.44
BI-WEEKLY $7,625.67 $7,959.14 $8,351.24 $8,756.51
HOURLY RATE $95.3209 $99.4893 $104.3905 $109.4564
ANNUAL $236,471.37 $248,266.89 $260,551.74 $273,666.48
MONTHLY $19,705.95 $20,688.91 $21,712.65 $22,805.54
BI-WEEKLY $9,095.05 $9,548.73 $10,021.22 $10,525.63
HOURLY RATE $113.6881 $119.3591 $125.2653 $131.5704
ANNUAL $68,257.01 $71,671.45 $75,085.85 $78,691.74
MONTHLY $5,688.08 $5,972.62 $6,257.15 $6,557.65
BI-WEEKLY $2,625.27 $2,756.59 $2,887.92 $3,026.61
HOURLY RATE $32.8159 $34.4574 $36.0990 $37.8326
ANNUAL $75,085.85 $78,691.74 $82,329.56 $86,382.24
MONTHLY $6,257.15 $6,557.65 $6,860.80 $7,198.52
BI-WEEKLY $2,887.92 $3,026.61 $3,166.52 $3,322.39
HOURLY RATE $36.0990 $37.8326 $39.5815 $41.5299
ANNUAL $99,465.66
MONTHLY $8,288.81
BI-WEEKLY $3,825.60
HOURLY RATE $47.8200
A204 POLICE CLERK III
A203 POLICE CLERK II $71,671.45
$5,972.62
$2,756.59
$34.4574
A202 POLICE CLERK I $64,970.19
$5,414.18
$2,498.85
$31.2356
D201 POLICE CHIEF $225,241.42
$18,770.12
$8,663.13
$108.2891
M200 POLICE CAPTAIN $189,088.87
$15,757.41
$7,272.65
$90.9081
A205 POLICE ADM SERVICES COORD $81,404.17
$6,783.68
$3,130.93
$39.1366
B111 PLANNING MANAGER $153,299.93
$12,774.99
$5,896.15
$73.7019
D104 PLANNING DIRECTOR $193,474.90
$16,122.91
$7,441.34
$93.0168
A108 PLANNER $106,103.04
$8,841.92
$4,080.89
$51.0111
A609 PERMIT TECHNICIAN $83,446.42
$6,953.87
$3,209.48
$40.1185
A114 PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR $95,061.99
$7,921.83
$3,656.23
$45.7029
B420 PARKS SUPERVISOR $115,679.94
$9,640.00
$4,449.23
$55.6154
B410 PARKS SUPERINT/CITY ARBORIST $139,982.46
$11,665.21
$5,383.94
$67.2993
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION STEP A
ANNUAL $169,852.89 $178,366.87 $187,269.31 $196,643.19
MONTHLY $14,154.41 $14,863.91 $15,605.78 $16,386.93
BI-WEEKLY $6,532.80 $6,860.26 $7,202.67 $7,563.20
HOURLY RATE $81.6600 $85.7533 $90.0334 $94.5400
ANNUAL $117,413.22 $122,720.96 $129,178.20 $135,331.11
MONTHLY $9,784.44 $10,226.75 $10,764.85 $11,277.59
BI-WEEKLY $4,515.89 $4,720.04 $4,968.39 $5,205.04
HOURLY RATE $56.4486 $59.0005 $62.1049 $65.0630
ANNUAL
MONTHLY
BI-WEEKLY
HOURLY RATE
ANNUAL $141,585.51 $148,617.50 $156,190.32 $164,135.04
MONTHLY $11,798.79 $12,384.79 $13,015.86 $13,677.92
BI-WEEKLY $5,445.60 $5,716.06 $6,007.32 $6,312.89
HOURLY RATE $68.0700 $71.4508 $75.0915 $78.9111
ANNUAL $140,449.46 $147,471.88 $154,845.46 $162,587.85
MONTHLY $11,704.12 $12,289.32 $12,903.79 $13,548.99
BI-WEEKLY $5,401.90 $5,672.00 $5,955.59 $6,253.38
HOURLY RATE $67.5238 $70.9000 $74.4449 $78.1673
ANNUAL $59,577.27 $62,513.09 $65,608.32 $68,927.06
MONTHLY $4,964.77 $5,209.42 $5,467.36 $5,743.92
BI-WEEKLY $2,291.43 $2,404.35 $2,523.40 $2,651.04
HOURLY RATE $28.6429 $30.0544 $31.5425 $33.1380
ANNUAL $156,362.29
MONTHLY $13,030.19
BI-WEEKLY $6,013.93
HOURLY RATE $75.1741
ANNUAL $110,219.43 $115,803.85 $121,579.69 $127,738.49
MONTHLY $9,184.95 $9,650.32 $10,131.64 $10,644.87
BI-WEEKLY $4,239.21 $4,453.99 $4,676.14 $4,913.02
HOURLY RATE $52.9901 $55.6749 $58.4518 $61.4128
ANNUAL $65,608.41 $68,927.06 $72,373.44 $75,991.99
MONTHLY $5,467.37 $5,743.92 $6,031.12 $6,332.67
BI-WEEKLY $2,523.40 $2,651.04 $2,783.59 $2,922.77
HOURLY RATE $31.5425 $33.1380 $34.7949 $36.5346
ANNUAL $85,839.78 $89,892.46 $94,359.86 $99,050.81
MONTHLY $7,153.32 $7,491.04 $7,863.32 $8,254.23
BI-WEEKLY $3,301.53 $3,457.40 $3,629.23 $3,809.65
HOURLY RATE $41.2691 $43.2175 $45.3654 $47.6206
ANNUAL $130,882.69 $137,771.24 $145,022.35 $152,655.09
MONTHLY $10,906.89 $11,480.94 $12,085.20 $12,721.26
BI-WEEKLY $5,033.95 $5,298.89 $5,577.78 $5,871.35
HOURLY RATE $62.9244 $66.2361 $69.7223 $73.3919
ANNUAL $141,570.54 $148,533.35 $156,073.87 $164,114.09
MONTHLY $11,797.55 $12,377.78 $13,006.16 $13,676.17
BI-WEEKLY $5,445.02 $5,712.82 $6,002.84 $6,312.08
HOURLY RATE $68.0628 $71.4103 $75.0355 $78.9010
ANNUAL $119,257.60 $124,759.20 $131,298.91 $137,838.97
MONTHLY $9,938.13 $10,396.60 $10,941.58 $11,486.58
BI-WEEKLY $4,586.83 $4,798.43 $5,049.96 $5,301.50
HOURLY RATE $57.3354 $59.9804 $63.1245 $66.2688
B700 RECREATION SUPERVISOR $113,371.68
$9,447.64
$4,360.45
$54.5056
B710 RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT $134,645.77
$11,220.48
$5,178.68
$64.7335
B711 RECREATION MANAGER $124,338.57
$10,361.55
$4,782.25
$59.7781
A701 RECREATION COORDINATOR II $81,914.69
$6,826.22
$3,150.57
$39.3821
A702 RECREATION COORDINATOR I $62,513.35
$5,209.45
$2,404.36
$30.0545
A611 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR $105,049.92
$8,754.16
$4,040.38
$50.5048
A610 PROJECT MGR GIS COORDINATOR
A711 PROGRAM COORDINATOR $56,769.17
$4,730.76
$2,183.43
$27.2929
B201 POLICE SERVICES MANAGER $133,761.15
$11,146.76
$5,144.66
$64.3083
M201 POLICE SERGEANT $135,195.98
$11,266.33
$5,199.85
$64.9981
P201 POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE $107,094.77
$8,924.56
$4,119.03
$51.4879
P200 POLICE OFFICER $111,294.09
$9,274.51
$4,280.54
$53.5068
M202 POLICE LIEUTENANT $161,798.31
$13,483.19
$6,223.01
$77.7876
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION STEP A
ANNUAL $111,934.84 $117,894.03 $124,049.34 $130,597.29
MONTHLY $9,327.90 $9,824.50 $10,337.45 $10,883.11
BI-WEEKLY $4,305.19 $4,534.39 $4,771.13 $5,022.97
HOURLY RATE $53.8149 $56.6799 $59.6391 $62.7871
ANNUAL $124,036.79 $129,908.46 $136,801.15 $143,693.87
MONTHLY $10,336.40 $10,825.71 $11,400.10 $11,974.49
BI-WEEKLY $4,770.65 $4,996.48 $5,261.58 $5,526.69
HOURLY RATE $59.6331 $62.4560 $65.7698 $69.0836
ANNUAL $169,846.14 $178,386.47 $187,273.05 $196,698.29
MONTHLY $14,153.85 $14,865.54 $15,606.09 $16,391.52
BI-WEEKLY $6,532.54 $6,861.02 $7,202.81 $7,565.32
HOURLY RATE $81.6568 $85.7628 $90.0351 $94.5665
ANNUAL $128,425.82 $134,570.38 $141,447.27 $148,568.70
MONTHLY $10,702.15 $11,214.20 $11,787.27 $12,380.73
BI-WEEKLY $4,939.45 $5,175.78 $5,440.28 $5,714.18
HOURLY RATE $61.7431 $64.6973 $68.0035 $71.4273
ANNUAL $122,088.81 $128,244.53 $134,595.94 $141,339.44
MONTHLY $10,174.07 $10,687.04 $11,216.33 $11,778.29
BI-WEEKLY $4,695.72 $4,932.48 $5,176.77 $5,436.13
HOURLY RATE $58.6965 $61.6560 $64.7096 $67.9516
ANNUAL $141,267.76 $148,300.06 $155,725.00 $163,575.02
MONTHLY $11,772.31 $12,358.34 $12,977.08 $13,631.25
BI-WEEKLY $5,433.38 $5,703.85 $5,989.42 $6,291.35
HOURLY RATE $67.9173 $71.2981 $74.8678 $78.6419
ANNUAL $122,505.09 $128,504.33 $134,631.18 $141,747.29
MONTHLY $10,208.76 $10,708.69 $11,219.27 $11,812.27
BI-WEEKLY $4,711.73 $4,942.47 $5,178.12 $5,451.82
HOURLY RATE $58.8966 $61.7809 $64.7265 $68.1478
ANNUAL $104,079.93 $109,352.78 $114,729.08 $120,484.47
MONTHLY $8,673.33 $9,112.73 $9,560.76 $10,040.37
BI-WEEKLY $4,003.07 $4,205.88 $4,412.66 $4,634.02
HOURLY RATE $50.0384 $52.5735 $55.1583 $57.9253
ANNUAL $115,596.59 $121,430.36 $127,511.09 $133,838.78
MONTHLY $9,633.05 $10,119.20 $10,625.92 $11,153.23
BI-WEEKLY $4,446.02 $4,670.40 $4,904.27 $5,147.65
HOURLY RATE $55.5753 $58.3800 $61.3034 $64.3456
ANNUAL $79,266.14 $82,970.16 $86,952.13 $91,242.48
MONTHLY $6,605.51 $6,914.18 $7,246.01 $7,603.54
BI-WEEKLY $3,048.70 $3,191.16 $3,344.31 $3,509.33
HOURLY RATE $38.1088 $39.8895 $41.8039 $43.8666
ANNUAL $75,068.24 $79,266.14 $82,970.16 $86,952.13
MONTHLY $6,255.69 $6,605.51 $6,914.18 $7,246.01
BI-WEEKLY $2,887.24 $3,048.70 $3,191.16 $3,344.31
HOURLY RATE $36.0905 $38.1088 $39.8895 $41.8039
ANNUAL $134,607.19 $141,339.83 $148,418.25 $155,804.93
MONTHLY $11,217.27 $11,778.32 $12,368.19 $12,983.74
BI-WEEKLY $5,177.20 $5,436.15 $5,708.39 $5,992.50
HOURLY RATE $64.7150 $67.9519 $71.3549 $74.9063
ANNUAL $122,843.48 $128,968.72 $135,430.04 $142,190.88
MONTHLY $10,236.96 $10,747.39 $11,285.84 $11,849.24
BI-WEEKLY $4,724.75 $4,960.34 $5,208.85 $5,468.88
HOURLY RATE $59.0594 $62.0043 $65.1106 $68.3610
A115 SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM MGR $116,979.51
$9,748.29
$4,499.21
$56.2401
B607 STREETS STORM SEWER DIV MGR $128,182.99
$10,681.92
$4,930.12
$61.6265
S605 STREET MNT&SEWR COL S OPR
TRN
$71,456.84
$5,954.74
$2,748.34
$34.3543
S604 STREET MNT &SEWER COLL SYS
OPR
$75,068.24
$6,255.69
$2,887.24
$36.0905
B608 STREET & SEWER SUPERVISOR $110,102.18
$9,175.18
$4,234.70
$52.9338
A615 SR GREEN BUILDING SPECIALIST $99,117.19
$8,259.77
$3,812.20
$47.6525
A607 SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS
INSPECTOR
$116,665.49
$9,722.12
$4,487.13
$56.0891
A113 SENIOR PLANNER $134,595.24
$11,216.27
$5,176.74
$64.7093
B610 SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST $116,756.75
$9,729.73
$4,490.64
$56.1330
D111 SENIOR HR ANALYST $122,280.90
$10,190.08
$4,703.11
$58.7889
B601 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER $161,767.35
$13,480.61
$6,221.82
$77.7728
A602 SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR $118,197.21
$9,849.77
$4,546.05
$56.8256
B106 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT $106,367.59
$8,863.97
$4,091.06
$51.1383
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION STEP A
ANNUAL $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $122,377.48 $128,791.46 $135,301.25 $142,130.23
MONTHLY $10,198.12 $10,732.62 $11,275.10 $11,844.19
BI-WEEKLY $4,706.83 $4,953.52 $5,203.89 $5,466.55
HOURLY RATE $58.8354 $61.9190 $65.0486 $68.3319
ANNUAL $141,491.96 $148,576.13 $155,947.56 $163,861.32
MONTHLY $11,791.00 $12,381.34 $12,995.63 $13,655.11
BI-WEEKLY $5,442.00 $5,714.47 $5,997.98 $6,302.36
HOURLY RATE $68.0250 $71.4309 $74.9748 $78.7795
ANNUAL $143,374.65 $150,426.91 $158,021.73 $165,903.70
MONTHLY $11,947.89 $12,535.58 $13,168.48 $13,825.31
BI-WEEKLY $5,514.41 $5,785.65 $6,077.76 $6,380.91
HOURLY RATE $68.9301 $72.3206 $75.9720 $79.7614
ANNUAL $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $81,334.25 $85,038.27 $89,143.53 $93,526.69
MONTHLY $6,777.85 $7,086.52 $7,428.63 $7,793.89
BI-WEEKLY $3,128.24 $3,270.70 $3,428.60 $3,597.18
HOURLY RATE $39.1030 $40.8838 $42.8575 $44.9648
ANNUAL $83,155.42 $87,353.32 $91,643.91 $96,273.82
MONTHLY $6,929.62 $7,279.44 $7,636.99 $8,022.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,198.29 $3,359.74 $3,524.77 $3,702.84
HOURLY RATE $39.9786 $41.9968 $44.0596 $46.2855
ANNUAL $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $134,607.19 $141,339.83 $148,418.25 $155,804.93
MONTHLY $11,217.27 $11,778.32 $12,368.19 $12,983.74
BI-WEEKLY $5,177.20 $5,436.15 $5,708.39 $5,992.50
HOURLY RATE $64.7150 $67.9519 $71.3549 $74.9063
ANNUAL $79,451.40 $83,248.11 $87,414.99 $91,767.36
MONTHLY $6,620.95 $6,937.34 $7,284.58 $7,647.28
BI-WEEKLY $3,055.82 $3,201.85 $3,362.12 $3,529.51
HOURLY RATE $38.1978 $40.0231 $42.0265 $44.1189
ANNUAL $115,596.59 $121,430.36 $127,511.09 $133,838.78
MONTHLY $9,633.05 $10,119.20 $10,625.92 $11,153.23
BI-WEEKLY $4,446.02 $4,670.40 $4,904.27 $5,147.65
HOURLY RATE $55.5753 $58.3800 $61.3034 $64.3456
ANNUAL $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $83,217.10 $87,384.15 $91,767.36 $96,335.65
MONTHLY $6,934.76 $7,282.01 $7,647.28 $8,027.97
BI-WEEKLY $3,200.66 $3,360.93 $3,529.51 $3,705.22
HOURLY RATE $40.0083 $42.0116 $44.1189 $46.3153
S507 WATER QUALITY AND METER
TECH
$79,266.14
$6,605.51
$3,048.70
$38.1088
S508 WATER QUALITY AND METER
LEAD
$87,816.40
$7,318.03
$3,377.55
$42.2194
B501 WATER OPERATIONS
SUPERVISOR
$110,102.18
$9,175.18
$4,234.70
$52.9338
S502 WATER METER REPAIRER $75,809.04
$6,317.42
$2,915.73
$36.4466
B500 WATER DIVISION MANAGER $128,182.99
$10,681.92
$4,930.12
$61.6265
S400 UTILITY LOCATOR/INSPECTOR $87,816.40
$7,318.03
$3,377.55
$42.2194
S411 TREE WORKER $79,420.61
$6,618.38
$3,054.64
$38.1830
S409 TREE MAINTENANCE WORKER $76,951.27
$6,412.61
$2,959.66
$36.9958
S405 TREE LEADWORKER $87,816.40
$7,318.03
$3,377.55
$42.2194
A612 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
MANAGER
$136,481.96
$11,373.50
$5,249.31
$65.6164
A600 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER $134,695.06
$11,224.59
$5,180.58
$64.7573
A601 TRAFFIC-CIVIL ENGINEER $116,825.03
$9,735.42
$4,493.27
$56.1659
S602 TRAFFIC SIGN PAINT LEAD $87,816.40
$7,318.03
$3,377.55
$42.2194
CLASS PAY BASIS STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP EJOB DESCRIPTION STEP A
ANNUAL $115,596.59 $121,430.36 $127,511.09 $133,838.78
MONTHLY $9,633.05 $10,119.20 $10,625.92 $11,153.23
BI-WEEKLY $4,446.02 $4,670.40 $4,904.27 $5,147.65
HOURLY RATE $55.5753 $58.3800 $61.3034 $64.3456
ANNUAL $92,261.23 $96,860.32 $101,829.84 $106,953.87
MONTHLY $7,688.44 $8,071.69 $8,485.82 $8,912.82
BI-WEEKLY $3,548.51 $3,725.40 $3,916.53 $4,113.61
HOURLY RATE $44.3564 $46.5675 $48.9566 $51.4201
ANNUAL $79,266.14 $82,970.16 $86,952.13 $91,242.48
MONTHLY $6,605.51 $6,914.18 $7,246.01 $7,603.54
BI-WEEKLY $3,048.70 $3,191.16 $3,344.31 $3,509.33
HOURLY RATE $38.1088 $39.8895 $41.8039 $43.8666
ANNUAL $75,068.24 $79,266.14 $82,970.16 $86,952.13
MONTHLY $6,255.69 $6,605.51 $6,914.18 $7,246.01
BI-WEEKLY $2,887.24 $3,048.70 $3,191.16 $3,344.31
HOURLY RATE $36.0905 $38.1088 $39.8895 $41.8039
ANNUAL $94,934.26 $99,625.19 $104,698.92 $109,804.73
MONTHLY $7,911.19 $8,302.10 $8,724.91 $9,150.39
BI-WEEKLY $3,651.32 $3,831.74 $4,026.88 $4,223.26
HOURLY RATE $45.6415 $47.8968 $50.3360 $52.7908
A110 ZONING TECHNICIAN $90,562.50
$7,546.88
$3,483.17
$43.5396
S611 WATER SYSTEM OPERATOR
TRAINEE
$71,456.84
$5,954.74
$2,748.34
$34.3543
S503 WATER SYSTEM OPERATOR $75,068.24
$6,255.69
$2,887.24
$36.0905
S505 WATER SERVICE OPSTECH $87,816.40
$7,318.03
$3,377.55
$42.2194
B503 WATER QUALITY SUPERVISOR $110,102.18
$9,175.18
$4,234.70
$52.9338
CLASS JOB DESCRIPTION PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E
C100 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT HOURLY RATE $39.93 $41.86 $43.93 $46.02 $48.25
C500 ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER HOURLY RATE $63.69 $66.87 $70.23 $73.74 $77.44
C112 ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS HOURLY RATE $89.83 $94.35 $98.88 $103.94 $109.15
C601 AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICIAN HOURLY RATE $30.93 $32.47 $34.08 $35.79 $37.58
C705 BUILDING ATTENDANT HOURLY RATE $21.09 $22.25 $23.48 $24.77 $26.13
C102 BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER HOURLY RATE $34.18 $35.95 $37.47 $39.43 $41.38
C707 CASUAL-REC COORDINATOR I HOURLY RATE $28.62 $30.04 $31.56 $33.14 $34.79
C706 CASUAL-REC COORDINATOR II HOURLY RATE $37.51 $39.30 $41.16 $43.20 $45.35
C805 C-HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR HOURLY RATE $94.78 $99.49 $104.50 $109.73 $115.17
C106 CUSTODIAN HOURLY RATE $27.49 $28.75 $30.17 $31.72 $33.38
C613 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II HOURLY RATE $39.34 $41.36 $43.44 $45.60 $47.83
C602 FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGER HOURLY RATE $59.37
C615 FLEET MANAGER HOURLY RATE $60.24 $63.29 $66.43 $69.74 $73.23
C708 FOOTBALL/BASKETBALL REFEREE HOURLY RATE $23.17 $24.45
C600 INTERN I HOURLY RATE $18.86 $19.79 $20.77 $21.82 $22.93
C608 INTERN II HOURLY RATE $32.59 $39.10 $45.62 $52.15 $58.65
C606 LABORER HOURLY RATE $31.72 $33.20 $35.02 $36.67 $38.44
C807 LIBRARIAN I HOURLY RATE $35.53 $37.25 $38.99 $40.98 $42.92
C806 LIBRARIAN II HOURLY RATE $39.14 $41.08 $43.07 $45.20 $47.53
C801 LIBRARY AIDE I HOURLY RATE $17.88 $18.77 $19.72 $20.70 $21.74
C808 LIBRARY AIDE II HOURLY RATE $19.89 $20.88 $21.92 $23.03 $24.17
C804 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I HOURLY RATE $27.21 $28.65 $30.04 $31.44 $33.10
C803 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II HOURLY RATE $30.39 $31.75 $33.44 $34.91 $36.65
C611 MANAGEMENT ANALYST HOURLY RATE $47.42 $49.91 $52.53 $55.29 $58.22
C107 OFFICE ASSISTANT I HOURLY RATE $26.67 $28.05 $29.40 $30.84 $32.49
C702 PARK AND FIELD MONITOR HOURLY RATE $28.00 $29.54 $31.16 $32.88 $34.69
C211 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HOURLY RATE $33.52 $35.12 $36.86 $38.70 $40.65
C201 PARKING ENFORCEMENT TECHNICIAN HOURLY RATE $29.83 $31.25 $32.78 $34.42 $36.16
C409 PARKS AND TREE WORKER HOURLY RATE $33.99 $35.90 $37.55 $39.41 $41.36
C809 PASSPORT APPLICATION ACCEPTANC HOURLY RATE $27.21 $28.65 $30.04 $31.44 $33.10
C900 PER DIEM COMM DISPATCHER HOURLY RATE $35.00 $53.51
C199 POLICE SERVICE AIDE HOURLY RATE $17.88 $18.77 $19.72 $20.70 $21.74
C715 PRE-SCHOOL AIDE HOURLY RATE $23.27 $24.55 $25.89 $27.32 $28.82
C712 PRESCHOOL MUSIC SPECIALIST HOURLY RATE $63.65
C711 PRE-SCHOOL SITE COORDINATOR HOURLY RATE $27.69 $29.21 $30.82 $32.51 $34.30
C714 PRE-SCHOOL TEACHER HOURLY RATE $25.48 $26.88 $28.36 $29.93 $31.57
C612 PROGRAM MANAGER HOURLY RATE $60.05 $63.04 $66.17 $69.50 $73.00
C713 PROGRAM OUTREACH SPECIALIST HOURLY RATE $31.64 $33.38 $35.22 $37.15 $39.20
C700 RECREATION LEADER I HOURLY RATE $18.06
C701 RECREATION LEADER II HOURLY RATE $19.25 $20.31 $21.42 $22.61
C710 RECREATION SPECIALIST HOURLY RATE $28.00 $29.54 $31.16 $32.88 $34.69
C703 SENIOR RECREATION LEADER HOURLY RATE $23.85 $25.16 $26.54
C614 SIDEWALK PROGRAM COORDINATOR HOURLY RATE $40.98 $43.05 $45.19 $47.44 $49.83
C641 SUMMER CREW HOURLY RATE $17.88 $18.77 $19.72 $20.70 $21.74
C642 SUMMER CREW LEADER HOURLY RATE $22.34 $23.46 $24.62 $25.84 $27.12
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SALARY SCHEDULE - CASUAL
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/30/2024
CLASS JOB DESCRIPTION PAY BASIS STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E
CA14 ACCOUNTING TECH -RET ANNUITANT HOURLY RATE $43.66 $45.86 $48.14 $50.52 $53.05
CA13 HR ANALYST II - RET ANNUITANT HOURLY RATE $53.19 $55.86 $58.54 $61.53 $64.62
CA12 HR TECH - RET ANNUITANT HOURLY RATE $40.47 $42.38 $44.46 $46.67 $49.12
CA11 LIB ASST II - RET ANNUITANT HOURLY RATE $30.38 $31.75 $33.44 $34.92 $36.65
CP50 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HOURLY RATE $46.99 $100.70
CP25 ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER HOURLY RATE $63.70 $66.89 $70.21 $73.76 $77.45
CP12 ASSOCIATE PLANNER HOURLY RATE $52.03 $54.63 $57.36 $60.27 $63.29
CP61 AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICIAN HOURLY RATE $30.93 $32.47 $34.08 $35.79 $37.58
CP75 BUILDING ATTENDANT HOURLY RATE $21.09 $22.25 $23.48 $24.77 $26.13
CP63 CP BUILDING INSPECTOR II HOURLY RATE $54.25 $56.83 $59.79 $62.61 $65.64
CP85 CP-HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR HOURLY RATE $94.78 $99.49 $104.50 $109.73 $115.17
CP11 CP-LIB ASST II HOURLY RATE $30.38 $31.75 $33.44 $34.92 $36.65
CP87 CP-LIBRARIAN I HOURLY RATE $35.53 $37.25 $38.99 $40.98 $42.92
CP72 CP-PARK AND REC FIELD MONITOR HOURLY RATE $28.00 $29.54 $31.16 $32.88 $34.69
CP70 CP-REC COORDINATOR I HOURLY RATE $28.62 $30.04 $31.56 $33.14 $34.80
CP05 CP-SENIOR PLANNER HOURLY RATE $59.50 $62.46 $65.57 $68.84 $72.31
CP62 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II HOURLY RATE $39.34 $41.36 $43.44 $45.60 $47.83
CP30 INTERN II HOURLY RATE $32.59 $39.10 $45.62 $52.15 $58.65
CP60 LABORER HOURLY RATE $31.72 $33.20 $35.02 $36.67 $38.44
CP86 LIBRARIAN II HOURLY RATE $39.14 $41.08 $43.07 $45.20 $47.53
CP80 LIBRARY AIDE I HOURLY RATE $17.88 $18.77 $19.72 $20.70 $21.74
CP81 LIBRARY AIDE II HOURLY RATE $19.89 $20.88 $21.92 $23.03 $24.17
CP10 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I HOURLY RATE $27.21 $28.65 $30.04 $31.44 $33.10
CP21 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HOURLY RATE $33.52 $35.12 $36.86 $38.70 $40.65
CP40 PARKS AND TREE WORKER HOURLY RATE $33.99 $35.90 $37.55 $39.41 $41.36
CP15 PER DIEM COMM DISPATCHER HOURLY RATE $35.00 $53.51
CP71 RECREATION SPECIALIST HOURLY RATE $28.00 $29.54 $31.16 $32.88 $34.69
CP20 SUSTAINABILITY COORDINATOR HOURLY RATE $56.24 $59.06 $62.00 $65.11 $68.36
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 10a
MEETING DATE: December 2, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: December 2, 2024
From: Neda Zayer, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager – (650) 558-7256
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Burlingame Amending Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.40 of
Article 3; Chapter 25.48 of Article 4; Chapter 25.60 of Article 6; Chapter 25.88
of Article 6; Chapter 25.98 of Article 6; and Chapter 25.100 of Article 7,
Related to Accessory Dwelling Units; CEQA Determination: Exempt
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15282, 15378, and 15061(b)(3)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the proposed Ordinance, which amends the
above-referenced chapters in the Burlingame Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units.
In order to do so, the City Council should:
1. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff.
2. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed Ordinance.
3. Close the public hearing, discuss the proposed Ordinance, determine whether to bring it
back for adoption.
4. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the Ordinance at least five days before
proposed adoption.
BACKGROUND
What is an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is a smaller, independent residential dwelling unit located on
the same lot as a stand-alone single-family residence or multi-family residential development.
ADUs are also referred to as secondary units or granny units/flats. ADUs come in a variety of types
and forms and include:
• Interior ADU: When a portion of an existing single-family residence is converted into an
ADU.
• Attached ADU: When an addition to a single-family residence is constructed to be used as
an ADU.
• Detached ADU: When a new stand-alone structure is constructed to be used as an ADU,
Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units December 2, 2024
2
or an existing stand-alone accessory structure or portion of a structure is turned into an
ADU.
• Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU): When up to 500 square feet of an existing or
proposed single-family residence is converted into a JADU.
The History of ADU State Laws:
In 2016, the State of California created statewide regulations that required local jurisdictions to
allow ADUs on most residential lots as a response to California’s statewide housing shortage.
These laws preempted local zoning ordinances and permitting processes in an effort to reduce
regulatory barriers commonly found in local zoning ordinances.
In almost every subsequent year since, additional laws have been passed to further relax the
regulations around ADUs, requiring local jurisdictions to continue to update local regulations. Below
is a brief history of the State ADU laws and how regulations have changed over time:
• 2016 (A.B. 2299, S.B. 1069, A.B. 2406): established statewide regulations allowing the
development of ADUs, including:
o Mandated that local governments approve ADU building permit requests if the
ADU meets certain standards.
o Reduced, and in some cases eliminated, ADU parking requirements.
o Reduced ADU utility-related fee requirements.
o Prohibited local governments from discretionary approval of ADUs.
o Voided all local government ADU-related ordinances that do not fully comply
with state law.
o ADU permits in non-compliant jurisdictions must be reviewed under California
law until the local government adopts a California-compliant ADU ordinance.
o Allowed local governments to adopt an ordinance permitting JADUs, subject to
certain requirements. JADUs are ADUs that do not exceed 500 square feet
and are completely contained within an existing residential structure
• 2017 (SB 229 and AB 494): gave the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) greater oversight over how local jurisdictions administered ADU
permitting and clarified various ambiguities in the law, including:
o Clarified an ADU can be created through the conversion of a garage, carport, or
covered parking structure.
o Reduced the maximum number of parking spaces for an ADU to one space.
o Allowed replacement parking spaces to be located in any configuration as a
result of a parking structure conversion to an ADU.
• 2019 (AB 68, AB 670, SB 9, SB 13):
o Exempted ADUs/JADUs from restrictions in HOAs/CC&Rs
Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units December 2, 2024
3
o Established Statewide Exemption ADUs for ADUs up to 800 square feet meeting
specific criteria
o Eliminated impact fees for ADUs under 750 square feet
o Allowed ADUs to be constructed at the same time as the primary unit
o Reduced time approvals from 120 days to 60 days
o Prohibited cities from:
Requiring minimum lot sizes
Requiring replacement parking for garage conversions
Banning short-term rentals in ADUs
Requiring owner occupancy of an ADU
• 2021 (AB 3182): further streamlined ADU permitting.
• 2022 (AB 2221 and SB 897): increased the height of ADUs, allowed the construction of
state exempt ADUs within front yard setback areas, reduced local jurisdictions’ ability to
deny ADUs, expanded where JADUs could be built, and streamlined application review
processes.
• 2023 (AB 976): permanently exempted ADUs from owner-occupancy mandates.
• 2024 (AB 2533, SB1211, SB 1077): further explained below.
The City of Burlingame’s ADU Regulations
In 2017, 2018 and 2020, the City Council adopted code amendments to Title 25 (Zoning) in
response to the State laws regarding ADUs. Further refinements to the ADU Ordinance
(Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) Section 25.48.030) were made with the Zoning Code Update
in 2021; however, no other updates have been made since that time.
Earlier this year, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviewed
the City’s ADU regulations and found they do not comply with current State law. HCD issued the
City a letter requiring the City to update its ADU regulations to comply with State legislation given
that it supersedes the City’s regulations. In addition, on January 1, 2025, several new State laws
will go into effect regarding ADUs; these changes have been incorporated into the proposed
Ordinance.
Staff is bringing forward the proposed Ordinance, which makes changes to Chapter 25.48
(Standards for Specific Land Uses and Activities) of the Municipal Code and other related Municipal
Code sections pertaining to ADUs. At its meeting of November 25, 2024, the Planning Commission
reviewed the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations, as required by the Municipal
Code, and recommended that the City Council adopt the changes as presented in the proposed
Ordinance.
Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units December 2, 2024
4
DISCUSSION
The proposed Ordinance sets forth text amendments to the City’s existing ADU regulations (BMC
Section 25.48.030), as well as other sections of the Municipal Code, to ensure consistency with
State legislation that has been passed since 2021, including State laws (AB 2533 and SB 1211)
passed in 2024 that become effective on January 1, 2025. It is important to note that any local
ordinance that does not conform to AB 2533 and SB 1211 changes to state ADU law will be
rendered null and void as a matter of law on January 1, 2025. The following is a list of key changes
to the regulations, including requirements mandated by State legislation and staff’s recommended
amendments:
1. ADU Permit Requirement: The City’s existing ADU regulations require an applicant to first
obtain an ADU Permit (ministerial review) from the Planning Division prior to submitting a
building permit application to the Building Division. The proposed Ordinance amends these
regulations to eliminate the ADU Permit requirement. An applicant would only be required
to apply for and obtain a building permit, which would be reviewed by all applicable City
divisions, including the Planning Division. This will help: (1) remove regulatory barriers by
streamlining the ADU review and approval process, (2) reduce a homeowner’s permitting
time from going through two almost identical permitting processes, and (3) reduce City staff
time reviewing ADUs.
2. Statewide Exemption ADUs: The proposed Ordinance would clarify the regulations for
Statewide Exemption ADUs based on the specific requirements established by the State,
versus other types of ADUs. The City’s existing regulations do not include this information.
Statewide Exemption ADUs include:
• JADUs;
• ADUs in spaces converted from within an existing single-unit or multi-unit dwelling,
or existing accessory structure, or within a proposed single-unit dwelling;
• A new detached ADU with four-foot side and rear setbacks, a maximum size of 800
SF, and within the height limit allowed by State law (see below).
It is important to note that a property with a single-family residence can obtain all three of
these ADU types on a single property.
3. Side and Rear Setback Requirements: The City’s existing ADU regulations exempt
detached ADU structures from side and rear setback requirements. The proposed
Ordinance amends the ADU regulations to require four-foot side and rear setbacks for
construction of a new detached ADU or an addition to an existing detached structure.
It is important to note that current State law exempts ADUs from side and rear setback
requirements if the new detached ADU is built in the same location and to the same
dimensions of an existing detached structure that is demolished/replaced with the new ADU.
4. Maximum Height Limits: The City’s existing ADU regulations limit the height of a detached
ADU to one-story and 16 feet. In compliance with State law, the proposed Ordinance would
Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units December 2, 2024
5
amend ADU regulations to allow the following building heights, including a new detached
two-story ADU or an ADU above an existing or proposed detached garage:
• 18 feet if the lot is located within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit
stop (train station) or a high-quality transit corridor (El Camino Real); an additional
two feet is allowed if needed to match the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
• 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multi-unit, multi-
story dwelling.
Restrictions on plate height would also being eliminated, since HCD noted that only a
restriction on the overall building height can be enforced.
5. Senate Bill 1211 – Replacement Parking Requirements; Multi-unit ADUs: Senate Bill 1211
was adopted in 2024 and goes into effect on January 1, 2025. The new law requires the
following:
• Prohibits local agencies from requiring replacement of an uncovered parking space
if it is demolished for or replaced with an ADU. Under the City’s current ADU
regulations, covered parking spaces are not required to be replaced.
• Currently, state law requires local agencies to ministerially approve building permit
applications for ADUs within “portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that
are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler
rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages ….”
SB 1211 adds a definition for ‘livable space’, which means a space in a dwelling
intended for human habitation, including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or
sanitation.
• Increases the quantity of detached ADUs that lots with existing multi-unit dwellings
can have from two detached ADUs to eight detached ADUs, or as many detached
ADUs as there are primary dwelling units on the lot, whichever is less.
6. Assembly Bill 2533 - Unpermitted ADUs and JADUs: Assembly Bill 2533 was adopted in
2024 and goes into effect on January 1, 2025. The new law requires the following:
Currently, state law prohibits local agencies from denying a permit to legalize an
unpermitted ADU that was constructed before January 1, 2018, if the denial is based on the
ADU not complying with applicable building, state, or local ADU standards. One exception
allows local agencies to deny a permit to legalize if the agency makes a written finding that
correcting the violation is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or the
occupants of the structure.
AB 2533 will: (1) expand its applicability to JADUs; (2) change the construction cutoff date
from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2020; (3) replace the above exception with a
requirement that local agencies find that correcting the violation is necessary to comply with
Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units December 2, 2024
6
the standards specified in Health and Safety Code section 17920.3 (Substandard
Buildings); and (4) address the scope of city inspections and limits on remedial action.
In addition to amendments to BMC Chapter 25.48, there are several other Municipal Code sections
that address ADUs that require updating for consistency with the proposed changes, which are
reflected in the proposed Ordinance. Those proposed changes include amendments to the
following BMC Chapters:
• Chapter 25.40 (Parking Regulations)
• Chapter 25.60 (General Provisions)
• Chapter 25.88 (Permit Implementation, Extensions, Modifications, and Revocations)
• Chapter 25.98 (Appeals and Calls for Review)
• Chapter 25.100 (Public Hearings and Notice)
The proposed Ordinance in redline form is provided as an attachment to this report for reference.
A “clean” version of the proposed Ordinance is also provided.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The proposed Ordinance is Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h), which exempts the adoption of an
ordinance regarding accessory dwelling units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a
city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 66310-66341 of the Government Code as
set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code. In addition, the proposed Ordinance
is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378 because the proposed
Ordinance is not a “project” within the definition of CEQA. Furthermore, the proposed Ordinance is
exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because the proposed
Ordinance can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the
environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the proposed Ordinance.
Exhibits:
• Proposed Ordinance – Redline Version
• Proposed Ordinance - Clean Version
1
REDLINE VERSION
Chapter 25.40
PARKING REGULATIONS
25.40.030 Required Parking Spaces.
Table 25.40-1: Parking Requirements by Use
Type of Land Use Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required
Residential Uses
Dwellings
Accessory Dwelling Units Per Section 25.48.030.LH. (Parking)
Single-Unit Dwelling See Section 25.40.030.B.
Two -Unit and Multi-Unit Dwellings
All zoning districts except
Downtown Specific Plan,
BRMU, RRMU, NBMU,
and R-4
1 space for studio units
1.5 spaces for one-bedroom
units
2 spaces for two-or more
bedroom units
0.5 spaces per unit for
housing occupied
exclusively by persons aged
62 or older
0.75 spaces for micro units
Guest parking:
1 additional guest parking
space shall be provided for
every 4 units for projects
greater than 10 units
Downtown Specific Plan
zoning districts, BRMU,
RRMU, NBMU, and R-4
1 space for studio or one-
bedroom units
1.5 spaces for two-bedroom
units
2 spaces for three-or more
bedroom units
0.75 spaces for micro units
No additional guest parking
spaces are required
All 80 percent of the total required parking spaces shall
be covered or within a garage or carport.
2
Caretaker Quarters 1 space per dwelling
3
Section 5. Chapter 25.48 – Standards for Specific Land Uses and Activities, Section 25.48.030,
Accessory Dwelling Units, of Article 4 of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is amended as follows:
25.48.030 Accessory Dwelling Units.
A. Purpose and Applicability.
1. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior
accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in compliance with California Government Code Sections
66310 through 66341.65852.2 and 65852.22. This chapter is intended to implement the
Housing Element of the Burlingame General Plan by providing for additional housing
opportunities. This will be accomplished by increasing the number of units available within
existing neighborhoods while maintaining the primarily single-unit and multi-unit residential
character of the area, and establishing standards for the development and occupancy of
accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units to ensure that they are
compatible with neighboring uses and structures, adequately equipped with public utility
services, safe for human occupancy, and do not create unreasonable traffic and safety
impacts.
2. In cases of conflict between this chapter and any other provision of this title, the provisions
of this chapter shall prevail. To the extent that any provision of this chapter is in conflict with
State law, the applicable provision of State law shall control, but all other provisions of this
chapter shall remain in full force and effect.
3. An ADU or JADU which conforms to the requirements of this chapter shall not be considered
to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located and shall be deemed to
be a residential use which is consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning
designations for the lot.
B. Definitions. The following terms shall have the following meanings for this chapter only and shall
supersede the terms defined by Chapter 25.106 (Land Use Definitions):
1. “Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU” means an attached or, detached, or interior residential
dwelling unit ancillary to a primary dwelling unit that provides complete independent living
facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary
residence. An accessory dwelling unit may be between 150 and 1,000 square feet in size
and shall comply with subsection H.3 (Maximum Size) of this section. It shall include
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel
as the single-unit or multi-unit dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also
4
includes an efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code,
and a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. This
chapter recognizes three types of accessory dwelling units as defined below. Where a
proposed accessory dwelling unit does not clearly fall into one of the defined types, the
Director shall make a determination pursuant to Chapter 25.04 (Interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance).
a. “Attached accessory dwelling unit” or “Attached ADU” means an accessory dwelling
unit that is constructed as a physical expansion (i.e., addition) of an existing or
proposed primary dwelling unit, including construction of a new basement
underneath a primary dwelling unit to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit.
b. “Detached accessory dwelling unit” or “Detached ADU” means an accessory
dwelling unit that is constructed as a separate structure from the existing or
proposed primary dwelling unit; or contained within the existing space of an
accessory structure (as defined herein), including construction of a new basement
underneath an accessory structure to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit.
c. “Interior accessory dwelling unit” or “Interior ADU” means an accessory dwelling unit
that is contained within the existing space of aan existing or proposed primary
dwelling unit, including within its living area, basement, or attached garage;
constructed as part of a proposed primary dwelling unit; or created from non-livable
space of a multi-unit dwelling.
2. “Accessory structure” means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling
located on the same lot.
3. “Efficiency kitchen” means a kitchen that includes each of the following:
a. A sink and cooking facility with appliances (e.g., microwave, toaster oven or hot
plate).
b. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in
relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.
4. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a residential dwelling unit that:
5
a. Is no more than 500 square feet in size;
b. Is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling; enclosed
spaces within an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling, such as attached
garages, are considered a part of the single-unit dwelling;
c. Includes its own separate sanitation facilities (bathroom containing a sink, toilet, and
shower or tub), or may share sanitation facilities with the existing or proposed single-
unit structure; JADUs without a separate bathroom shall include a separate entrance
from the main entrance to the single-unit dwelling, with an interior entry to the main
living area of the single-unit dwelling; and
d. Includes an efficiency kitchen, as defined in subsection B.3 above.
5. “Kitchen” means a kitchen that includes each of the following:
a. A sink and cooking facility (permanent stove and/or oven);
b. A refrigerator with separate doors for the refrigerator and freezer compartments; and
c. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in
relation to the size of the accessory dwelling unit.
6. ‘Livable space’ means a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation, including living,
sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation.
7. “Living area” means the interior habitable floor area of a dwelling unit, including basements
and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.
8. “Multi-unit dwelling” means two or more attached primary residential units contained on the
same lot. Multiple detached single-unit dwellings on the same lot are not considered multi-
unit dwellings for the purposes of this chapter.
89. “Nonconforming zoning conditions” means a physical improvement on a property that does
not conform with current zoning standards.
6
910. “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a
street to the entrance of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit.
1011 . “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station,
where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that
charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.
1112. “Tandem parking” means a parking configuration where two or more automobiles are parked
on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.
C. Applications and Processing.
1. An applicant shall submit a permit application for an ADU or JADU that is in conformance
with this chapter shall be submitted to the Building Division andwhich shall be considered
by the Building Division ministerially and without discretionary review or public
hearing.Applications for ADU and JADU permits shall be in writing and filed with the
Community Development Department on a form approved by the Director.
2. As established by Council resolution, a fee will be charged for an application for an ADU or
JADU permit under this chapter. All ADUs and JADUs are also subject to building permit
fees.
3.2. Within 60 days of receipt of a complete application, the Building Division Community
Development Department staff shall ministerially ministerially process for approval approve
or deny any permit application for an ADU or JADU if there is an existing single-unit dwelling
or multi-unit dwelling on the lot. permit pursuant to this chapter. Incomplete applications will
be returned by the Building Division to the applicant and will includewith an explanation in
writing a full set of comments with a list of items that are defective or deficient and how the
application can be remedied by the applicant. of what additional information is required. If
the Building Division has not approved or denied the completed application for the ADU or
JADU within such 60-day period, the application shall be deemed approved. Upon finding
that the ADU or JADU meets the requirements of this chapter, the application shall be
approved. ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing and the applicant may
proceed to acquire a building permit. All ADUs and JADU applications are categorically
exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA guidelines.
7
4.3. If an permit application for an attached ADU or JADU is submitted with an application for an
addition to an existing single-unit or multi-unit dwelling or construction of a new single-unit
or multi-unit dwelling that is subject to design review or other discretionary permit for the
same parcel, the permit application for the ADU or JADU permit shall not be acted upon
until the application for design review or other discretionary permit is approved or denied.
Following the approval for design review or other discretionary permit for the primarysingle-
unit or multi-unit dwelling unit, the complete permit application for the ADU or JADU
application will be ministerially processed within 60 days of receipt of a complete application
and approved if it meets the requirements of this chapter.
5.4. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period for approval shall be tolled for the
period of the delay.
D. Appeal. The applicant that requested the accessory dwelling unit permit may appeal the Director’s
denial of the request. The appeal shall be submitted to the Director in writing within 10 days after
the date of the Director’s decision. The appeal shall be heard by the Planning Commission in a
public hearing pursuant to the procedures established for discretionary actions in Chapter 25.100.
E. Revocation of Permit.
1. Grounds. An ADU or JADU permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be revoked on any
one or more of the following grounds:
a. Failure to comply with the requirements of this chapter; or
b. The ADU or JADU is no longer used for residential purposes; or
c. The parking required by this chapter is no longer provided.
2. Notice. Written notice to revoke an ADU or JADU permit shall be served on the property
owner, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, either personally or by certified mail,
and shall state:
a. The reasons for the proposed revocation.
b. That the proposed action will be taken by the Director unless a written request for a
hearing before the Commission is requested within 15 days after the date of said
notice. If no response is received, the Director will revoke the ADU or JADU permit
as set forth in the notice.
3. Hearing. If a hearing is requested, at least 10 days’ notice thereof shall be given to the
requested party. At the hearing, the property owner may call witnesses and present
evidence in his or her behalf. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Commission will
determine whether or not the permit will be revoked. Such determination may be appealed
to the Council in the same manner as for appeals taken on applications for the granting of
conditional use permits or variances.
8
F.D. Minimum Standards of Eligibility.
1. No minimum lot area is required for creation of an ADU or JADU.
2. An ADU or JADU shall only be allowed on a parcel which has been legally created in
compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 26 (Subdivisions), and where the ADU
or JADU is developed with an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling, except for ADUs
constructed on multi-unit residential properties pursuant to Section 25.48.030.J.subsection
E.9.
3. ADUs may only be permitted in districts zoned to allow single-unit dwelling or multi-unit
dwelling residential uses as a permitted use. ADUs are also permitted on any parcel that
has a current and valid nonconforming single-unit or multi-unit residential use, so long as
the ADU complies with all other portions of this chapter.
4. JADUs may only be permitted in districts zoned to allow a single-unit dwelling residential
use as a permitted use. JADUs are also permitted on any parcel that has a current and valid
nonconforming single-unit residential use, so long as the JADU complies with all other
portions of this chapter.
G.E. General Requirements and Restrictions. The following requirements and restrictions apply to all
existing and new ADUs and JADUs, as applicable:
1. ADUs and JADUs shall comply with all applicable provisions of this title and all applicable
building, health and fire codes. However, ADUs and JADUs shall not be required to provide
fire sprinklers unless required for the primary single-unit dwelling or multi-unit dwelling
structure.
2. All development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, including those in
Article 2, shall apply to ADUs and JADUs unless they are inconsistent with the provisions
of this chapter, in which case the development standards of this chapter shall apply.
3. Accessory Dwelling Units.
a. ADUs may be rented separately from the single-unit dwelling or multi-unit dwelling
structure but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the other
9
dwellings on the lot, except the ADU and single-unit dwelling may be owned by
multiple owners as tenants in common if the single-unit dwelling and ADU were
developed by a qualified nonprofit, as that term is defined in Government Code
Section 66340, and if all of the provisions of Government Code Section 66341 are
met.as provided for by Government Code Section 65852.26.
b. ADUs may not be rented for fewer than 30 consecutive calendar days.
c. ADUs are not subject to any owner-occupancy requirement.
d. Interior Connection. Attached and interior ADUs may, but are not required, to contain
an interior doorway connection between the single-unit dwelling and ADU.
e. Permanent Foundations.
i. All ADUs shall be permanently attached to a permanent foundation.
ii. A recreational vehicle, commercial coach, trailer, motor home, camper,
camping trailer, boat, or similar vehicle shall not be used as an ADU.
f. Balconies/Decks. Balconies, second story decks, and rooftop terraces are
prohibited, except for required landings sized to meet minimum requirements to
allow ingress and egress.
4. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
a. JADUs may be rented separately from the single-unit dwelling but may not be sold
or otherwise conveyed separately from the single-unit dwelling on the lot.
b. JADUs may not be rented for fewer than 30 consecutive calendar days.
c.b. JADUs are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. A person with legal or
equitable title to the property shall reside on the property in either the primary
dwelling or JADU as that person’s legal domicile and permanent residence.
10
However, the owner-occupancy requirement of this paragraph does not apply if the
property is entirely owned by another governmental agency, land trust, or housing
organization. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a JADU, the owner shall
record a covenant in a form prescribed by the city attorney, which shall run with the
land and provide for the following:
i. A prohibition on the sale of the JADU separate from the sale of the single-
unit dwelling;
ii. A restriction on the size and attributes of the JADU consistent with this
section;
iii. A prohibition against renting the property for fewer than 30 consecutive
calendar days; and
iv. A requirement that either the primary residence or the JADU unit be the
owner’s bona fide principal residence, unless the owner is a governmental
agency, land trust, or housing organization.
5. If an ADU or JADU which was created within a single-unit dwelling, accessory structure or
multi-unit dwelling structure is required to be removed or is voluntarily removed, the kitchen
facility shall be removed from the space that is no longer an ADU or JADU and, unless
permitted for a different use, the space shall be converted back to its original use. If an ADU
was newly constructed:
a. The space or structure shall be entirely removed; or
b. The kitchen facility shall be removed and the space shall be converted to a permitted
use allowed within the underlying zoning district; or
c. The kitchen facility shall be removed and the applicant shall obtain the appropriate
land use permit for the proposed use within the space.
6. Certificates of Occupancy. A certificate of occupancy for an ADU or JADU shall not be
issued before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the primary dwelling unit.
7. Deed Restriction. Prior to issuance of a building permit for an ADU ora JADU, a deed
restriction must be recorded against the title of the property in the County Recorder’s office
and a copy filed with the Community Development Department. The deed restriction must
run with the land and bind all future owners. The form of the deed restriction will be provided
by the City and must provide that:
11
a. The ADU or JADU shall not be sold separately from the primary dwelling.
b. The ADU or JADU is restricted to the approved size and to other attributes allowed
by this section.
c. The deed restriction runs with the land and may be enforced against future property
owners.
d. The deed restriction may be removed if the owner eliminates the ADU or JADU, as
evidenced by, for example, removal of the kitchen facilities. To remove the deed
restriction, an owner may make a written request of the City, providing evidence that
the ADU or JADU has in fact been eliminated. The City may then determine whether
the evidence supports the claim that the ADU or JADU has been eliminated. Appeal
may be taken from the City’s determination consistent with other provisions of this
Code. If the ADU or JADU is not entirely physically removed but is only eliminated
by virtue of having a necessary component of an ADU or JADU removed, the
remaining structure and improvements must otherwise comply with applicable
provisions of this Code.
e. The deed restriction is enforceable by the Director or his or her designee for the
benefit of the City. Failure of this property owner to comply with the deed restriction
may result in legal action against the property owner, and the City is authorized to
obtain any remedy available to it at law or equity, including, but not limited to,
obtaining an injunction enjoining the use of the ADU or JADU in violation of the
recorded restrictions or abatement of the illegal unit.
8. Single-Unit Dwellings. The following may be permitted on a parcel with an existing
or proposed single-unit dwelling:
a. JADUs. One JADU that meets the standards in subsection G. JADUs are
only permitted on a parcel with no more than one existing or proposed single-
unit dwelling.
b. ADUs. Any one of the following may be permitted on a parcel with an existing
or proposed single-unit dwelling:
12
i. One new construction attached or detached ADU that meets the standards
in subsection F.
ii. Statewide Exemption ADUs as permitted under subsection E.10.a.-b.
9. Multi-Unit Dwellings. Any one of the following may be permitted on a parcel with an
existing or proposed multi-unit dwelling:
a. One attached, detached, or interior ADU that meets the standards in
subsection F.
b. Statewide Exemption ADUs as permitted under subsection E.10.c.-d.
10. Statewide Exemption ADUs. If an ADU or JADU does not exist or is not proposed
pursuant to subsection E.8. or E.9. above, any of the following will be ministerially
permitted on a parcel and is not subject to subsection F. below.
a. One ADU and one JADU per parcel with a proposed or existing single-unit
dwelling if all of the following apply:
i. The ADU or JADU is within the proposed space of a single-unit
dwelling or existing space of a single-unit dwelling or the ADU is within
the existing accessory structure and may include an expansion of not
more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as
the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical
dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to
accommodating ingress and egress.
ii. The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-
unit dwelling.
iii. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
iv. The JADU complies with the requirements of subsection G.
b. One detached, new construction ADU that does not exceed four-foot side
and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-unit
dwelling, does not exceed 800 square feet in floor area, and does not exceed
13
the allowed height in subsection F.4. The ADU may be combined with a JADU
that meets the standards as described in subsection G.
c. Multiple ADUs within the portions of a multi-unit dwelling that are not used as
livable space, including but not limited to storage rooms, boiler rooms,
passageways, attics, basements, or garages, provided that the dwellings
comply with building and fire code standards for dwellings. The number of
ADUs permitted is equivalent to up to 25 percent of the number of existing,
legally permitted units in the multi-unit dwelling, or one, whichever is greater.
When calculating the number of allowed ADUs based on the percentage of
existing multi-units, round down to the nearest integer.
d. In addition to ADUs allowed by subsection 10.c. above, up to eight detached
ADUs, or as many detached ADUs as there are primary dwelling units on the
lot, whichever is less, may be allowed on lots with an existing multi-unit
dwelling. These allowed units may be converted from existing detached
garages on the site. On lots with a proposed multi-unit dwelling, up to two
detached ADUs may be allowed. The ADUs must not exceed the allowed
height in subsection F.5. and must have a minimum rear and side setbacks
of four feet. If the existing multi-unit dwelling has a rear or side setback of
less than four feet, the existing multi-unit dwelling will not be required to be
modified to meet this setback.
H.F. Development Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units. An ADU shall be constructed only in
accordance with the following development standards:
1. Location and Number. Only one ADU shall be permitted per lot which contains an existing
or proposed single-unit dwelling. ADUs may be located in any of the following:
a. Within the walls of an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling;
b. Attached to an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling;
c. Within an existing accessory structure; or
d. Detached from the single-unit dwelling but located on the same lot as the existing
or proposed single- unit dwelling.
2. Minimum Size. No ADU shall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.
1.3. Maximum Size. The maximum floor area for an attached or detached ADU shall be 850
square feet or 1,000 square feet. for two or more bedrooms.
a. Notwithstanding subsection H.3 above, if there is an existing primary dwelling, an
attached ADU shall not exceed 50 percent of the living area of the existing primary
dwelling.
b. If the ADU is created by converting space within an existing single-unit dwelling or
accessory structure:
14
i. An expansion limited to 150 square feet beyond the physical dimensions of
the existing single-unit dwelling or accessory structure is permitted strictly to
accommodate ingress and egress to the ADU; this additional square footage
shall be exempt from lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements. The
side and rear setback requirements for the single-unit dwelling may be
reduced to no less four feet to accommodate an exterior stair and landing
that provide required access to the ADU if it is located on the second story;
and
ii. The ADU must have side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as
dictated by applicable building and fire codes.
2.4. Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage. An attached or detached ADU measuring no more than
800850 square feet in size shall be exempt from floor area ratio and lot coverage
requirements (includes floor area located in basements or lower level areas). For
Anattached or detached ADUs measuring greater than 800850 square feet, the entire ADU
shall be counted and shall comply with the floor area ratio and lot coverage regulations. as
specified by the applicable zoning district.
3.5. Setbacks. An ADUs shall conform to the following setback standards:
a. No front setback shall be applied that would preclude the development of an 800
square foot ADU with at least four (4) foot side and rear setbacks. ADUs exceeding
800 square feet shall comply with minimum front setback requirements.
a.b. A setback of at least four feet is required from the side and rear property lines;
however, no setbacks shall be required under the following circumstances:
i. Existing livable space or an existing accessory structure that is converted, in
whole or in part, to an ADU; and
ii. The detached ADU is constructed in the same location and to the same
dimensions as an existing detached structure (with no expansion) that is
demolished solely for the purpose of constructing the ADU.; or
iii. Construction of a new detached ADU entirely located within the rear 40
percent of the lot. If any portion of the detached ADU is located forward of
the rear 40 percent of the lot, it shall comply with the setback requirements
of the applicable zoning district in which it is located; for detached ADUs that
are no greater than 850 square feet and no taller than 16 feet, no more than
four-foot side or rear setbacks shall be required.
b. There shall be a minimum four-foot separation between a detached ADU and any
other structure on the lot, as measured between the exterior walls of the structures.
4.6. Maximum Height Limits. and Stories. ADUs shall be subject to the following height limits
which shall be measured from highest adjacent grade:
15
a. Detached ADUs.A height of 16 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or
proposed single-unit or multi-unit dwelling.
b. A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single-
unit or multi-unit dwelling unit that is within one-half mile distance of a major transit
stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in California Public Resource Code
Section 21155. An additional two feet in height shall be allowed to accommodate a
roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
c. A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed multi-
unit, multi-story dwelling.
d. A height of 30 feet (25 feet if located within the Hillside Overlay Zone) or the height
limitation in the applicable zoning district, whichever is lower, for an ADU that is
attached to a primary dwelling. The attached ADU may not exceed two stories.
i. All detached ADUs shall be limited to one story in height and shall not be
constructed above detached garages or detached accessory structures
except for accessory dwelling units created entirely within an existing legal
two-story detached accessory structure.
ii. The maximum allowed building height for a detached ADU is 16 feet, as
measured from highest adjacent existing grade to the top of the highest roof
ridge and shall comply with the maximum allowed plate height requirements
in subsections H.6.a.iii. and iv.
iii. The maximum allowed plate height is nine feet, as measured from finished
floor to the top of plate. The plate height may exceed nine feet, up to a
maximum of 10 feet above finished floor, if the ADU is set back at least four
feet from the side and rear property lines. Where the slope on a lot between
the front and rear of the structure varies by more than two feet, the plate
height shall be measured from average adjacent existing grade.
iv. For detached ADUs containing a single slope, one side of the structure shall
be allowed to have a plate height greater than nine feet; the plate height of
walls closest to and parallel with side and rear property lines shall not exceed
nine feet in height (or 10 feet in height if ADU is set back four feet from side
and rear property lines).
b. Attached ADUs. Attached ADUs may be constructed on the first or second floor of
an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling and shall be subject to the height
requirements of the applicable zoning district in which it is located. If located within
the Hillside Overlay Zone, attached ADUs shall not exceed 16 feet in height as
measured from average adjacent grade around the single-unit dwelling.
7. Kitchen. The ADU shall contain a kitchen satisfying the following criteria:
16
a. Contains a sink and cooking facility (permanent stove and/or oven);
b. Contains a refrigerator with separate doors for the refrigerator and freezer
compartments; and
c. Contains a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable
size in relation to the size of the accessory dwelling unit.
5.8. Entrance. An ADU shall have a separate exterior entrance from the main entrance to the
existing or proposed single-unit dwelling. For an ADU located entirely on a second story,
this shall require a separate interior or exterior stairway. The entrance to the ADU
shallshould not face the same public street as the entrance to the single-unit dwelling, if
feasible.unless it is the only location determined to comply with applicable building and fire
codes. A passageway from the ADU to a public street may be created but is not required.
9. Windows and Skylights. Windows and glazed openings shall be located at least three feet
from any property line. Skylights shall be allowed on sloping roofs facing interior yards, on
sloping roofs facing side yards as long as the skylight is located at least 10 feet from
property line, and on flat roofs. The placement of windows and skylights in ADUs shall
comply with all applicable building and fire codes.
10. Balconies/Decks. Balconies, second story decks, and rooftop terraces are prohibited for all
ADUs. A green roof shall not be considered a balcony, second story deck, or rooftop terrace.
11. Interior Connection. Attached and interior ADUs may, but are not required, to contain an
interior doorway connection between the single-unit dwelling and ADU.
12. Permanent Foundations.
a. All ADUs shall be permanently attached to a permanent foundation.
b. A recreational vehicle, commercial coach, trailer, motor home, camper, camping
trailer, boat, or similar vehicle shall not be used as an ADU.
13. Existing ADUs Built Before January 1, 1954. For existing ADUs built before January 1, 1954
the following additional criteria shall be met:
a. The ADU shall conform to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code
Section 17920.3, and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 17922; and
b. Improvements may be made to the ADU so long as it conforms to the requirements
of this chapter and corrects any violation of Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3
and the Uniform Housing Code.
I.G. Development Standards for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall
be constructed only in accordance with the following development standards:
17
1. Location. The JADU may only be located within the walls of an existing or proposed single-
unit dwelling. The JADU must have side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as
dictated by applicable building and fire codes.
2. Number. Only one JADU shall be permitted per lot which contains an existing or proposed
single-unit dwelling. A JADU may be allowed in conjunction with one detached ADU on the
same lot as long as the ADU does not exceed 850 square feet.
3. Minimum Size. No JADU shall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.
4.1. Maximum Size. The JADU shall not exceed 500 square feet in area. JADUs shall be exempt
from floor area and lot coverage requirements when it is part of an existing single-unit
dwelling. An expansion limited to 150 square foot beyond the physical dimensions of the
existing single-unit dwelling is permitted strictly to accommodate ingress and egress to the
JADU; this additional square footage shall be exempt from lot coverage and floor area ratio
requirements. The side and rear setback requirements for the single-unit dwelling may be
reduced to no less than four feet to accommodate an exterior stair and landing that provide
required access to the JADU if it is located on the second story.
5.2. Kitchen. The JADU shall contain an efficiency kitchen satisfying the following the criteria:
a. Contains a sink and cooking facility with appliances (e.g., microwave, toaster oven
or hot plate).
b. Contains a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable
size in relation to the size of the JADU.
6.3. Bathroom. The JADU may have a separate bathroom or may share a bathroom with the
single-unit dwelling. The bathroom shall contain a sink, toilet, and shower or tub. If the
bathroom is shared, there must be a connecting door between the JADU andan interior
entry to the main living area of the single-unit dwelling.
7.4. Entrance. The JADU shall have a separate exterior entrance from the main entrance to the
existing or proposed single-unit dwelling. The entrance to the JADU shall not face the same
public street as the entrance to the primary dwelling, unless it is the only location determined
to comply with applicable building and fire codes. A passageway from the ADU to a public
street may be created but shall not be required.
8.5. A JADU is not considered a separate or new dwelling for purposes of fire safety or life safety.
J. Accessory Dwelling Units on Multi-Unit Residential Properties. The following requirements and
restrictions apply to creation of ADUs on multi-unit residential properties:
1. For the purposes of this section, the term “multi-unit dwelling structure” means two or more
residential units contained within one or more buildings on the same lot.
2. Conversion. A minimum of one and up to 25 percent of the existing dwelling units within a
multi-unit dwelling structure may be created within existing non-livable space(s), including,
but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or
garages, provided that the dwellings comply with building and fire codes. An ADU shall not
be created within any portion of the habitable area of an existing dwelling unit in a multi-unit
18
structure. When calculating the number of allowed ADUs based on the percentage of
existing multi-unit units, round down to the nearest integer.
3. New Detached ADUs. In addition to ADUs allowed by subsection J.2, up to two new
detached accessory dwelling units may be allowed provided that the height does not exceed
16 feet and that minimum four-foot side and rear yard setbacks are maintained. These
ADUs shall be subject to the standards, requirements, and restrictions of this chapter.
4. There shall be a minimum four-foot separation between a detached ADU and any other
structure on the lot, as measured between the exterior walls of the structures.
K. Design. The design of accessory dwelling units shall conform with the following standards:
1. Accessory Dwelling Units – Conversions.
a. Accessory dwelling units contained within the existing space of an attached garage
shall include removal of vehicle garage doors which shall be replaced with
architectural features the same as those of the primary dwelling unit, including the
same wall cladding, window type, and trim that remove any appearance that the
structure was originally a garage. This wall shall contain at least one window that is
consistent in size and type with other existing windows on the same building façade.
b. An existing detached garage that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit shall
include removal of the vehicle garage door(s).
L.H. Parking.
1. Unless otherwise provided in this section, one off -street parking space shall be provided for
the ADU in addition to the off-street parking spaces required for the single-unit dwelling or
multi-unit residential structure. All parking shall be provided on a hard, all-weather surface.
2. The parking space may be provided in setback areas or as tandem parking unless specific
findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based
upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions.
3. No parking shall be required for an ADU in any of the following instances:
a. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. For the
purposes of this section only, public transit is defined as a location, including, but
not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains,
subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes,
and are available to the public.
b. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic
district.
c. The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an existing
accessory structure.
c.d. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the
ADU.
19
e. When there is an established car share vehicle stop located within one block of the
ADU.
d.f. When a permit application for an ADU is submitted with an application for a new
single-unit dwelling or a new multi-unit dwelling on the same lot and meets one of
the other requirements listed in subsections (a)-(e) above.
4. No parking shall be required for a JADU and any parking displaced by its construction,
including conversion of all or part of an existing attached garage, are not required to be
replaced.
5. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is
demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, those
off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced.
M.I. Utilities and Impact Fees.
1. No ADU or JADU shall be permitted if it is determined that there is not adequate water or
sewer service to the property, as determined by the City.
2. Except as provided in subsection M.3I.3, an ADU may be required to have a new or separate
utility connection, including a separate sewer lateral, between the ADU and the utility. A
connection fee or capacity charge may be charged that is proportionate to the size in square
feet of the ADU or its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values. Separate electric and water meters
shall be required for the ADU.
3. The following ADUs shall be exempt from any requirement to install a new or separate utility
connection and to pay any associated connection or capacity fees or charges:
a. Junior accessory dwelling units.
b. Standard ADUs converted from interior space or if added onto an existing single-
unit dwellingof an existing single unit dwelling or existing accessory structure, ,
unless the unit is constructed within a new single-unit dwelling.home.
4. Impact Fees.
a. No impact fees may be imposed on ADUs that are less than 750 square feet in size.
For purposes of this section, “impact fees” include the fees specified in Sections
66000 and 66477 of the Government Code, but do not include utility connection fees
or capacity charges.
b. For ADUs that have a floor area of 750 square feet or more, impact fees shall be
charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.
N.J. Delay of Enforcement of Building Standard.
1. Prior to January 1, 2030, when the Chief Building Official provides a notice to correct a
violation of any building standard, the Chief Building Official shall include in that notice a
statement that the owner of the ADU has a right to request a delay in enforcement the
owner of an if the ADU that was built prior to adoption of the ordinance codified in this
chapterJanuary 1, 2020 or built when the City had a noncompliant ADU ordinance. The
owner of the ADU, may submit a written request to the Chief Building Official requesting
20
that correction of any violation of building standards be delayed for five years. For purposes
of this section, “building standards” refers to those standards enforced by local agencies
under the authority of Section 17960 of the California Health and Safety Code.
2. The Chief Building Official will grant the application if the Chief Building Official determines
that enforcement of the building standard is not necessary to protect health and safety. In
making this determination, the Chief Building Official will consult with the Fire Marshal.
3. No applications pursuant to this section shall be approved on or after January 1, 2030.
However, any delay that was approved by the City before January 1, 2030, shall be valid
for the full term of the delay that was approved at the time of the approval of the application.
4. Until January 1, 2030, any notice to correct a violation of building standard that is issued to
the owner of an ADU built prior to adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter, shall
include a statement that the owner has a right to request a delay in enforcement of the
building standard for an ADU pursuant to this Section.
K. Unpermitted ADUs and JADUs
1. Notwithstanding any other law, and except as otherwise provided in subsection 2. below,
the City shall not deny a permit for an unpermitted ADU or unpermitted JADU that was
constructed before January 1, 2020, due to either of the following:
a. The ADU or JADU is in violation of building standards pursuant to Article 1
(commencing with Section 17960) of Chapter 5 of Part 1.5 of Division 13 of the
Health and Safety Code.
b. The ADU or JADU does not comply with Government Code Sections 66310-66341
or this Chapter.
2. Notwithstanding subsection 1. above, the City may deny a permit for an ADU or JADU
subject to subsection 1. if the City makes a finding that correcting the violation is necessary
to comply with the standards specified in Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3.
3. A homeowner applying for a permit for a previously unpermitted ADU or JADU constructed
before January 1, 2020, shall not be required to pay impact fees or connection or capacity
charges except when utility infrastructure is required to comply with Health and Safety Code
Section 17920.3 and when the fee is authorized by subsection I.
4. Subject to subsection 3. above, upon receiving an application to permit a previously
unpermitted ADU or JADU constructed before January 1, 2020, an inspector from the City
may inspect the unit for compliance with health and safety standards and provide
recommendations to comply with health and safety standards necessary to obtain a permit.
If the inspector finds noncompliance with health and safety standards, the City shall not
penalize an applicant for having the unpermitted ADU or JADU and shall approve necessary
permits to correct noncompliance with health and safety standards.
Section 6. Chapter 25.60 – General Provisions, Section 25.60.020, Ministerial and Administrative
Permits and Actions, of Article 6 of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is amended as follows:
21
25.60.020 Ministerial and Administrative Permits and Actions.
A. Administrative Permits and Actions. Except when combined with legislative actions or other non-
administrative actions defined in this article, the Director, also defined in this Zoning Code as the
designee of the Director, is the designated Review Authority for the following quasi-judicial permits
and actions. The Director, at the Director's sole discretion, may elevate the level of review to a
higher Review Authority.
1. Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit. A ministerial permit established for the purpose of
providing the Director the authority to review and ensure compliance of accessory dwelling
unit applications with all provisions of Section 25.48.030 (Accessory Dwelling Units).
2.1. Administrative Use Permit. An administrative permit providing for the review of certain
wireless communications facilities, as identified in Section 25.48.300 (Wireless
Communications Facilities).
3.2. Design Review – Minor. An administrative review process providing for review of projects
specified in Section 25.68.020.D (Design Review – Minor) for compliance with the provisions
of this Zoning Code and with any site plan or architectural design guidelines adopted by
the City and as provided in Chapter 25.68 (Design Review).
4.3. Hillside Area Construction Permits. An administrative permit providing for the review of
certain development projects in the designated hillside area, as identified in Chapter 25.70
(Hillside Area Construction Permits).
5.4. Home Occupation Permits. An administrative permit authorizing the operation of a specified
home-based occupation in a particular location in compliance with the provisions specified
in Chapter 25.72 (Home Occupation Permits).
6.5. Minor Modifications. An administrative action, granted in compliance with Chapter 25.74
(Minor Modifications), to allow specified exceptions to specified development standards of
this Zoning Code for the purpose of creating flexibility in implementing those standards to
accommodate unique design approaches and to recognize unique physical conditions
present on individual parcels.
7.6. Minor Use Permits. An administrative permit authorizing the operation of a specific use of
land or a structure in a particular location in compliance with the provisions of this Zoning
Code and in compliance with procedures specified in Chapter 25.66 (Conditional
22
Use Permits and Minor Use Permits).
8.7. Reasonable Accommodations. An administrative permit authorizing limited modifications to
properties to accommodate a person with specified disabilities and physical limitations in
compliance with specific criteria and performance standards and in compliance with
procedures specified in Chapter 25.76 (Reasonable Accommodations).
9.8. Sign Permits. An administrative permit authorizing a variety of signs, including individual
signs for promotional advertising, in compliance with specific provisions and conditions of
this Zoning Code and Chapter 25.42 (Signs). Temporary signs may also be approved in
conjunction with a temporary use permit issued in compliance with Chapter 25.82
(Temporary Use Permits).
10.9. Temporary Use Permits. An administrative permit authorizing specific limited-term uses in
compliance with specified conditions and performance criteria specified in Chapter 25.82
(Temporary Use Permits).
11.10. Zoning Ordinance Interpretations. An administrative interpretation of certain provisions of
this Zoning Code to resolve ambiguity in the regulations and to ensure their consistent
application in compliance with Chapter 25.02 (Interpretation of the Zoning Code).
Table 6-1: Review Authority
Type of Action Applicable
Code Section
Role of Review Authority (1)
Director Commission Council
Legislative Actions
General Plan Amendments 25.96 Review Recommend Decision
Specific Plans and Specific Plan
Amendments 25.80 Review Recommend Decision
Zoning Map Amendments 25.96 Review Recommend (2) Decision
Zoning Code Amendments 25.96 Review Recommend (2) Decision
Planning Permits and Approvals; Administrative and Ministerial Actions
Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit Issue Appeal of Denial only
23
Table 6-1: Review Authority
Type of Action Applicable
Code Section
Role of Review Authority (1)
Director Commission Council
Administrative Use Permit 25.48.300 Decision Appeal Appeal
Conditional Use Permits 25.66 Review Decision Appeal
Condominium Permits 26.32.020 Review Decision Appeal
Design Review – Major 25.68 Review Decision Appeal
Design Review – Minor 25.68 Decision Call for Review Appeal
Fence Exceptions 25.74 Review Decision Appeal
Hillside Area Construction Permits 25.70 Decision Call for Review Appeal
Home Occupation Permits 25.72 Decision Appeal Appeal
Interpretations of Zoning Ordinance 25.04 Decision Appeal Appeal
Minor Modifications – 2 or fewer 25.74 Decision Call for Review Appeal
Minor Modifications – 3 or more
and/or requested with another
discretionary permit
25.74 Review Decision Appeal
Minor Use Permit 25.66 Decision Call for Review Appeal
Reasonable Accommodations 25.76 Decision Appeal Appeal
Sign Permits 25.42.050 Decision — —
Sign Program – Master 25.42.060 Decision Decision Appeal
Special Permits 25.78 Review Decision Appeal
Temporary Use Permits 25.82 Decision Appeal Appeal
Variances 25.84 Review Decision Appeal
Section 7: Chapter 25.88 – Permit Implementation, Extensions, Modifications, and Revocations,
Section 25.88.020, Effective Dates of Permits, of Article 6 of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is
amended as follows:
24
25.88.020 Effective Dates of Permits.
A. Approvals, Permits, and Variances.
1. An Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit, A Design Review – Minor approval, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, Home Occupation Permit, Minor Modification approval, minor use
permit, Reasonable Accommodation approval, or temporary use permit shall become
effective immediately upon expiration of any appeal period. If an appeal is filed, such
permit or approval shall become effective immediately upon the final appeal decision.
2. A Conditional Use Permit, Design Review – Major approval, special permit, or variance
shall become effective 10 days following the actual date the decision was rendered by
the applicable Review Authority, unless an appeal is filed in compliance with Chapter
25.98 (Appeals) prior to the effective date. If an appeal is filed, such permit or approval
shall become effective immediately upon rendering of the final appeal decision.
3. Denial of a request for approval, permit, or variance becomes effective the date of
determination.
Section 8. Chapter 25.98 – Appeals and Calls for Review, Section 25.98.030, Filing and Processing of
Appeals and Calls for Review, of Article 6 of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is amended as
follows:
25.98.030 Filing and Processing of Appeals and Calls for Review.
A. Eligibility.
1. Who May Appeal. An appeal or call for review in compliance with this chapter
may be filed by any aggrieved person, except that in the case of a decision on a
quasi-judicial permit or action, an appeal may only be filed by a person who, in
person or through a representative, appeared at the public hearing in connection
with the decision being appealed, or who otherwise informed the City in writing
of the nature of his/her concerns before the hearing.
2. Call for Review on Administrative Permits.
a. Any person may request a call for review by the Planning Commission for
any Director action on an administrative permits for which notice has been
given. Such call for review shall be provided in writing and shall be
25
accompanied by payment of any required fee.
b. The following permits are subject to a call for review:
i. Minor design review;
ii. Hillside Area construction permit;
iii. Minor modifications – two or fewer;
iv. Minor use permit;
v. Administrative use permit.
3. Call for Review by Commissioners and Councilmembers.
a. Any Commissioner may initiate a call for review of a Director's
determination or decision by filing a written request with the Department
before the effective date of the action.
b. Any Council member may initiate a call for review of a Commission's or
Director's determination or decision by filing a written request with the City
Clerk before the effective date of the action.
c. No fees are required.
4. Limitations on Denial by the Commission. If an application has been denied by
the Commission, or if an application or a portion thereof is approved, an appeal
may be made by the applicant or any interested person.
5. Accessory Dwelling Unit Permits. A permit for an accessory dwelling unit may
only be appealed in the case of a denial.
Section 9. Chapter 25.100 – Public Hearings and Notice, Section 25.100.020, Notice of Hearing, of
Article 7 of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is amended as follows:
25.100.020 Notice of Hearing.
B. Method of Notice Distribution. Notice of a public hearing or any noticing requirement
required by Article 6 for a planning approval shall be given as follows, as required by
Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091.
1. Mailing. Notice shall be mailed or delivered to the following at least 10 days before
the scheduled hearing, or for other noticing requirements:
26
a. Project Site Owner(s) and the Applicant. The owner(s) of the property being
considered in the application or the owner's authorized agent, and the applicant.
b. Local Agencies. Each local agency expected to provide roads, schools, sewage,
streets, water, or other essential facilities or services to the property which is the
subject of the application, whose ability to provide those facilities and services
may be significantly affected.
c. Affected Owners. All owners of real property, as shown on the latest adopted tax
roll of the County, located within a radius as defined below of the exterior
boundaries of the parcel that is the subject of the hearing or noticing requirement
pursuant to Article 6 (Permit Processing Procedures).
i. 500-Foot Radius Required.
(A) All legislative actions pursuant to Table 6-1 (Review Authority);
(B) Any commercial, industrial, or institutional development exceeding
10,000 square feet of construction, whether new construction or
addition to existing development;
(C) Any attached residential development consisting of five or more units;
and
(D) Any combination of (B) and (C) above.
ii. 300-Foot Radius Required. All planning permits and approvals and all
administrative and ministerial actions pursuant to Table 6-1, except for those
specified in subsections B.1.c.i and iii, and any permits pursuant to
subsection
B.1.c.iii that are called for review or appealed to the Commission.
iii. 100-Foot Radius Required.
(A) Administrative use permit;
(B) Design review – minor;
(C) Minor modifications – two or fewer;
(D) Hillside Area construction permits not requiring design review;
(E) Master Sign Programs.
iv. No Radius Notification Required. Appeals of interpretations of the Zoning
Code, accessory dwelling unit permits, home occupation permits,
reasonable accommodation approvals, sign permits, and temporary use
permits do not require noticing of affected owners.
27
d. Persons Requesting Notice. Any person who has filed a written request for notice
with the Director and has paid the required fee for the notice.
e. Other Person(s). Any other person(s), whose property might, in the judgment of
the Director, be affected by the proposed project.
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.40 OF ARTICLE 3;
CHAPTER 25.48 OF ARTICLE 4; CHAPTER 25.60 OF ARTICLE 6; CHAPTER 25.88
OF ARTICLE 6; CHAPTER 25.98 OF ARTICLE 6; AND CHAPTER 25.100 OF
ARTICLE 7, RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS; CEQA
DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTIONS 15282, 15378, AND 15061(b)(3)
WHEREAS, the State of California has enacted legislation to encourage the construction
of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in single-unit and multi-unit
residential zones, as further defined in this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has subsequently amended State law to implement
various changes regarding regulation of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling
units; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 66310-66341 require the City of Burlingame to
adopt zoning regulations in compliance with State law regarding accessory dwelling units and
junior accessory dwelling units. The proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance
(Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code) will ensure that the City’s Municipal Code is
consistent with adopted State regulations and to help clarify and improve various provisions of
the accessory dwelling unit law to promote the development of accessory dwelling units and
junior accessory dwelling units; as reflected in the edits to Title 25, Chapters 25.40, 25.48,
25.60, 25.88, 25.98, and 25.100 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance was considered by the Planning Commission of the City of
Burlingame on November 25, 2024, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report
and all other written materials and testimony presented and recommended to the City Council
that it adopt amendments to Title 25 (Zoning Code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend
Chapters 25.40, 25.48, 25.60, 25.88, 25.98, and 25.100 to update existing accessory dwelling
unit regulations to be consistent with adopted amendments to California Government Code
Sections 66310-66341; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amending Title 25 – (Zoning Code) of the
Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapters 25.40, 25.48, 25.60, 25.88, 25.98, and 25.100 to update
existing accessory dwelling unit regulations to be consistent with adopted amendments to
California Government Code Sections 66310-66341.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
2
Section 1. 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. The City Council finds this Ordinance is in the public interest.
Section 3. The City Council find this Ordinance to be Statutorily Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h) which
exempts the adoption of an ordinance regarding accessory dwelling units in a single-family or
multifamily residential zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 66310-
66341 of the Government Code as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code.
In addition, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15378 because the proposed Ordinance is not a “project” within the definition of CEQA.
Furthermore the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15061(b)(3) because the proposed Ordinance can be seen with certainty to have no
possibility of a significant effect on the environment.
Section 4. Chapter 25.40 – Parking Regulations, Section 25.40.030, Required Parking Spaces,
of Article 3 of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is amended as follows. The following
code sections are amended, repealed or deleted as follows with underline text indicating new
text and strikeouts (strikeout) indicating deleted text.
25.40.030 Required Parking Spaces.
Table 25.40-1: Parking Requirements by Use
Type of Land Use Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required
Residential Uses
Dwellings
Accessory Dwelling Units Per Section 25.48.030.H. (Parking)
Single-Unit Dwelling See Section 25.40.030.B.
Two-Unit and Multi-Unit Dwellings
All zoning districts
except Downtown
Specific Plan, BRMU,
RRMU, NBMU,
and R-4
1 space for studio units
1.5 spaces for one-bedroom
units
2 spaces for two-or more
bedroom units
0.5 spaces per unit for
housing occupied
exclusively by persons
aged 62 or older
0.75 spaces for micro units
Guest parking:
1 additional guest
parking space shall be
provided for every 4 units
for projects greater than
10 units
3
Downtown Specific
Plan zoning districts,
BRMU, RRMU,
NBMU, and R-4
1 space for studio or one-
bedroom units
1.5 spaces for two-bedroom
units
2 spaces for three-or more
bedroom units
0.75 spaces for micro units
No additional guest
parking spaces are
required
All 80 percent of the total required parking spaces
shall be covered or within a garage or carport.
Caretaker Quarters 1 space per dwelling
4
Section 5. Chapter 25.48 – Standards for Specific Land Uses and Activities, Section
25.48.030, Accessory Dwelling Units, of Article 4 of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is
amended as follows:
25.48.030 Accessory Dwelling Units.
A. Purpose and Applicability.
1. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and
junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in compliance with California Government
Code Sections 66310 through 66341. This chapter is intended to implement the
Housing Element of the Burlingame General Plan by providing for additional
housing opportunities. This will be accomplished by increasing the number of units
available within existing neighborhoods while maintaining the primarily single-unit
and multi-unit residential character of the area, and establishing standards for the
development and occupancy of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory
dwelling units to ensure that they are compatible with neighboring uses and
structures, adequately equipped with public utility services, safe for human
occupancy, and do not create unreasonable traffic and safety impacts.
2. In cases of conflict between this chapter and any other provision of this title, the
provisions of this chapter shall prevail. To the extent that any provision of this
chapter is in conflict with State law, the applicable provision of State law shall
control, but all other provisions of this chapter shall remain in full force and effect.
3. An ADU or JADU which conforms to the requirements of this chapter shall not be
considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located and
shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing
General Plan and zoning designations for the lot.
B. Definitions. The following terms shall have the following meanings for this chapter only
and shall supersede the terms defined by Chapter 25.106 (Land Use Definitions):
1. “Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU” means an attached, detached, or interior
residential dwelling unit ancillary to a primary dwelling unit that provides complete
independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a
proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for
living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-
unit or multi-unit dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also
includes an efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety
Code, and a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and
Safety Code. This chapter recognizes three types of accessory dwelling units as
defined below. Where a proposed accessory dwelling unit does not clearly fall into
5
one of the defined types, the Director shall make a determination pursuant to
Chapter 25.04 (Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance).
a. “Attached accessory dwelling unit” or “Attached ADU” means an
accessory dwelling unit that is constructed as a physical expansion (i.e.,
addition) of an existing or proposed primary dwelling unit, including
construction of a new basement underneath a primary dwelling unit to
accommodate an accessory dwelling unit.
b. “Detached accessory dwelling unit” or “Detached ADU” means an
accessory dwelling unit that is constructed as a separate structure from
the existing or proposed primary dwelling unit; or contained within the
existing space of an accessory structure (as defined herein), including
construction of a new basement underneath an accessory structure to
accommodate an accessory dwelling unit.
c. “Interior accessory dwelling unit” or “Interior ADU” means an accessory
dwelling unit that is contained within the space of an existing or proposed
primary dwelling unit, including within its living area, basement, or
attached garage; or created from non-livable space of a multi-unit
dwelling.
2. “Accessory structure” means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a
dwelling located on the same lot.
3. “Efficiency kitchen” means a kitchen that includes each of the following:
a. A sink and cooking facility with appliances (e.g., microwave, toaster oven
or hot plate).
b. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable
size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.
4. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a residential dwelling unit that:
a. Is no more than 500 square feet in size;
b. Is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling;
enclosed spaces within an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling, such
as attached garages, are considered a part of the single-unit dwelling;
ORDINANCE NO.
6
c. Includes its own separate sanitation facilities (bathroom containing a sink,
toilet, and shower or tub), or may share sanitation facilities with the
existing or proposed single-unit structure; JADUs without a separate
bathroom shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the
single-unit dwelling, with an interior entry to the main living area of the
single-unit dwelling; and
d. Includes an efficiency kitchen, as defined in subsection B.3 above.
5. “Kitchen” means a kitchen that includes each of the following:
a. A sink and cooking facility (permanent stove and/or oven);
b. A refrigerator with separate doors for the refrigerator and freezer
compartments; and
c. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable
size in relation to the size of the accessory dwelling unit.
6. ‘Livable space’ means a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation,
including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation.
7. “Living area” means the interior habitable floor area of a dwelling unit, including
basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.
8. “Multi-unit dwelling” means two or more attached primary residential units
contained on the same lot. Multiple detached single-unit dwellings on the same
lot are not considered multi-unit dwellings for the purposes of this chapter.
9. “Nonconforming zoning conditions” means a physical improvement on a property
that does not conform with current zoning standards.
10. “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and
extends from a street to the entrance of an accessory dwelling unit or junior
accessory dwelling unit.
11. “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train
station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of
transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the
public.
ORDINANCE NO.
7
12. “Tandem parking” means a parking configuration where two or more automobiles
are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one
another.
C. Applications and Processing.
1. An applicant shall submit a permit application for an ADU or JADU to the Building
Division which shall be considered by the Building Division ministerially and
without discretionary review or public hearing.
2. Within 60 days of receipt of a complete application, the Building Division shall
ministerially approve or deny any permit application for an ADU or JADU if there
is an existing single-unit dwelling or multi-unit dwelling on the lot. Incomplete
applications will be returned by the Building Division to the applicant and will
include in writing a full set of comments with a list of items that are defective or
deficient and how the application can be remedied by the applicant. If the
Building Division has not approved or denied the completed application for the
ADU or JADU within such 60-day period, the application shall be deemed
approved. Upon finding that the ADU or JADU meets the requirements of this
chapter, the application shall be approved. All ADU and JADU applications are
categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15303 of the
CEQA guidelines.
3. If a permit application for an attached ADU or JADU is submitted with an
application for an addition to an existing single-unit or multi-unit dwelling or
construction of a new single-unit or multi-unit dwelling that is subject to design
review or other discretionary permit for the same parcel, the permit application for
the ADU or JADU shall not be acted upon until the application for design review
or other discretionary permit is approved or denied. Following the approval for
design review or other discretionary permit for the single-unit or multi-unit
dwelling, the complete permit application for the ADU or JADU will be
ministerially processed within 60 days and approved if it meets the requirements
of this chapter.
4. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period for approval shall be
tolled for the period of the delay.
D. Minimum Standards of Eligibility.
ORDINANCE NO.
8
1. No minimum lot area is required for creation of an ADU or JADU.
2. An ADU or JADU shall only be allowed on a parcel which has been legally
created in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 26 (Subdivisions),
and where the ADU or JADU is developed with an existing or proposed single-
unit dwelling, except for ADUs constructed on multi-unit residential properties
pursuant to subsection E.9.
3. ADUs may only be permitted in districts zoned to allow single-unit dwelling or
multi-unit dwelling residential uses as a permitted use. ADUs are also permitted
on any parcel that has a current and valid nonconforming single-unit or multi-unit
residential use, so long as the ADU complies with all other portions of this
chapter.
4. JADUs may only be permitted in districts zoned to allow a single-unit dwelling
residential use as a permitted use. JADUs are also permitted on any parcel that
has a current and valid nonconforming single-unit residential use, so long as the
JADU complies with all other portions of this chapter.
E. General Requirements and Restrictions. The following requirements and restrictions
apply to all existing and new ADUs and JADUs, as applicable:
1. ADUs and JADUs shall comply with all applicable provisions of this title and all
applicable building, health and fire codes. However, ADUs shall not be required
to provide fire sprinklers unless required for the primary single-unit dwelling or
multi-unit dwelling structure.
2. All development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, including
those in Article 2, shall apply to ADUs and JADUs unless they are inconsistent
with the provisions of this chapter, in which case the development standards of
this chapter shall apply.
3. Accessory Dwelling Units.
a. ADUs may be rented separately from the single-unit dwelling or multi-unit
dwelling structure but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separately
from the other dwellings on the lot, except the ADU and single-unit
dwelling may be owned by multiple owners as tenants in common if the
single-unit dwelling and ADU were developed by a qualified nonprofit, as
ORDINANCE NO.
9
that term is defined in Government Code Section 66340, and if all of the
provisions of Government Code Section 66341 are met.
b. ADUs may not be rented for fewer than 30 consecutive calendar days.
c. ADUs are not subject to any owner-occupancy requirement.
d. Interior Connection. Attached and interior ADUs may, but are not required,
to contain an interior doorway connection between the single-unit dwelling
and ADU.
e. Permanent Foundations.
i. All ADUs shall be permanently attached to a permanent foundation.
ii. A recreational vehicle, commercial coach, trailer, motor home,
camper, camping trailer, boat, or similar vehicle shall not be used
as an ADU.
f. Balconies/Decks. Balconies, second story decks, and rooftop terraces are
prohibited, except for required landings sized to meet minimum
requirements to allow ingress and egress.
4. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
a. JADUs may be rented separately from the single-unit dwelling but may not
be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the single-unit dwelling on
the lot.
b. JADUs are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. A person with
legal or equitable title to the property shall reside on the property in either
the primary dwelling or JADU as that person’s legal domicile and
permanent residence. However, the owner-occupancy requirement of this
paragraph does not apply if the property is entirely owned by another
governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.
5. If an ADU or JADU which was created within a single-unit dwelling, accessory
structure or multi-unit dwelling structure is required to be removed or is
ORDINANCE NO.
10
voluntarily removed, the kitchen facility shall be removed from the space that is
no longer an ADU or JADU and, unless permitted for a different use, the space
shall be converted back to its original use. If an ADU was newly constructed:
a. The space or structure shall be entirely removed; or
b. The kitchen facility shall be removed and the space shall be converted to
a permitted use allowed within the underlying zoning district; or
c. The kitchen facility shall be removed and the applicant shall obtain the
appropriate land use permit for the proposed use within the space.
6. Certificate of Occupancy. A certificate of occupancy for an ADU or JADU shall
not be issued before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the primary dwelling
unit.
7. Deed Restriction. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a JADU, a deed
restriction must be recorded against the title of the property in the County
Recorder’s office and a copy filed with the Community Development Department.
The deed restriction must run with the land and bind all future owners. The form
of the deed restriction will be provided by the City and must provide that:
a. The JADU shall not be sold separately from the primary dwelling.
b. The JADU is restricted to the approved size and to other attributes allowed
by this section.
c. The deed restriction runs with the land and may be enforced against future
property owners.
d. The deed restriction may be removed if the owner eliminates the JADU, as
evidenced by, for example, removal of the kitchen facilities. To remove the
deed restriction, an owner may make a written request of the City,
providing evidence that the JADU has in fact been eliminated. The City
may then determine whether the evidence supports the claim that the
JADU has been eliminated. If the JADU is not entirely physically removed
but is only eliminated by virtue of having a necessary component of a
JADU removed, the remaining structure and improvements must
otherwise comply with applicable provisions of this Code.
ORDINANCE NO.
11
e. The deed restriction is enforceable by the Director or his or her designee
for the benefit of the City. Failure of this property owner to comply with the
deed restriction may result in legal action against the property owner, and
the City is authorized to obtain any remedy available to it at law or equity,
including, but not limited to, obtaining an injunction enjoining the use of the
JADU in violation of the recorded restrictions or abatement of the illegal
unit.
8. Single-Unit Dwellings. The following may be permitted on a parcel with an
existing or proposed single-unit dwelling:
a. JADUs. One JADU that meets the standards in subsection G. JADUs are
only permitted on a parcel with no more than one existing or proposed
single-unit dwelling.
b. ADUs. Any one of the following may be permitted on a parcel with an
existing or proposed single-unit dwelling:
i. One new construction attached or detached ADU that meets the
standards in subsection F.
ii. Statewide Exemption ADUs as permitted under subsection E.10.a.-
b.
9. Multi-Unit Dwellings. Any one of the following may be permitted on a parcel with
an existing or proposed multi-unit dwelling:
a. One attached, detached, or interior ADU that meets the standards in
subsection F.
b. Statewide Exemption ADUs as permitted under subsection E.10.c.-d.
10. Statewide Exemption ADUs. If an ADU or JADU does not exist or is not proposed
pursuant to subsection E.8. or E.9. above, any of the following will be
ministerially permitted on a parcel and is not subject to subsection F. below.
a. One ADU and one JADU per parcel with a proposed or existing single-unit
dwelling if all of the following apply:
ORDINANCE NO.
12
i. The ADU or JADU is within the proposed space of a single-unit
dwelling or existing space of a single-unit dwelling or the ADU is
within the existing accessory structure and may include an
expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same
physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An
expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing
accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and
egress.
ii. The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing
single-unit dwelling.
iii. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety.
iv. The JADU complies with the requirements of subsection G.
b. One detached, new construction ADU that does not exceed four-foot side
and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-unit
dwelling, does not exceed 800 square feet in floor area, and does not
exceed the allowed height in subsection F.4. The ADU may be combined
with a JADU that meets the standards as described in subsection G.
c. Multiple ADUs within the portions of a multi-unit dwelling that are not used
as livable space, including but not limited to storage rooms, boiler rooms,
passageways, attics, basements, or garages, provided that the dwellings
comply with building and fire code standards for dwellings. The number of
ADUs permitted is equivalent to up to 25 percent of the number of
existing, legally permitted units in the multi-unit dwelling, or one,
whichever is greater. When calculating the number of allowed ADUs
based on the percentage of existing multi-units, round down to the nearest
integer.
d. In addition to ADUs allowed by subsection 10.c. above, up to eight
detached ADUs, or as many detached ADUs as there are primary dwelling
units on the lot, whichever is less, may be allowed on lots with an existing
multi-unit dwelling. These allowed units may be converted from existing
detached garages on the site. On lots with a proposed multi-unit dwelling,
up to two detached ADUs may be allowed. The ADUs must not exceed
the allowed height in subsection F.5. and must have a minimum rear and
side setbacks of four feet. If the existing multi-unit dwelling has a rear or
ORDINANCE NO.
13
side setback of less than four feet, the existing multi-unit dwelling will not
be required to be modified to meet this setback.
F. Development Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units. An ADU shall be constructed
only in accordance with the following development standards:
1. Maximum Size. The maximum floor area for an attached or detached ADU shall
be 1,000 square feet.
2. Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage. An attached or detached ADU measuring no
more than 800 square feet in size shall be exempt from floor area ratio and lot
coverage requirements (includes floor area located in basements or lower level
areas). For attached or detached ADUs measuring greater than 800 square feet,
the entire ADU shall be counted and shall comply with floor area ratio and lot
coverage regulations.
3. Setbacks. ADUs shall conform to the following setback standards:
a. No front setback shall be applied that would preclude the development of
an 800 square foot ADU with at least four (4) foot side and rear setbacks.
ADUs exceeding 800 square feet shall comply with minimum front setback
requirements.
b. A setback of at least four feet is required from the side and rear property
lines; however, no setbacks shall be required under the following
circumstances:
i. Existing livable space or an existing accessory structure that is
converted, in whole or in part, to an ADU; and
ii. The detached ADU is constructed in the same location and to the
same dimensions as an existing detached structure (with no
expansion) that is demolished solely for the purpose of constructing
the ADU.
4. Maximum Height Limits. ADUs shall be subject to the following height limits
which shall be measured from highest adjacent grade:
ORDINANCE NO.
14
a. A height of 16 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or
proposed single-unit or multi-unit dwelling.
b. A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or
proposed single-unit or multi-unit dwelling unit that is within one-half mile
distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as defined
in California Public Resource Code Section 21155. An additional two feet
in height shall be allowed to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is
aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
c. A height of 18 feet for a detached ADU on a lot with an existing or
proposed multi-unit, multi-story dwelling.
d. A height of 30 feet (25 feet if located within the Hillside Overlay Zone) or
the height limitation in the applicable zoning district, whichever is lower, for
an ADU that is attached to a primary dwelling. The attached ADU may not
exceed two stories.
5. Entrance. The entrance to the ADU should not face the same public street as the
entrance to the single-unit dwelling, if feasible.
G. Development Standards for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. A junior accessory
dwelling unit shall be constructed only in accordance with the following development
standards:
ORDINANCE NO.
15
1. Maximum Size. The JADU shall not exceed 500 square feet in area. JADUs shall
be exempt from floor area and lot coverage requirements when it is part of an
existing single-unit dwelling.
2. Kitchen. The JADU shall contain an efficiency kitchen satisfying the following the
criteria:
a. Contains a sink and cooking facility with appliances (e.g., microwave,
toaster oven or hot plate).
b. Contains a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of
reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.
3. Bathroom. The JADU may have a separate bathroom or may share a bathroom
with the single-unit dwelling. The bathroom shall contain a sink, toilet, and
shower or tub. If the bathroom is shared, there must be an interior entry to the
main living area of the single-unit dwelling.
4. Entrance. The JADU shall have a separate exterior entrance from the main
entrance to the existing or proposed single-unit dwelling. A passageway from the
ADU to a public street may be created but shall not be required.
5. A JADU is not considered a separate or new dwelling for purposes of fire safety
or life safety.
H. Parking.
1. Unless otherwise provided in this section, one off-street parking space shall be
provided for the ADU in addition to the off-street parking spaces required for the
single-unit dwelling or multi-unit residential structure. All parking shall be
provided on a hard, all-weather surface.
2. The parking space may be provided in setback areas or as tandem parking
unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem
parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire
and life safety conditions.
3. No parking shall be required for an ADU in any of the following instances:
a. The ADU is located within one-half mile distance of public transit. For the
purposes of this section only, public transit is defined as a location,
including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public
may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that
charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.
ORDINANCE NO.
16
b. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant
historic district.
c. The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an
existing accessory structure.
d. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the
occupant of the ADU.
e. When there is an established car share vehicle stop located within one
block of the ADU.
f. When a permit application for an ADU is submitted with an application for
a new single-unit dwelling or a new multi-unit dwelling on the same lot and
meets one of the other requirements listed in subsections (a)-(e) above.
4. No parking shall be required for a JADU and any parking displaced by its
construction, including conversion of all or part of an existing attached garage,
are not required to be replaced.
5. When a garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space
is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an
ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced.
I. Utilities and Impact Fees.
1. No ADU or JADU shall be permitted if it is determined that there is not adequate
water or sewer service to the property, as determined by the City.
2. Except as provided in subsection I.3, an ADU may be required to have a new or
separate utility connection, including a separate sewer lateral, between the ADU
and the utility. A connection fee or capacity charge may be charged that is
proportionate to the size in square feet of the ADU or its drainage fixture unit
(DFU) values. Separate electric and water meters shall be required for the ADU.
3. The following ADUs shall be exempt from any requirement to install a new or
separate utility connection and to pay any associated connection or capacity fees
or charges:
a. Junior accessory dwelling units.
b. ADUs converted from interior space of an existing single unit dwelling or
existing accessory structure, unless the unit is constructed within a new
single-unit dwelling.
4. Impact Fees.
a. No impact fees may be imposed on ADUs that are less than 750 square
feet in size. For purposes of this section, “impact fees” include the fees
ORDINANCE NO.
17
specified in Sections 66000 and 66477 of the Government Code, but do
not include utility connection fees or capacity charges.
b. For ADUs that have a floor area of 750 square feet or more, impact fees
shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the
primary dwelling unit.
J. Delay of Enforcement of Building Standard.
1. Prior to January 1, 2030 when the Chief Building Official provides a notice to
correct a violation of any building standard, the Chief Building Official shall
include in that notice a statement that the owner of the ADU has a right to
request a delay in enforcement if the ADU that was built prior to January 1, 2020
or built when the City had a noncompliant ADU ordinance. The owner of the
ADU may submit a written request to the Chief Building Official requesting that
correction of any violation of building standards be delayed for five years. For
purposes of this section, “building standards” refers to those standards enforced
by local agencies under the authority of Section 17960 of the California Health
and Safety Code.
2. The Chief Building Official will grant the application if the Chief Building Official
determines that enforcement of the building standard is not necessary to protect
health and safety. In making this determination, the Chief Building Official will
consult with the Fire Marshal.
3. No applications pursuant to this section shall be approved on or after January 1,
2030. However, any delay that was approved by the City before January 1, 2030,
shall be valid for the full term of the delay that was approved at the time of the
approval of the application.
4. Until January 1, 2030, any notice to correct a violation of building standard that is
issued to the owner of an ADU built prior to adoption of the ordinance codified in
this chapter, shall include a statement that the owner has a right to request a
delay in enforcement of the building standard for an ADU pursuant to this
Section.
K. Unpermitted ADUs and JADUs
1. Notwithstanding any other law, and except as otherwise provided in subsection
2. below, the City shall not deny a permit for an unpermitted ADU or unpermitted
JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2020, due to either of the following:
a. The ADU or JADU is in violation of building standards pursuant to Article 1
(commencing with Section 17960) of Chapter 5 of Part 1.5 of Division 13
of the Health and Safety Code.
ORDINANCE NO.
18
b. The ADU or JADU does not comply with Government Code Sections
66310-66341 or this Chapter.
2. Notwithstanding subsection 1. above, the City may deny a permit for an ADU or
JADU subject to subsection 1. if the City makes a finding that correcting the
violation is necessary to comply with the standards specified in Health and Safety
Code Section 17920.3.
3. A homeowner applying for a permit for a previously unpermitted ADU or JADU
constructed before January 1, 2020, shall not be required to pay impact fees or
connection or capacity charges except when utility infrastructure is required to
comply with Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 and when the fee is
authorized by subsection I.
4. Subject to subsection 3. above, upon receiving an application to permit a
previously unpermitted ADU or JADU constructed before January 1, 2020, an
inspector from the City may inspect the unit for compliance with health and safety
standards and provide recommendations to comply with health and safety
standards necessary to obtain a permit. If the inspector finds noncompliance with
health and safety standards, the City shall not penalize an applicant for having
the unpermitted ADU or JADU and shall approve necessary permits to correct
noncompliance with health and safety standards.
Section 6. Chapter 25.60 – General Provisions, Section 25.60.020, Ministerial and
Administrative Permits and Actions, of Article 6 of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is
amended as follows:
25.60.020 Ministerial and Administrative Permits and Actions.
A. Administrative Permits and Actions. Except when combined with legislative actions or
other non-administrative actions defined in this article, the Director, also defined in this
Zoning Code as the designee of the Director, is the designated Review Authority for the
following quasi-judicial permits and actions. The Director, at the Director's sole
discretion, may elevate the level of review to a higher Review Authority.
1. Administrative Use Permit. An administrative permit providing for the review of
certain wireless communications facilities, as identified in Section 25.48.300
(Wireless Communications Facilities).
2. Design Review – Minor. An administrative review process providing for review of
projects specified in Section 25.68.020.D (Design Review – Minor) for compliance
with the provisions of this Zoning Code and with any site plan or architectural
ORDINANCE NO.
19
design guidelines adopted by the City and as provided in Chapter 25.68 (Design
Review).
3. Hillside Area Construction Permits. An administrative permit providing for the
review of certain development projects in the designated hillside area, as
identified in Chapter 25.70 (Hillside Area Construction Permits).
4. Home Occupation Permits. An administrative permit authorizing the operation of
a specified home-based occupation in a particular location in compliance with
the provisions specified in Chapter 25.72 (Home Occupation Permits).
5. Minor Modifications. An administrative action, granted in compliance with
Chapter 25.74 (Minor Modifications), to allow specified exceptions to specified
development standards of this Zoning Code for the purpose of creating flexibility
in implementing those standards to accommodate unique design approaches
and to recognize unique physical conditions present on individual parcels.
6. Minor Use Permits. An administrative permit authorizing the operation of a
specific use of land or a structure in a particular location in compliance with the
provisions of this Zoning Code and in compliance with procedures
specified in Chapter 25.66 (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits).
7. Reasonable Accommodations. An administrative permit authorizing limited
modifications to properties to accommodate a person with specified disabilities
and physical limitations in compliance with specific criteria and performance
standards and in compliance with procedures specified in Chapter 25.76
(Reasonable Accommodations).
8. Sign Permits. An administrative permit authorizing a variety of signs, including
individual signs for promotional advertising, in compliance with specific provisions
and conditions of this Zoning Code and Chapter 25.42 (Signs). Temporary signs
may also be approved in conjunction with a temporary use permit issued in
compliance with Chapter 25.82 (Temporary Use Permits).
9. Temporary Use Permits. An administrative permit authorizing specific limited-
term uses in compliance with specified conditions and performance criteria
specified in Chapter 25.82 (Temporary Use Permits).
10. Zoning Ordinance Interpretations. An administrative interpretation of certain
provisions of this Zoning Code to resolve ambiguity in the regulations and to
ensure their consistent application in compliance with Chapter 25.02
ORDINANCE NO.
20
(Interpretation of the Zoning Code).
Table 6-1: Review Authority
Type of Action Applicable
Code Section
Role of Review Authority (1)
Director Commission Council
Legislative Actions
General Plan Amendments 25.96 Review Recommend Decision
Specific Plans and Specific Plan
Amendments 25.80 Review Recommend Decision
Zoning Map Amendments 25.96 Review Recommend (2) Decision
Zoning Code Amendments 25.96 Review Recommend (2) Decision
Planning Permits and Approvals; Administrative and Ministerial Actions
Administrative Use Permit 25.48.300 Decision Appeal Appeal
Conditional Use Permits 25.66 Review Decision Appeal
Condominium Permits 26.32.020 Review Decision Appeal
Design Review – Major 25.68 Review Decision Appeal
Design Review – Minor 25.68 Decision Call for Review Appeal
Fence Exceptions 25.74 Review Decision Appeal
Hillside Area Construction Permits 25.70 Decision Call for Review Appeal
Home Occupation Permits 25.72 Decision Appeal Appeal
Interpretations of Zoning
Ordinance 25.04 Decision Appeal Appeal
Minor Modifications – 2 or fewer 25.74 Decision Call for Review Appeal
Minor Modifications – 3 or more
and/or requested with another
discretionary permit
25.74 Review Decision Appeal
Minor Use Permit 25.66 Decision Call for Review Appeal
Reasonable Accommodations 25.76 Decision Appeal Appeal
Sign Permits 25.42.050 Decision — —
Sign Program – Master 25.42.060 Decision Decision Appeal
Special Permits 25.78 Review Decision Appeal
Temporary Use Permits 25.82 Decision Appeal Appeal
Variances 25.84 Review Decision Appeal
ORDINANCE NO.
21
Section 7: Chapter 25.88 – Permit Implementation, Extensions, Modifications, and
Revocations, Section 25.88.020, Effective Dates of Permits, of Article 6 of Title 25 of the
Burlingame Municipal Code is amended as follows:
25.88.020 Effective Dates of Permits.
A. Approvals, Permits, and Variances.
1. A Design Review – Minor approval, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Home
Occupation Permit, Minor Modification approval, minor use permit,
Reasonable Accommodation approval, or temporary use permit shall become
effective immediately upon expiration of any appeal period. If an appeal is
filed, such permit or approval shall become effective immediately upon the
final appeal decision.
2. A Conditional Use Permit, Design Review – Major approval, special permit, or
variance shall become effective 10 days following the actual date the decision
was rendered by the applicable Review Authority, unless an appeal is filed in
compliance with Chapter 25.98 (Appeals) prior to the effective date. If an
appeal is filed, such permit or approval shall become effective immediately
upon rendering of the final appeal decision.
3. Denial of a request for approval, permit, or variance becomes effective the
date of determination.
Section 8. Chapter 25.98 – Appeals and Calls for Review, Section 25.98.030, Filing and
Processing of Appeals and Calls for Review, of Article 6 of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal
Code is amended as follows:
25.98.030 Filing and Processing of Appeals and Calls for Review.
A. Eligibility.
1. Who May Appeal. An appeal or call for review in compliance with this chapter
may be filed by any aggrieved person, except that in the case of a decision on
a quasi-judicial permit or action, an appeal may only be filed by a person who,
in person or through a representative, appeared at the public hearing in
connection with the decision being appealed, or who otherwise informed the
City in writing of the nature of his/her concerns before the hearing.
2. Call for Review on Administrative Permits.
ORDINANCE NO.
22
a. Any person may request a call for review by the Planning Commission
for any Director action on an administrative permits for which notice has
been given. Such call for review shall be provided in writing and shall
be accompanied by payment of any required fee.
b. The following permits are subject to a call for review:
i. Minor design review;
ii. Hillside Area construction permit;
iii. Minor modifications – two or fewer;
iv. Minor use permit;
v. Administrative use permit.
3. Call for Review by Commissioners and Councilmembers.
a. Any Commissioner may initiate a call for review of a Director's
determination or decision by filing a written request with the
Department before the effective date of the action.
b. Any Council member may initiate a call for review of a Commission's or
Director's determination or decision by filing a written request with the
City Clerk before the effective date of the action.
c. No fees are required.
4. Limitations on Denial by the Commission. If an application has been denied
by the Commission, or if an application or a portion thereof is approved, an
appeal may be made by the applicant or any interested person.
Section 9. Chapter 25.100 – Public Hearings and Notice, Section 25.100.020, Notice of
Hearing, of Article 7 of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is amended as follows:
25.100.020 Notice of Hearing.
B. Method of Notice Distribution. Notice of a public hearing or any noticing requirement
required by Article 6 for a planning approval shall be given as follows, as required by
Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091.
1. Mailing. Notice shall be mailed or delivered to the following at least 10 days before
the scheduled hearing, or for other noticing requirements:
ORDINANCE NO.
23
a. Project Site Owner(s) and the Applicant. The owner(s) of the property being
considered in the application or the owner's authorized agent, and the
applicant.
b. Local Agencies. Each local agency expected to provide roads, schools,
sewage, streets, water, or other essential facilities or services to the property
which is the subject of the application, whose ability to provide those facilities
and services may be significantly affected.
c. Affected Owners. All owners of real property, as shown on the latest adopted
tax roll of the County, located within a radius as defined below of the exterior
boundaries of the parcel that is the subject of the hearing or noticing
requirement pursuant to Article 6 (Permit Processing Procedures).
i. 500-Foot Radius Required.
(A) All legislative actions pursuant to Table 6-1 (Review Authority);
(B) Any commercial, industrial, or institutional development exceeding
10,000 square feet of construction, whether new construction or
addition to existing development;
(C) Any attached residential development consisting of five or more
units; and
(D) Any combination of (B) and (C) above.
ii. 300-Foot Radius Required. All planning permits and approvals and all
administrative and ministerial actions pursuant to Table 6-1, except for
those specified in subsections B.1.c.i and iii, and any permits pursuant to
subsection
B.1.c.iii that are called for review or appealed to the Commission.
iii. 100-Foot Radius Required.
(A) Administrative use permit;
(B) Design review – minor;
(C) Minor modifications – two or fewer;
(D) Hillside Area construction permits not requiring design review;
(E) Master Sign Programs.
iv. No Radius Notification Required. Appeals of interpretations of the Zoning
Code, home occupation permits, reasonable accommodation approvals,
ORDINANCE NO.
24
sign permits, and temporary use permits do not require noticing of
affected owners.
d. Persons Requesting Notice. Any person who has filed a written request for
notice with the Director and has paid the required fee for the notice.
e. Other Person(s). Any other person(s), whose property might, in the judgment
of the Director, be affected by the proposed project.
Section 10. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 11. Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of this Ordinance shall be codified in the Burlingame
Municipal Code. Sections 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, and 12 shall not be so codified.
Section 12. This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in
accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the
City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.
_________________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the 2nd day of December, 2024, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on the ______ day of ___________ 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
__________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 10b
MEETING DATE: December 2, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: December 2, 2024
From: Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent and City Arborist – (650) 558-7333
Scott Spansail, Assistant City Attorney – (650) 558-7275
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of Updated Tree Ordinance – Repealing
Chapters 11.04 and 11.06 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Title 11 (Trees
and Vegetation) and Adopting a New Chapter 11.06 (Urban Reforestation
and Tree Protection); CEQA Determination: Exempt Pursuant To State
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 And 15308;
Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule to Adopt a
Tree Replacement In-Lieu Fee and an Increase for Appeals of
Beautification Committee Decisions; and Authorizing the Finance Director
to Make Such Amendments; CEQA Determination: Exempt Pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines 15078, 15061(b)(3)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing to introduce a proposed Ordinance
that would repeal Chapters 11.04 and 11.06 of Title 11 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Trees
and Vegetation) and replace them with a new Chapter 11.06 (Urban Reforestation and Tree
Protection).
Staff further recommends that the City Council consider and adopt the proposed accompanying
resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule to establish fees associated with the proposed
Ordinance, including a new “in-lieu” and removal permit appeal fee.
Recommended Procedure and Order of Operations:
A. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff.
B. Conduct a Public Hearing.
C. 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.
D. If the City Council adopts the first reading of the Ordinance, then consider and adopt
the proposed Resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule to establish associated
new fees, including a new “in-lieu” and removal permit appeal fee, which would become
effective on the same date as the proposed Ordinance.
Tree Ordinance Update - Introduction December 2, 2024
2
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Currently, public and private trees are regulated in Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) Title 11,
Chapter 11.04, “Street Trees,” and Chapter 11.06, “Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection.”
Over the last year, the Parks and Recreation Department and the City Attorney’s Office have
worked on revisions to the regulations protecting the urban forest. Staff has presented proposed
updates to the municipal code at the following public meetings and received feedback from the
public, Commissions, and Council:
• November 3, 2023 – Beautification Commission
• November 20, 2023 – City Council
• May 2, 2024 – Beautification Commission
• May 28, 2024 – Planning Commission
• June 17, 2024 – City Council
• October 7, 2024 – City Council
The attached Exhibit B contains the most recent City Council staff reports from October 7, 2024,
and June 17, 2024, as well as the minutes from each public hearing held for this item over the past
year. Exhibit B contains far more detail regarding the substantive changes being proposed in this
draft Ordinance.
At their regular meeting on October 7, 2024, the City Council reviewed the same draft Ordinance
language presented today. During this discussion, which followed five other public hearings on the
proposed Title 11 update, the City Council directed staff to finalize the draft and to complete CEQA
review of the Ordinance.
Staff retained David J. Powers & Associates, an environmental review consultant, to prepare a
CEQA analysis of the proposed Ordinance. The consultant has concluded that the proposed
Ordinance qualifies for two separate CEQA exemptions that apply to regulations designed to
protect the environment. Specifically, the proposed Ordinance qualifies for an exemption under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15307 - Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural
Resources, and Section 15308 - Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.
A complete environmental analysis of the proposed Ordinance, including detailed analysis of the
above exemptions, can be found in the CEQA Exemption Memorandum enclosed as Exhibit C.
As noted earlier, staff has made no other edits to the proposed Ordinance that was presented to
the City Council on October 7, 2024.
FISCAL IMPACT
New Fees:
As indicated above, if the City Council wishes to adopt the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance,
staff recommends the City Council also adopt the proposed Resolution amending the Master Fee
Schedule to establish associated new fees, including a new “in-lieu” and removal permit appeal
fee, which would become effective on the same date as the proposed Ordinance.
Tree Ordinance Update - Introduction December 2, 2024
3
As noted in prior staff reports, the proposed Ordinance contemplates new fees that must be added
to the City’s Master Fee Schedule contemporaneously with the effective date of the Ordinance.
While most fees regarding tree removal and maintenance will remain unchanged, the proposed
Ordinance has introduced an “in-lieu” fee for instances where trees cannot be replaced on-site (or
off-site, with Director approval). This amount would then be placed in the Tree Replacement Fund
for the planting and fostering of trees elsewhere in the urban forest. Staff proposes a fee of
$325/one-inch DSH of tree removed, which is equal to current fees enacted by Tree Cities like
Sacramento.
In addition to the “in-lieu” fee, staff also proposes a “Tree Removal Permit Appeal Fee” of $968.
This is the current fee imposed by the City for a nearly identical appeal hearing procedure related
to Wireless Permit Applications. Staff notes that this fee is only charged for the appeal of a
Beautification Commission decision. Appeals of a permit related to a discretionary development
project that involve tree removals are required to go through the process set forth in Burlingame
Municipal Code Title 25, and the appellant would be required to pay fees associated with the appeal
of the project itself.
Tree Replacement Fund
The proposed amendment to the Municipal Code includes a mechanism to help fund the care and
maintenance of the urban forest: the Tree Replacement Fund. This newly created fund, which has
been discussed at prior meetings on this topic, would be the repository for many of the proposed
updates, including in-lieu fees and civil penalties. This fund would primarily be used for tree planting
and preservation programs but would also be available for City Council-directed programs
consistent with this purpose.
Exhibits:
• Exhibit A: Proposed Ordinance
• Exhibit B: Staff Reports and Minutes from Previous Public Meetings
• Exhibit C: CEQA Exemption Memorandum
• Exhibit D: Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule to be Consistent with the Updated
Tree Ordinance, Approving Tree Replacement In-Lieu Fee, Approving Fee Increase for
Appeals of Beautification Committee Decisions, and Authorizing the Finance Director to Make
Such Amendments to the Master Fee Schedule
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REPEALING CHAPTERS 11.04
AND 11.06 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING A NEW
CHAPTER 11.06 WHICH WILL REGULATE THE URBAN FOREST AND TREE
PROTECTION PROGRAMS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS; CEQA DETERMINATION:
EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15307 AND 15308
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has been endowed with a magnificent and
thriving urban forest that greatly contributes to the long-term aesthetic, environmental and
economic benefits to the local community; and
WHEREAS, the environmental benefits derived from trees are vast, and include
filtering of air pollutants, stabilization of soils, increasing oxygen levels, decreasing wind
speed and noise pollution, as well as providing a natural habitat to our local diverse wildlife;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has a long history of protecting and enhancing
this vital resource; and
WHEREAS, this history has led to Burlingame’s proud and long-standing reputation
as a City of Trees, which began over a century ago; and
WHEREAS, in 1908, shortly after incorporating as a municipality, the City of
Burlingame passed its first tree protection measure protecting trees along El Camino Real;
and
WHEREAS, in 1971, City Council passed Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC)
Chapter 11.04, which established protections for City-owned trees; and
WHEREAS, in 1975, the City Council passed Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter
11.06, which established protections and requirements for privately-owned trees; and
WHEREAS, in 1992, 1993 and 1998, the Burlingame City Council amended Chapter
11.06 to ensure adequate care was given to the maintenance of our urban forest; and
WHEREAS, despite these updates, the programs and policies that were put into
place have become outdated as the City underwent development changes and
arboricultural practices evolved; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code’s implementation of outdated practices made it very
difficult for the City Arborist to implement and maintain appropriate tree care practices and
responsible growth of our vital urban forest; and
2
WHEREAS, in addition to the creation of an Urban Forest Management Plan
(UFMP), the City Council felt it was also necessary to adopt a new Ordinance updating the
rules and regulations surrounding the maintenance and care of the City’s Urban Forest; and
WHEREAS, the Burlingame Beautification Commission held a public hearing and
discussion about a prospective new tree Ordinance on November 3, 2023 and May 2, 2024;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearing and discussion
regarding the proposed Ordinance on May 28, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on the proposed Ordinance on
November 20, 2023 and June 17, 2024 and October 7, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on the proposed Ordinance on
November 20, 2023, June 17, 2024, October 7, 2024 and November 25th, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance represents the culmination of six public
hearings and years of staff research and has resulted in a comprehensive and updated
Ordinance to enhance the protection of the City’s invaluable urban forest.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. 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. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is in the public
interest.
Section 3. This Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15307 as it assures the maintenance, restoration or enhancement of
a natural resource and the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the
environment. The Ordinance is further exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15308, as it assures the maintenance, restoration, enhancement or
protection of the environment and the regulatory process involves procedures for
protection of the environment. The City Council has independently reviewed the entire
record including the staff report, CEQA Memorandum prepared by David J. Powers &
Associates (attached to the staff report for this Ordinance and incorporated herein by
reference), and any and all public comments and has concluded that the Ordinance is
exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308.
Section 4. 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
3
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 5. Chapters 11.04 and 11.06 of the Burlingame Municipal Code are
hereby repealed, and replaced with a new Chapter 11.06 as reflected in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 6. Section 5 of this Ordinance shall be codified in the Burlingame
Municipal Code. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 shall not be so codified.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall go into effect 30 days following its adoption.
Section 8. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in a manner
required by law.
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the
City Council held on the 2nd day of December, 2024, and adopted thereafter on the
____ day of _______, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
4
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 11.06 – URBAN REFORESTATION AND TREE PROTECTION
11.06.010 Findings and Purpose
11.06.020 Definitions
11.06.025 Disclosure Obligations Upon Sale or Transfer of Real Property
11.06.030 Emergencies
11.06.040 Protected Trees Impacted by Development or Redevelopment Projects
11.06.050 City-owned Trees and Vegetation
11.06.060 Permits Required for Removal or Work Significantly Affecting Protected
Trees
11.06.070 Decision by Director
11.06.080 Tree Planting and Replacement Fund
11.06.090 Appeal
11.06.100 Tree Requirements and Reforestation
11.06.110 Notification of Protected Tree Removals
11.06.120 Violations and Penalties
11.06.130 Administrative Procedures and Regulations
11.06.140 Severability
11.06.010 – Findings and Purpose
The City of Burlingame is endowed and forested with a variety of healthy and valuable trees
which must be protected and preserved. The preservation of these trees is essential to the
health, welfare and quality of life of the citizens of the City. Trees provide a multitude of
benefits to our community including:
1. Provide shade;
2. Enhance resilience to climate change;
3. Improve air quality;
4. Provide shelter from wind;
5. Prevent erosion and landslides;
6. Protect against flood hazards;
7. Add to the City’s scenic beauty and character;
8. Recognize historical significance to our City;
9. Create natural gathering places;
10. Reduce noise pollution;
5
11. Enhance privacy;
12. Enhance neighborhood property values; and,
13. Provide habitat for wildlife.
It is the intent of this Chapter to establish conditions and regulations for the protection,
removal, and replacement of existing trees and the installation of new trees during
development consistent with these purposes and the reasonable economic enjoyment of
private property. Further, it is the intent of this Chapter to foster the health of and protect City-
owned trees which contribute greatly to the aesthetics and environmental health of the City.
11.06.020 - Definitions
(a) Terms used in this Chapter shall be defined as provided below, and as defined in the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Glossary of Arboriculture Terms. If a conflict
between definitions exist, the definitions listed in this Chapter shall control. Terms not
having a special definition shall be defined according to their common usage and
meaning.
(1) “ANSI A300 Standards” or “ANSI Standards” means the most current version of the
American National Standard for Tree Care Operations-Tree, Shrub and Other Woody
Plant Maintenance-Standard Practice and accompanying best management practices
publications.
(2) “Appraised Value” means the monetary value of trees using trunk formula and
replacement costs methods as described in the most recent version of the ISA
workbook “Guide for Plant Appraisal,” or similar industry authority as designated by
the Director.
(3) “Certified Arborist” means a professional who possesses a current International
Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Arborist certification.
(4) “City Arborist” means an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified individual,
employed by or under contract with the City as delegated by the Director of Parks and
Recreation and charged with making the determinations called for in this Chapter, and
generally responsible for overseeing the City’s tree programs as they may exist over
time.
(5) “City-owned Trees” means those trees that are situated on City-owned property
including but not limited to parks, natural wildlife areas and landscape areas around
City buildings. “City-owned trees” also includes those trees planted and/or maintained
by the City in City-owned right of ways.
(6) “Commission” means the Beautification Commission of the City of Burlingame.
6
(7) “Containerized Planting” means a planting of trees in a human made structure of
permanence that limits soil volume and thus, the full growth potential of the tree.
(8) “Crown” means the upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including
all the branches and foliage.
(9) “Diameter at Standard Height (DSH)” means the level measurement of the trunk
diameter measured at 54” above soil grade. If ground is sloped, measurement is taken
from the upper side of the slope.
(10) “DSH of Multi-Trunk or Co-dominant Stems” means the level measurement of the
trunk taken below the main union when the main branching occurs at less than 54”
from soil grade.
(11) “DSH of Sloped or Angled Trunks” means the measurement when the trunk is at an
angle or is on a slope. The trunk is measured at a right angle to the trunk 54” along
the center of the trunk axis, on the upper slope.
(12) “Department” means the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Burlingame.
(13) “Development or Redevelopment Project” means any work upon any property in the
City of Burlingame which requires a subdivision, variance, use permit, design review
permit, special permit building permit or other review or permit provided for under Title
25 of this Code or other approval or which involves excavation, landscaping, or
construction in the vicinity of a Protected Tree. “Development or Redevelopment” does
not include work undertaken by the City on property owned by the City or work
performed within or directly related to an easement or other right to property held by
the City.
(14) “Director” means the Director of Parks and Recreation of the City of Burlingame, or
his or her designee(s).
(15) “Dripline” means the area directly located under the outer circumference of the tree
branches, prior to any reduction pruning.
(16) “Excessive Pruning” means any of the following:
A. Removal of more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the functioning leaf, stem,
or root area of any Protected Tree in any thirty-six-month period.
B. Removal of more than fifteen percent (15%) of the functioning root area of any
Protected Tree in any thirty-six-month period.
C. Any removal of the functioning leaf, stem, or root area of a Protected Tree
which the Director, in their sole discretion, determines caused a significant
decline in health, increased risk of failure, or the structural altering of a tree.
7
(17) “Landscape Tree” means a woody perennial usually having one dominant trunk and a
mature height of greater than 15 feet and mature width of 10 feet at twenty years of
age according to the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, PLANTS Database, or similar database as designated by the
Director.
(18) “Habitable Space” means structures on a property intended for habitation.
(19) “Hazardous Tree” means a tree or tree part that has significant increased likelihood to
cause harm.
(20) “Heritage Tree / Heritage Grove” means a significant tree or geographically related
trees (grove) that has been designated by the Beautification Commission, City
Council, or Director as meeting criteria for the heritage tree program.
(21) “ISA” means the International Society of Arboriculture organization.
(22) “Neighborhood” means the area within a 300-foot radius of a tree.
(23) “Paving” means pervious and impervious surfaces that prevent vegetative growth.
(24) “Private Tree” means any tree located on privately owned property within the City other
than those designated as “City-owned Trees” under this Chapter. “Private Tree”
includes trees owned and controlled by any entity other than the City, including other
public entities.
(25) “Project Arborist” means certified arborist retained by a property owner for the purpose
of overseeing on-site activity involving the welfare of trees to be retained during a
construction or Development or Redevelopment Project. Unless otherwise noted by
the Director, the Project Arborist shall be responsible for all reports, appraisals, tree
protection plan, and inspections required.
(26) “Protected Tree” means:
A. Any City-owned or maintained tree.
B. Any Private Tree with a circumference of forty-four (44) inches (14-inch
DSH) or more when measured fifty-four (54) inches above natural
grade; or
(1) When measuring the DSH of Multi-Trunk or Co-dominant
Stems, or DSH of Sloped or Angled Trunks, the forty-four (44) inch
(14-inch DSH) circumference measurement shall be determined as
defined in this Chapter above.
C. A designated Heritage Tree or Heritage Grove, or any other tree or
stand of trees or species of tree, so designated by the Beautification
Commission, City Council, or Director based upon findings that it is
8
unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance,
location, historical significance or other factor; or
D. A stand of Private Trees in which the Director or designee has
determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival; or
E. Replacement trees, regardless of size, that were required to be planted
as replacements for authorized and unauthorized protected Private
Tree removals
F. Reforestation trees required to be planted for a Development or
Redevelopment Project pursuant to 11.06.100.
(27) “Pruning” means the removal of dead, dying, diseased, live interfering, and structurally
deficient branches and shall be defined as set forth in the most recent standards of
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Best Management Practices,
which may be amended from time to time. Pruning shall not exceed removal of more
than 25% of live tissue within a thirty-six-month period unless otherwise permitted by
the Director. See “Excessive Pruning” definition for further details regarding limitations.
(28) “Removal” means cutting to the ground, extraction, killing by spraying, girdling, pruning
the tree in a manner that reduces the health or condition of a tree, or any other means
that significantly reduces the longevity of the tree.
(29) “Stand of Trees (Grove)” means a group of trees occurring naturally or planted close
together with little or no under growth.
(30) “Structural Alteration” means alteration of the natural form of the tree or root system
which would thereby prevent the tree from achieving the typical height and width the
canopy would normally present as.
(31) “Structural Lot Coverage” means the build footprint, paved area or any other pervious
or impervious improvement that restricts growing space on a parcel.
(32) “Tree Protection Plan (TPP)” means a plan prepared by a certified arborist that outlines
measures to protect and preserve trees on a construction (or similar) project. The
requirements for the plan shall be set by the City Arborist, but the plan should generally
include requirements for pre-construction; treatments during demolition and/or
construction; establish a Tree Protection Zone for each Protected Tree; tree
monitoring and inspection schedule; and continued maintenance after construction for
each Protected Tree.
(33) “Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)” means a defined area within which certain activities are
prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees,
especially during construction or development. Unless otherwise directed by the City
Arborist, the Tree Protection Zone shall be a fenced enclosure for the purpose of
achieving the following goals:
9
A. Protection of foliage and branches from contact by equipment, materials
and activities.
B. Preservation of roots and soil conditions in an intact and non-compacted
state.
C. Identify the Tree Protection Zone where no construction activity is permitted
unless otherwise approved by the Director or City Arborist.
11.06.025- Disclosure Obligations Upon Sale or Transfer of Real Property
(a) Not less than seven (7) business days before the sale or other transfer of residential
real property concludes, a selling or transferring property owner shall disclose to the
acquiring property owner, on a disclosure form provided by the City, whether the residential
real property to be sold or transferred contains Protected Trees as defined in this Chapter.
(b) If the selling or transferring property owner cannot determine whether trees located on
or adjacent to the property are Protected Trees, the seller or transferring property owner
shall request available documentation from the Department.
(c) Upon a written request, the Director may grant the selling or transferring property owner
an exemption in writing from the requirements of this section if the Director determines in
the interest of public safety that planting and maintaining trees on or adjacent to the
residential property at the time of sale or transfer is not appropriate. Such an exemption
does not run with the land and shall not allow any deviations from the disclosure
requirements upon residential real property sales or transfers for future sellers or
transferors.
11.06.030 – Emergencies
In the event that an emergency condition arises whereby immediate action is necessary
because of disease or danger to life or property, a Protected Tree may be removed or altered
by order of the Director, or, if unavailable and emergency conditions warrant such action, a
responsible member of the police, fire, parks and recreation, or public works department. In
such event, a report shall be made to the Commission describing the conditions and necessity
of such an order. If the tree designated for emergency removal is not removed by the owner
within seven calendar (7) days, the emergency removal permit may be rescinded by the
Director.
For purposes of this Section, the Director is given great deference to determine the existence
of an emergency that requires the removal or alteration of a Protected Tree.
11.06.040- Protected Trees Impacted by Development or Redevelopment Projects
(a) Where other discretionary approval is required: Where a property owner wishes to remove
or Excessively Prune a Protected Tree under this Chapter as part of a Development or
Redevelopment Project for which a discretionary approval under Title 25 of this Code is
otherwise required, the application for discretionary approval shall be accompanied by a
10
permit(s) for the work under this Chapter to the decision maker for the discretionary
approval. An approval of the discretionary project shall result in an approval of the
accompanying permits under this Chapter. Any decision on the application for a permit
shall be subject to the same procedures for appeal and call for review as a decision on the
associated discretionary approval.
(b) Where no discretionary approval is required, and no State-mandated regulations require
ministerial approval of the project: Where a property owner wishes to remove or
Excessively Prune a Protected Tree under this Chapter on private property as part of a
Development or Redevelopment Project for which no discretionary approval is required
under Title 25, an application for a permit shall be made pursuant to the standard
application procedures and submittal requirements set forth in Section 11.06.060 and as
otherwise stated in this Chapter. Any appeal of this decision shall be governed by the
appeal procedures listed in Section 11.06.090.
(c) Where no discretionary approval is required, and State-mandated regulations require
ministerial approval of the project: Where a property owner wishes to remove or
Excessively Prune a Protected Tree under this Chapter on private property as part of a
Development or Redevelopment Project for which no discretionary approval is required
under Title 25 and State-mandated regulations require ministerial approval of the project
(including, but not limited to, Development or Redevelopment Project submitted pursuant
to Government Code Sections §65852.2 and § 65852.21, which may be amended from time
to time), the application for ministerial approval shall also be accompanied by an
application for a permit(s) under this Chapter to the reviewer of the ministerial approval
for all trees which would physically preclude the approved Development or
Redevelopment Project. An approval of the project shall result in an approval of any permit
for those trees which would physically preclude the approved Development or
Redevelopment Project, subject to the replacement and reforestation requirements of this
Chapter.
11.06.050 – City-owned Trees and Vegetation
The provisions of this Section shall govern actions affecting City-owned Trees and vegetation,
and shall be in addition to all other applicable provisions set forth in this Chapter.
(a) Duties of Director: It shall be the duty of the Director to implement a comprehensive tree
program for the City, including planting, pruning, plant health care activities and caring for
any trees, shrubs or plants and to remove any tree, shrub or plants which are determined
to be objectionable or hazardous in or upon any City right-of way, park, or other City-
owned area in the City. Actions taken by City staff in furtherance of such City tree program
shall be exempt from the permitting and appeal provisions of this Chapter.
(b) The Director shall develop and maintain a comprehensive plan of official street trees for
all streets of the City where planting areas are available and provided for trees, which may
be amended from time to time.
(c) The Director, in consultation with the Director of Public Works, shall have the authority to
prune, remove, and replant any City-owned Tree, shrub or plant that present a danger to
11
pedestrian or vehicular safety in the right of way, including sidewalks, or that present
significant risk of harm to persons or permanent structures in the immediate vicinity of the
tree. Decisions to remove or prune City-owned Trees pursuant to this paragraph are not
appealable and are not subject to the noticing provisions of this Chapter.
(d) It is a violation of this Chapter to fasten any sign, wire, rope or any device to any City-
owned Tree, shrub or plant; to permit any fire or heated device to burn where the heat
thereof will injure any portion of the tree; to place or maintain any stone, cement, or other
substance so that it will impede the free access of air and water to the roots of any City-
owned Tree, or to otherwise damage or, through negligence, permit damage to occur to
a City-owned Tree. Paving of planting strips between the curb and edge of sidewalk in the
public right of way is not permitted except where necessary for safety or as required as
part of an accessibility accommodation plan. Such paving may only occur at the discretion
and with the written approval of the Director of Public Works or his or her designee, after
consultation with the Director.
(e) Planting in streets or other City-owned areas: It is a violation of this Chapter for anyone
other than the Director to place or plant any tree, shrub or plant in any public right of way
or public place in the City until the Director shall have first approved the kind and variety
to be planted, the location therefore, and granted a permit for planting the same. The
Director is authorized to approve varieties of trees which may be planted in planting strips
and no trees which do not receive such approval shall be planted. The Director shall
prepare a list of such trees, which may be amended from time to time.
(f) No right to remove or Prune or alter City-owned Trees: No person other than City
employees or authorized City contractors engaged in work on an approved tree program
shall have the right to remove, Prune, damage, or alter a City-owned Tree except as
provided by Section 11.06.030 or through a permit for such work granted under this
Section. A permit may be applied for from the Director, who is hereby authorized to grant
such a permit in his or her discretion upon application in the form provided by the
Department. Any such request will be considered based on the provisions of this Chapter,
ANSI A300 and established public tree removal criteria.
(g) Decision of Director: A decision on an application for a permit to perform work on a
protected City-owned Tree shall be rendered by the Director, who has the discretion to
approve, deny, or approve with conditions such application. Any permit granted under this
Section shall describe the contemplated work with particularity and provide for any
replacement plantings or payment.
(h) Trimming by public utilities: Any public utility corporation maintaining overhead wires may
request a permit from the Director valid for one year from date of issuance, that allows
such public utility corporation to prune any tree growing upon the street or which grow
upon private property to the extent that they encroach upon the street. Permission to
prune trees shall be granted where it can be shown that the trees or portions thereof are
likely to interfere with the safety of the overhead wires or the transmission of electrical
current or telephone messages.
12
11.06.060 - Permits Required for Removal or Excessive Pruning of Protected Trees
(a) No Protected Tree shall be removed, structurally altered, or excessively pruned from any
parcel or pruned by any person without a permit, except as provided in Section 11.06.030
and 11.06.050.
(b) Application: Removal, Pruning or root pruning. Property owners or their authorized
representative shall not structurally alter, excessively Prune or remove Protected Trees
without first applying for and obtaining a permit from the Department. The permit
application shall be on a form furnished by the Department, which may be updated by
the Director from time to time. The application shall be accompanied by an application
fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council. The Director may require
that the application be accompanied by:
(1) An arborist report from an arborist approved by the City;
(2) Designation of a Project Arborist, if so required by the Director;
(3) A site map indicating existing and proposed elevations, property lines, streets,
easements, driveways, buildings and structures, building and structure
setbacks, parking areas, existing and proposed land uses, and locations of all
trees with identification numbers;
(4) A Tree Replacement Plan including size, species, form and location;
(5) A Tree Protection Plan;
(6) Proof of compliance with any applicable City and/or California Contractors
State License Board licensing requirements;
(7) Authorization of the property owner;
(8) Any other information or report the Director determines to be necessary.
(c) Review. In reviewing each application, the Director (or, where a permit is submitted
pursuant to Section 11.06.040(a), the decision maker for the discretionary project) shall
weigh the following factors:
(1) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to: Disease, decay, structure, form
and vigor, likelihood and consequences of failure and impact proximity to
existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways and other trees,
infrastructure and growing space constraints, utilities and improvement conflict,
species desirability and age of the tree relative to average urban life span
typical of the species.
(2) Whether the tree must be removed to use the property for any City authorized
or permitted use under Title 25 for the zoning district in which the property is
located, and the use could not be made of the property unless the tree is
13
removed.
(3) That the tree or its roots are causing, or threatening to cause, damage to any
main structure on the property or on any adjacent property and there are no
reasonable alternative means to mitigate the damage or threatened damage.
Reasonable alternative means of mitigation include, but are not limited to,
cutting tree roots, trimming the tree canopy, or installing a root barrier.
Removing, relocating, or in any way altering any main structure on the property
shall not be considered a reasonable alternative means of mitigation for the
purposes of this Section
(4) Species desirability, susceptibility to pests and disease and ability to host
pathogenic organisms that cause damage to other trees.
(5) The topography of the land and the effect of the removal of the tree(s) on
erosion; soil retention; and diversion or increased flow of surface water.
(6) The number of trees existing in the neighborhood on improved property and
the effect the removal would have on the established standard of the area and
property value.
(7) The number of trees the particular parcel can adequately support according to
good arboricultural practices.
(8) The effect tree removal would have on wind protection, noise and privacy; erosion;
soil retention; and diversion or increased flow of surface waters.
(9) Whether an unusual or extraordinary circumstance exists whereby the denial of
the permit would create a unique economic burden on the property owner.
(10) Whether a public benefit as defined in Section 11.06.010 exists that, in the
Director’s determination, outweighs the above factors.
11.06.070 – Decision by Director
A decision shall be rendered by the Director for each application received in accordance with
Sections 11.06.050 and 11.06.060 within six months of receipt of a completed application,
which includes the payment of all fees. This limitation does not apply for those permits
submitted in accordance with Section 11.06.040. If an application for removal is approved, it
shall include replacement conditions in accordance with Section 11.06.100. The Director may
add Conditions of Approval to any Tree Removal Permit that are in furtherance of the goals
of this Chapter. The Director shall give public notification of the decision. Public notification
may be electronic or written. The Director may require additional notification measures as
applicable. Additional requirements of permit decisions are as follows:
(a) If a permit is approved to remove a City-owned Tree, removal work shall include removal
of the tree stump and nearby roots to a depth of eighteen (18) inches, and filling of the
hole with clean blend of soil as specified in the permit, unless these requirements are
14
waived in writing by the Director. Additional requirements including, but not limited to
irrigation measures, staking and mulch may be required. If no replacement tree is required
by the Director, the permittee shall install soil, aggregate or paving to match the adjacent
area as specified in approved permit. The permittee also shall repair any damage to the
street, curb, or sidewalk caused by the tree’s removal.
(b) If an application for a tree permit is denied, no tree permit application for the same
proposed work may be filed within one year after the date of final denial by the authority
having final jurisdiction in the matter. This moratorium on the application period does not
include those associated with Section 11.06.030, or if the Director determines there has
been a material change in circumstances that led to the original decision.
(c) Applications will be denied for failure of the applicant to provide information and materials
requested within six months of the application date.
(d) Approved permits are valid for six months. Extensions shall be granted only for good
cause, and when in the benefit of the urban forest.
11.06.080 – Tree Planting and Replacement Fund
A Tree Planting and Replacement Fund is established for the purposes of enhancing the
urban forest. The in-lieu fees and any civil penalties collected pursuant to this Chapter shall
be deposited into the Tree Planting and Replacement Fund. Except as provided in this
Section, the Tree Planting and Replacement Fund shall not be used for any purpose other
than for enhancement of the urban forest (including, but not limited to, establishing new
planting locations and support systems such as installation of irrigation, silva-cells, root
barriers and drainage) and preservation programs (including the creation of programs to
support the preservation of mature Protected Trees, under-plantings as part of a tree planting
program, and other activities that support the purposes of this Chapter). The City Council may
direct that the Tree Planting and Replacement Fund be used for the implementation of
programs consistent with the purposes of the Tree Planting and Replacement Fund.
11.06.090 – Appeal
Tree removal permits related to Section 11.06.030, as well as Pruning and/or removals of
City-owned Trees, are not appealable. Additionally, there are no appeal rights when the
Director approves a tree removal permit for a tree that has died, or whose health has declined
with no hope of improvement.
Any City resident, business owner, or other person having an interest in property affected by
a decision rendered under Section 11.06.070 related to the Pruning or removal of a private
Protected Tree may appeal the decision of the Director to the Commission. The appellant
must file a written or email notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days
of the decision, and the appellant shall state the grounds for the appeal. All appeals shall be
accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council.
The Director may also require that an appeal be submitted on a form furnished by the
Department.
15
The Director shall set the matter for review by the Commission at its next regular meeting for
which notice under this provision may be made, and provide notice by mail of the Commission
hearing to the appellant and applicant at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting. The appeal
hearing may be continued by mutual agreement by the parties, or as deemed necessary by
the Director in order to allow adequate consideration of the appeal. No work other than that
permitted by Section 11.06.030 shall be performed pursuant to tree permits while any appeal
is pending.
Any person may appeal the Commission’s decision to a Hearing Officer appointed by the City
Manager within ten (10) calendar days. The appellant must file a written notice of appeal to
the City Clerk, and submit payment of the appeal fee, within this ten (10)-day period. The
notice of appeal shall state the grounds for the appeal. The Director may require that the
appeal be submitted on a form furnished by the Department. The Commission’s decision shall
become final in ten (10) calendar days if no appeal is filed, and any decision of the Hearing
Officer shall be final and effective immediately. Destruction, removal or other work on a
Protected Tree shall not commence until after the ten (10)-day period has passed or, if any
appeal is filed, until the decision of the Hearing Officer.
As specified in Section 11.06.040(a), any person aggrieved by a tree permit decision related
to a Development or Redevelopment Project subject to discretionary review must appeal the
decision pursuant to the appeal provisions set forth in Title 25. There is no appeal right for
permit decisions rendered pursuant to Section 11.06.040(c).
11.06.100 – Tree Requirements and Reforestation
Planted landscape tree(s) must be vigorous, well-formed and meet the standards established
according to ANSI 300. The Director may require specific species, planting locations, forms
and/or size landscape trees as replacement trees or to satisfy reforestation requirements.
Off-site plantings within the 300’ neighborhood will be considered at the sole discretion of the
Director.
(a) Replacement Requirements for private Protected Tree removals;
(1) A tree replacement plan for private Protected Trees located on lots that include
single or two-unit dwellings must provide for replacement as follows:
TRUNK DIAMETER (DSH) REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE TREE*
14 inches to 29 inches One – 24 Inch Box; or Two – 15 Gallon Containers
> 30 inches to 45 inches One – 36 Inch Box; Two – 24 Inch Box; or Four – 15 Gallon Containers
> 45 inches Two – 36 Inch Box; or Three – 24 Inch Box
(2) Any other tree replacement plan for all other properties must provide for the
replacement of Protected Trees at a ratio of one-inch DSH of tree replaced for
each inch DSH of tree removed (1:1 ratio). The following equivalent sizes shall be
used whenever new trees are planted (either on-site or off-site) pursuant to a tree
replacement plan:
16
DSH EQUIVALANT REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE TREE CONTAINER SIZE
One-Inch 15-Gallon Container
Two-Inch 24-Inch Box
Three-Inch 36-Inch Box
Four-Inch 48-Inch Box
Five-Inch 60-Inch Box
(b) Development Reforestation Requirements. Development plans must include reforestation
of the subject property with landscape trees as required below:
DEVELOPMENT TYPE REFORESTATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
One and Two-Unit Dwellings One Landscape Tree/ 1,000 Square Feet of Habitable
Space on the Lot
Multi-Unit Dwellings One Landscape Tree/ 2,000 Square Feet of Total Structural
Lot Coverage and One Landscape Tree/ 2,000 Square Feet
of Paving
Commercial Zoning One Landscape Tree/ 5,000 Square Feet of Total Structural
Lot Coverage and One Landscape Tree/ 5,000 Square Feet
of Paving
*All reforested trees must be at least 24” box tree size, unless otherwise approved by the
Director.
** Reforestation Plan Requirements shall be calculated by rounding the appropriate square
footage to the nearest thousand.
(c) Replacement and Reforestation Options. A tree replacement or reforestation plan must
include one or more of the following options:
(1) On-Site or Off-Site Replacement/Reforestation. A tree replacement or
reforestation plan that includes on-site or off-site replacement shall specify where
the trees shall be planted and how the trees shall be monitored and maintained for
a time period as determined by the Director. The Director may require security to
ensure that the replacement trees survive a minimum of five years. Off-site
plantings within 300’ of the subject property will be considered at the sole discretion
of the Director.
(2) Payment of an In-Lieu Fee as adopted by Resolution of the City Council. At the
discretion of the Director, the applicant may pay an in-lieu fee for inability to replant
or reforest trees as required. The in-lieu fee amount is established by resolution of
the City Council, and may change from time to time. Such fees shall be deposited
in the Tree Planting and Replacement Fund as described in Section 11.06.080.
(3) Credit for Existing Landscape Trees. An applicant subject to reforestation
requirements may be entitled to replacement credit when the applicant preserves
trees that are on the same lot. To be entitled to the credit, the preserved trees must
be viable long-term and meet the definition of landscape tree. The Director shall
determine whether a tree is viable long-term by considering the location of the
17
trees, the quality of the environment in which the trees are located, potential
impacts to the trees from any proposed development, and other factors that the
director deems relevant. Such trees included as credit shall be considered
protected regardless of size.
(d) Waiver Replacement Requirement.
The Director may waive the tree replacement requirements in this Section in whole or part if
the subject property has, in the Director’s sole discretion, the maximum number of landscape
trees existing that the subject property can support according to best management practices.
(e) California Native Planting.
In recognition of the importance of native planting for the benefit of local ecology, an applicant
is entitled to use the requirements below if California Native Trees and/or Plants are utilized
for replacement requirements. The Director will approve and maintain a list of California
Native Trees or Plants for purposes of this Section, which may be amended from time to time.
If used, the applicant may plant as follows:
(1) If planting according to 11.06.100(a)(1)
TRUNK DIAMETER REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE TREE*
14 inches to 29 inches One –15 Gallon Container
> 30 inches to 45 inches One – 24 Inch Box, or Two – 15 Gallon Containers
> 45 inches One – 36 Inch Box or Two – 24 Inch Box
(2) If planting according to 11.06.100(a)(2)
DSH EQUIVALANT REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE TREE CONTAINER SIZE
Two-Inch 15-Gallon Container
Four-Inch 24-Inch Box
Six-Inch 36-Inch Box
Eight-Inch 48-Inch Box
Ten-Inch 60-Inch Box
11.06.110 Notification of Protected Tree Removals
At a minimum, public notification of an application to remove or excessively prune a Protected
Tree shall be made to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject tree.
Additional notification, both electronic and/or physical, may be required by the Director. Trees
requiring public notification for all non-emergency removals are as follows:
(a) Private Protected Trees, regardless of size;
(b) City-owned trees with circumference of 44 inches or greater (14 inch DSH).
18
11.06.120 Violations and Penalties
Violations of this Chapter significantly harm the urban forest are hereby declared to constitute
a public nuisance subject to the provisions of Chapter 1.16 and may be punishable as
misdemeanors or infractions at the discretion of the City Attorney following consideration of
the severity of the violation. Continuing violations shall constitute a separate offense for every
day the violation occurs or continues, and every tree harmed or removed is considered a
separate offense. Any individual who personally, or through an agent, employee, or
representative, commits a violation under this Chapter will be subject to the following
penalties:
(a) A fine of up to $1,000 per violation.
(b) In addition to any penalties imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, any person
who has removed, excessively pruned or otherwise damaged a Protected Tree in violation of
this Chapter may be required to provide restitution to the City by either:
(1) At the Direction of the Director, planting a healthy replacement tree of the same or
similar species and size as the tree removed or damaged, or
(2) Paying a cash contribution to the Tree Planting and Replacement Fund in an
amount equal to the appraised value of the removed or damaged tree plus estimated
costs of replacement, as determined by the Director. In the event that the condition of
an illegally removed tree cannot be determined after its removal, the condition of
the tree shall be assumed to be in excellent condition for the purposes of establishing
the replacement value.
(c) Civil Penalties. In addition to the penalty provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this
Section, the City may bring a civil action against any person who commits, allows, or
maintains a violation of any provision of this Chapter. The Civil Action may include, but is not
limited to:
(1) Injunctive Relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise
compel the cessation of such violation.
(2) Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter in which the city prevails,
the court shall award to the city all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the
costs of trial, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs
incurred in prosecuting the action, and reasonable attorney fees.
(d) If a violation occurs during a Development or Redevelopment Project, the City may issue
a stop work order suspending and prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the
grading, demolition, and/or building permit(s) (including construction, inspection, and
issuance of certificates of occupancy) until a mitigation plan has been filed with and approved
by the Director and City Attorney, agreed to in writing by the property owner(s), and either
implemented or guaranteed by the posting of adequate security as determined by the City
Attorney.
19
(e) All remedies prescribed under this Chapter are cumulative, and the election of one or
more remedies does not bar the City from the pursuit of any other remedy for the purpose of
enforcing this Chapter.
11.06.130 Administrative Procedures and Regulations
The Director may adopt administrative procedures and regulations necessary to implement
this Chapter.
11.06.140 Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby declares that it would have
adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 11a
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 7, 2024
From: Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent and City Arborist – (650) 558-7333
Scott Spansail, Assistant City Attorney – (650) 558-7275
Subject: Discussion of Tree Ordinance Update - Burlingame Municipal Code Title
11 (Trees and Vegetation)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review the draft ordinance language that would rescind
Chapters 11.04 and 11.06 of Title 11 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Trees and Vegetation)
and replace them with a new Chapter 11.06 and provide direction. Once the review is complete
and any new direction is incorporated, staff will conduct California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) analysis of the proposed changes and return with a first reading and introduction of the
amended Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
History of Title 11
The City of Burlingame has long had a special relationship with its urban forest. Only a few months
after the City was incorporated in 1908, the City enacted its first municipal code to protect a historic
grove of trees. Over the years, the community and civic leaders sought to invest in, regulate, and
protect the urban forest by updating the rules governing public and private trees. In 1971, the City
Council added “Protection of City Street Trees” to Title 11 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC),
taking another important step towards protection of these important resources. The City Council
went further through the addition of BMC Chapter 11.06, “Urban Reforestation and Tree
Protection,” adding protections for the rest of the urban forest. Revisions to this Chapter later took
place in 1992 and 1998.
For many years, these two Chapters have established a framework for protection of, and
investment in, the City’s urban forest. However, many aspects of the code have failed to keep pace
with present arboriculture practices, financial relevance, and the evolving legal landscape. To
ensure the City’s program remained robust in the absence of code updates, the City joined other
municipalities by establishing an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The UFMP details City
rules, recommendations, and practices in managing the urban forest. The UFMP is a dynamic
document that is updated regularly. Many other public agencies have focused on the development
of this document to better communicate with the community about their urban forest. However, the
Update of Tree Ordinance October 7, 2024
2
UFMP simply cannot overcome many of the challenges presented by the City’s outdated Municipal
Code.
The bulk of the City’s present tree codes has not been updated in 25 years, with some elements
remaining unchanged for over 50. In contrast, the UFMP was updated only three years ago in 2021.
Work Towards an Update
As staff began to consider potential amendments to Title 11, it first began with a significant review
and discussion of other agencies’ codes and experiences. This included, but was not limited to, the
cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Sacramento, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara. This process initially
began in 2018, under a different City Arborist and a different City Attorney. Their suggesti ons, as
well as those of other City Departments, elected and appointed officials, and community members,
have helped influence these proposed changes. Prior to this meeting, staff had focused on general
ideas and concepts regarding the proposed changes. The evolution of these ideas is captured in
the summary below, which has ultimately led to the Ordinance language provided for consideration
today.
Recent Hearings and Input - 2023
At the November 2, 2023, meeting of the Beautification Commission, staff presented the proposed
updates and held the first public hearing. Minutes from that meeting are attached in Exhibit B. Many
community members expressed concern over some of the proposed changes, including:
The rate at which protected size trees have been recently removed
The number of tree removals approved as a result of development
The limited amount of public involvement in the removal process
That proposed fees may deter public involvement
Balancing the risk of failure against the community benefit of mature trees
The lack of public notification for tree removals
Two weeks later, at the November 20, 2023, meeting of the City Council, staff presented proposed
updates and received additional feedback from the Council and community. Minutes from that
meeting are in Exhibit B. Feedback from the public included the following:
Lack of communication and coordination between the Beautification and Planning
Commissions
The inclusion of an “undesirable” species list
That the proposed removal criteria would not go far enough to protect large trees
Suggestion that the City retain an independent arborist to perform evaluations when needed
Desire for larger-sized tree replacement requirements
City Council members offered the following comments:
Concern over whether there should be a removal fee for a tree that perished naturally
Requested additional information on how SB 9 and other state-mandated developments would
Update of Tree Ordinance October 7, 2024
3
impact the City’s ability to limit tree removals
Inclination towards City Manager review of specific appeals
Desire for options including the planting of smaller trees that naturalize more readily
Research of mechanism to assist with private tree maintenance and planting
Better definition of “undesirable” trees
Support for a City-hired arborist for evaluation of private trees (when necessary)
Different criteria for trees in wildland areas
Better outreach to new property owners regarding tree regulations
Desire to explore development re-design in order to preserve a tree
Recent Hearings and Input - 2024
With the feedback received from the Beautification Commission and the Council in 2023, staff
further revised the proposed updates. Staff then conducted another round of public review in 2024
before the Beautification Commission and the Planning Commission in advance of this presentation
to the City Council. At the May 2, 2024, meeting of the Beautification Commission, staff presented
further refinement of concepts to modernize the tree code. Minutes from that meeting are attached
in Exhibit B. Concerns from the public included the following:
Tree removals in the name of development
Encouraging Beautification Commissioners to act as liaisons with businesses
Desire to have City approved arborists as the only qualified persons to provide reports related
to City business
Concern regarding undesirable tree criteria inclusion in determination of tree removal
Concern about off-site plantings incentivizing maximum development of parcels
Belief that the largest and most unique trees should be protected at all costs
Beautification Commissioners offered the following feedback:
Concern about incentivizing off-site planting and tracking the trees as “protected trees”
Concern that in-lieu fees encourage “pay to play” scenarios
Belief that undesirable criteria shouldn’t be included in determining tree removal
Support for City retained arborist to do private tree reports or a City-maintained list of approved
arborists
Restriction of Tree Replacement Fund to plant City-owned trees, not maintain private trees
The City next brought the refined proposals to the Planning Commission on May 28, 2024. Minutes
from that meeting are attached in Exhibit B. At this meeting, the Commissioners heard the following
concerns from the public:
The cost of fees being proposed
Concerns about cancellation of private home insurance due to tree failure risk
Difficulty removing invasive trees
Importance of native trees and plants for ecological support
Concerns about large trees causing power outages and reducing solar electricity production
Update of Tree Ordinance October 7, 2024
4
Planning Commissioners offered the following feedback:
Doing more to discourage clear-cutting of property for non-protected trees
Concerns about trees, fire hazard, and challenges encountered with private home insurance
Concerns about trees becoming too large for their planting location (and associated risk)
Root conflict with structures
Suggestion of requiring more evergreen trees
Support for staff adjusting requirements based upon site conditions
Support for alternative design for large tree retention
At the June 17, 2024, City Council meeting, the culmination of the concepts explored during
previous meetings was shared with the City Council. The staff report and minutes from this meeting
are attached in Exhibit B. The Council shared the following sentiments:
Support for staff discretion in management and implementation of Title 11
Support for off-site plantings for the benefit of the urban forest
Support for designated independent arborists
Support for the updated protected tree definition
Concern that the City is not being restrictive enough regarding trees and development
Suggestion of incentivizing native tree plantings
Suggestion of greater community outreach
Suggestion of greater research with regard to homeowner’s insurance challenges
During public comment at this meeting, the following commentary was shared:
Concern that view-clearance pruning is not being represented in the update
Concern that large-canopy trees significantly increase risk and cost to property owner
Support of utilizing public funds for the care of private trees for the benefit of the community
Suggestion of basing reforestation on total impervious area with regard to development
Suggestion of a requirement of large-canopy trees
Suggestion of limiting trees in hillside view areas to ten feet
The culmination of feedback received from the Beautification Commission, Planning Commission,
and City Council, as well as public comment received at the five public meetings held, have resulted
in the draft ordinance language attached as Exhibit A to this staff report. Staff believes this language
has incorporated a balanced approach to the retention and growth of large canopy trees that
significantly contribute to the community and the reasonable development of private properties.
This draft ordinance language is in line with modern arboriculture practices, is similar to those in
other responsible and tree-focused public agencies, and works to achieve many desires of the
community. Some of the concerns and suggestions received are better addressed through City
policies, which can be done in part through updates to the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)
and through adoption of administrative implementing regulations. The Ordinance is intended to
operate as the frame work of authority for City staff to foster the qualities of the desired urban forest.
Policies, regulations, and the UFMP are more routinely updated to reflect the greater details
involved in the changing dynamics of the community.
Update of Tree Ordinance October 7, 2024
5
DISCUSSION
The June 17, 2024 staff report describes proposed regulations for Development and
Redevelopment, Public Notice, Appeal of Removal Decisions, and Penalties. Those provisions
have not changed, and the details are found in that staff report, attached in Exhibit B.
Updated Draft Ordinance
The proposed Ordinance has considered various Council, Commission, and public comments. At
times, and as is often the case with discussion of such an important topic, these comments were
not always congruent and evidenced the diverse array of opinions on this topic. To provide the best
possible legislation for consideration, staff has further researched recent modernizations of tree-
related municipal codes at agencies that have a proven high regard for tree retention and pr omotion
in the urban environment. Additionally, staff seeks to remedy challenges with the current code to
ensure staff has a greater means of following the spirit of Burlingame’s history of prioritizing the
urban forest. Based upon this research and recent public comment received, staff is proposing the
following changes to previously presented concepts.
Replacement and Reforestation Requirements
After further research of replacement requirements, staff learned that the planting of larger sized
nursery trees has been very challenging for other agencies. This is due to the limitation of available
specimens in larger sizes as well as companies that perform this type of work. These specimens
can be cost-prohibitive as well, often requiring a property owner to pay over $10,000 per tree.
Installation requires heavy machinery that frequently limits planting opportunities to the front of the
residence, near the street. Additionally, current arboricultural study has shown smaller container
trees naturalize more quickly and, depending on species and container size, will usually reach the
same size as a larger container tree planted at the same time within several years. For these
reasons, staff has adjusted the planting requirements as follows:
A tree replacement plan for private Protected Trees located on lots that include single or
two-unit dwellings must provide for the replacement as follows:
TRUNK DIAMETER (DSH) REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE TREE*
14 inches to 29 inches One – 24 Inch Box or Two – 15 Gallon Containers
> 30 inches to 45 inches One – 36 Inch Box, Two – 24 Inch Box, or Four – 15 Gallon Containers
> 45 inches Two – 36 Inch Box or Three – 24 Inch Box
Any other tree replacement plan for properties not described above:
DSH EQUIVALANT REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE TREE CONTAINER SIZE
One-Inch 15-Gallon Container
Two-Inch 24-Inch Box
Three-Inch 36-Inch Box
Four-Inch 48-Inch Box
Five-Inch 60-Inch Box
Update of Tree Ordinance October 7, 2024
6
Where trees cannot be replaced on-site (or, subject to the approval of the Director, off-site within
the neighborhood) as required, staff proposes that the Director approve an in-lieu fee payable to
the Tree Replacement Fund to be utilized for the planting and fostering of young trees elsewher e
in the urban forest. The proposed update increases the size and quantity of trees needing to be
planted dependent upon the size of the tree being removed or the proposed development. It also
differentiates replanting requirements between typical residences and large commercial/mixed
use/residential properties. The in-lieu fee amount(s) would require a fee study, but a similar fee in
the City of Sacramento is set to $325/one-inch DSH of tree removed.
Incentivization of Native Trees
Through public comment, the community emphasized replanting of native trees. Some native trees
are well-adapted to Burlingame’s climate and often provide a significantly sustainable planting
option for the local environment. Other native trees require specific micro-climate requirements
such as significant water use or greater area for surface roots to develop. Recognizing that some
native trees may be appropriate for a private property planting, such as (but not limited to) native
oaks and redwoods, staff is proposing that such native trees and plants could be planted at less
than the required quantity of a typical replacement plan. A “Native Tree and Plants” list would be
created and maintained by the Director of Parks and Recreation, via implementing regulations,
allowing it to be updated from time to time.
The “Native” replacement requirement for one and two-unit dwellings would appear as follows:
TRUNK DIAMETER REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE TREE*
14 inches to 29 inches One –15 Gallon Container
> 30 inches to 45 inches One – 24 Inch Box, or Two – 15 Gallon Containers
> 45 inches One – 36 Inch Box or Two – 24 Inch Box
Similarly, the DSH credit received for Native planting in all other developments would be double
the credit received for under non-native tree plantings:
DSH EQUIVALANT REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE TREE CONTAINER SIZE
Two-Inch 15-Gallon Container
Four-Inch 24-Inch Box
Six-Inch 36-Inch Box
Eight-Inch 48-Inch Box
Ten-Inch 60-Inch Box
Next Steps
This staff report is meant to capture a summarized history of this important item, and to highlight
specific changes made since the last City Council discussion in June of this year. To obtain a more
detailed history of the item, staff has attached Exhibit B with the most recent City Council staff
report from June 17, 2024, as well as the minutes from each public hearing held for this item over
the past year.
Update of Tree Ordinance October 7, 2024
7
Following review and discussion of the draft Ordinance, the City Council has various options
regarding this item. If the Council believes that the item requires significant changes, staff will
implement any new direction and return at a later date. Council may also direct staff to present the
revised Ordinance to one or more Commissions for additional feedback.
Alternatively, should the Council feel the proposed draft Ordinance is near finalization (or that only
a few issues remain), the Council could direct staff to implement any given direction and begin
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the item. Once CEQA review is completed,
staff would then return to the City Council for a first reading of the proposed Ordinance.
Finally, please note that small refinements to the language of the Ordinance may be required, either
based on further staff review, or potentially to comply with CEQA guidelines. However, staff
anticipates that all concepts and regulations presented will remain unchanged. If substantive
changes are necessary, staff will return to the Council to obtain direction.
FISCAL IMPACT
Tree Replacement Fund
The proposed update includes a mechanism to help fund the care and maintenance of the urban
forest: the Tree Replacement Fund. This newly created fund, which has been discussed at prior
meetings on this topic, would be the repository for many of the proposed updates, including in-lieu
fees and civil penalties. This fund would primarily be used for tree planting and preservation
programs but would also be available for City Council-directed programs consistent with this
purpose.
Other Fiscal Impacts
Staff anticipates an increase in the appeal fee for tree removal, which will now fully recover the cost
of the appeal hearing.
Staff also forecasts an increase in expenditures due to expanded public noticing and mailing costs,
as well as an additional 500 staff hours per annum to process the new noticing requirements.
Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Proposed Ordinance
Exhibit B: June 17, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Minutes from Previous Public
Meetings
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
6/17/2024
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 11a
MEETING DATE: June 17, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: June 17, 2024
From: Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent and City Arborist – (650) 558-7333
Scott Spansail, Assistant City Attorney – (650) 558-7275
Subject: Discussion of Tree Ordinance Update
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review the updated concepts for modifying the Tree
Ordinance and provide direction. Staff also recommends that Council’s feedback include, but is
certainly not limited to, the following topics:
The process of tree removals when related to development applications
The proposed criteria for when a tree may be removed
The proposed expansion of Public Noticing
The proposed appeal processes
The proposed replacement and reforestation requirements (and in-lieu fees)
Allowance of off-site plantings (within 300’ of property) to qualify for
replacement/reforestation requirements
Whether staff should have authority to adjust plantings according to site conditions, and
commensurate replacement requirements warranted by site conditions
The proposed “Landscape Tree” definition
Potential uses for the newly created Tree Replacement Fund
Additionally, staff requests City Council direction on whether additional hearings should be
conducted at the Beautification and/or Planning Commissions prior to returning to the City Council
with a proposed Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
History of Title 11
The City of Burlingame has long had a special relationship with its urban forest. Only a few months
after the City was incorporated in 1908, the City enacted its first municipal code to protect a historic
grove of trees. Over the years, the community and civic leaders sought to invest in, regulate, and
protect the urban forest by updating the rules governing public and private trees. In 1971, the City
Council added “Protection of City Street Trees” to Chapter 11.04 of the Burlingame Municipal Code
(BMC), taking another important step towards protection of these important resources. The City
Update of Tree Ordinance June 17, 2024
2
Council went further with the addition of BMC Chapter 11.06, “Urban Reforestation and Tree
Protection,” adding protections for the rest of the urban forest. Revisions to this Chapter later took
place in 1992 and 1998.
For many years, these two Chapters have established a framework for protection of, and
investment in, the City’s urban forest. However, the bulk of the City’s present tree codes have not
been updated in 25 years, with some elements remaining unchanged for over 50. For that reason,
many aspects of the Municipal Code have not kept pace with present arboriculture practices,
financial relevance, and the evolving legal landscape. To ensure the City’s program remained
robust in the absence of code updates, the City of Burlingame, like other municipalities, established
an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The UFMP details City rules, recommendations, and
practices in managing the urban forest. The UFMP is a dynamic document that is updated regularly;
the most recent version was adopted in 2021. Many other public agencies have focused on the
development of this document to better communicate about their urban forest with the community.
However, the UFMP simply cannot overcome many of the challenges presented by the City’s
outdated Municipal Code.
Work Towards an Update
The update process began in 2018, under a different City Arborist and a different City Attorney.
The process first began with a significant review and discussion of other municipalities’ codes and
experiences. This included, but was not limited to, the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Sacramento,
Pasadena, and Santa Barbara. Their suggestions, as well as those of other City Departments,
elected and appointed officials, and community members, have helped influence the changes that
are being proposed today. Staff is hopeful that this series of hearings will help further the
conversation regarding future amendments, which will ultimately modernize this important aspect
of the Municipal Code.
Recent Hearings and Input - 2023
At the November 2, 2023, meeting of the Beautification Commission, staff presented the proposed
updates and held the first public hearing. Minutes from that meeting are attached as Exhibit A.
Many community members expressed concern over some of the proposed changes, including:
The rate in which protected size trees have been recently removed
The number of tree removals approved as a result of development
The limited amount of public involvement in the removal process
That proposed fees may deter public involvement
Balancing the risk of failure against the community benefit of mature trees
The lack of public notification for tree removals
Two weeks later ,at the November 20, 2023, meeting of the City Council, staff presented proposed
updates and received additional feedback from the Council and community. Minutes from that
meeting are attached as an exhibit to this staff report. Feedback from the public included the
following:
Update of Tree Ordinance June 17, 2024
3
Lack of communication and coordination between the Beautification and Planning
Commissions
The inclusion of an “undesirable” species list
That the proposed removal criteria would not go far enough to protect large trees
Suggestion that the City retain an independent arborist to perform evaluations when needed
Desire for larger-sized tree replacement requirements
City Council members offered the following comments:
Concern over whether there should be a removal fee for a tree that perished naturally
Requested additional information on how SB 9 and other state-mandated developments would
impact the City’s ability to limit tree removals
Inclination towards City Manager review of specific appeals
Desire for options including the planting of smaller trees that naturalize more readily
Research of mechanism to assist with private tree maintenance and planting
Better definition of “undesirable” trees
Support for a City-hired arborist for evaluation of private trees (when necessary)
Different criteria for trees in wildland areas
Better outreach to new property owners regarding tree regulations
Desire to explore development re-design in order to preserve a tree
Recent Hearings and Input- 2024
With the feedback received from the Beautification Commission and the Council in 2023, staff
further revised the proposed updates. Staff then conducted another round of public review in 2024
before the Beautification Commission and the Planning Commission in advance of this presentation
to the City Council. At the May 2, 2024, meeting of the Beautification Commission, staff presented
further refinement of concepts to modernize the tree code. Minutes from that meeting are attached
as Exhibit C. Concerns from the public included the following:
Tree removals in the name of development
Encouraging Beautification Commissioners to act as liaisons with businesses
Desire to have City approved arborists as the only qualified persons to provide reports related
to City business
Concern regarding undesirable tree criteria inclusion in determination of tree removal
Concern about off-site plantings incentivizing maximum development of parcels
Belief that the largest and most unique trees should be protected at all costs
Beautification Commissioners offered the following feedback:
Concern about incentivizing off-site planting and tracking the trees as “protected trees”
Concern that in-lieu fees encourage “pay to play” scenarios
Belief that undesirable criteria shouldn’t be included in determining tree removal
Support for City retained arborist to do private tree reports or a City-maintained list of approved
arborists
Restriction of Tree Replacement Fund to plant City-owned trees, not maintain private trees
Update of Tree Ordinance June 17, 2024
4
The City next brought the refined proposals to the Planning Commission on May 28, 2024. Minutes
from that meeting are attached as Exhibit D. At this meeting, the Commissioners heard the following
concerns from the public:
The cost of fees being proposed
Concerns about cancellation of private home insurance due to tree failure risk
Difficulty removing invasive trees
Importance of native trees and plants for ecological support
Concerns about large trees causing power outages and reducing solar electricity production
Planning Commissioners offered the following feedback:
Doing more to discourage clear-cutting of property for non-protected trees
Concerns about trees, fire hazard, and challenges encountered with private home insurance
Concerns about trees becoming too large for their planting location (and associated risk)
Root conflict with structures
Suggestion of requiring more evergreen trees
Support for staff adjusting requirements based upon site conditions
Support for alternative design for large tree retention
Staff has been very pleased with the amount of feedback received, from both the Commission and
the public, and has incorporated many of the proposed concepts in the most recent update provided
below.
DISCUSSION
Development and Redevelopment
Mandated Ministerial Approvals on Tree Removals
The Burlingame community has seen a large increase in commercial and residential development
and redevelopment projects over the past decade. Some of this increase in development has been
driven by recent changes in state law regarding the development of specific housing projects, which
supersede Burlingame’s local regulations. These new laws, aimed at increasing the speed and
efficiency in which residential units are built throughout the state, require “ministerial approval” of
projects that meet certain requirements. “Ministerial approval” means that the process for approval
must include no subjective judgment by a City official or Commission. This includes recent state
laws addressing the ministerial approvals of Accessory Dwelling Units, as well as projects qualifying
for review under the rules of Senate Bill 9. Staff believes that these state laws, which preclude the
City creating an objective standard that would prohibit the construction of the residential unit, would
also supersede the City’s ability to deny a tree removal permit if necessary to construct the project.
However, staff believes that the City can still impose most other requirements within a tree permit,
including replacement requirements or fees, which are discussed below.
Update of Tree Ordinance June 17, 2024
5
While staff believes the City is very limited in its ability to review tree removals in housing projects
requiring ministerial approval, that is not the case in most other inst ances. The proposed code
update expressly calls out the importance of trees and the impact of construction on remaining
trees. The update will include protection requirements for trees to remain, retention of a project
arborist for large developments or those significantly impacting a mature tree to be retained, and
submission of arborist reports.
Tree Removals for Discretionary Projects
Members of the public have voiced concern that the current code already allows too many trees to
be removed due to construction activity. The present code does provide for tree removal to allow
“the economic enjoyment” of a property (BMC 11.06.010). The proposed redefinition of this is as
follows: “That the tree must be removed to use the property for any City authorized or permitted
use under Title 25 (the Zoning Ordinance) for the zoning district in which the property is located,
and the use could not be made of the property unless the tree is removed.” Staff believes a
balanced approach must be taken to ensure reasonable development is not stalled in many
instances.
Staff recommends that instead of requiring a process where an applicant must apply for both a tree
removal permit and a development permit, a development application should list proposed tree
removals, and those removals should become part of the Planning Commission approvals for the
project. In such instances, the City Arborist will provide a recommendation to the Planning
Commission regarding these removals and tree protection measures. Any approvals for tree
removals, as well as requirements for tree protection and replanting, would be incorporated into
the approved project as part of the Planning Commission’s overall project approval process. Staff
will work with Community Development staff and the Planning Commission to ensure Planning
Commissioners understand their role of considering proposed development with relationship to
protected trees.
Proposed Changes to Tree Removal Criteria
Mature trees contribute significantly to the benefits of an urban forest. It is the City’s goal to retain
healthy mature trees that are appropriately selected for their location. The benefits a well-placed
tree can contribute to a community are vast and include many health benefits for residents. When
a tree is considered for removal, a criterion is established and administered by the Parks and
Recreation Department in accordance with the UFMP. The proposed update codifies past
department practice by identifying which reasons for tree removal approvals are appealable, and
which body or bodies will have authority to consider appeal proceedings.
One of the criteria that received both support and criticism is the determination of the City Arborist
that a tree species is less desirable. This criterion has been removed as a sole reason for removal,
and instead staff proposes to add species undesirability as one factor to weigh amongst all others
when considering removal. Staff will not be proposing an “undesirable tree” list maintained by the
City, nor a restriction of appeal rights based on this reasoning.
Update of Tree Ordinance June 17, 2024
6
An additional criterion proposed is that of root/infrastructure conflict. Frequently, staff sees healthy,
albeit misplaced, trees creating conflict with structures and utilities. Staff believes specific criteria
and definitions surrounding roots and potential mitigation measures for tree retention should be
included to both encourage exploration of mitigation measures for tree retention and, where not
feasible, support the removal of the tree.
Concern has also been expressed regarding the loss of mature trees that contribute significantly to
the community. For this reason, staff is proposing a factor for consideration that weighs the overall
environmental benefits a tree may contribute to the community prior to approval. Staff will continue
to work with the Community Development Department to determine if zoning adjustments will be
necessary in order to retain a tree that would otherwise be in conflict with proposed development.
Public Notice
Presently, the public notice requirement for private protected tree removals is within 100’ of the
subject property. The proposed code will include language that allows the Parks and Recreation
Director to expand the notification area and require physical and/or electronic postings and
notifications dependent upon the impact the tree has on a neighborhood. Public notice of tree
removals of City trees that are 14” Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) and larger will also be
included in the increased public notice requirement.
Appeal of Removal Decisions
Members of the public have expressed significant concern with the (previously proposed) limiting
of appeal rights based upon the reason for removal. Staff is now proposing that the only time an
appeal is not available is when a protected private tree is dead, dying, or qualifies as an emergency
removal (active failure). However, even in these situations, public notice of the removal would still
occur.
As discussed in the Development section above, staff recommends that if a development project
requires Planning Commission approval and proposes the removal of protected trees, then the
decision regarding tree removal will be made by the Planning Commission as part of its other land
use approvals for the project. Currently, any appeals of the Planning Commission decision go to
the City Council. Therefore, any tree removals approved by the Planning Commission would then
be heard, as an overall appeal of the development project, by the City Council.
Staff also proposes the appeal of a privately-owned protected tree removal (that is unrelated to a
development or redevelopment application that requires Planning Commission review or state-
mandated ministerial approval) continue to be heard by the Beautification Commission. Currently,
appeals of the Beautification Commission go to the City Council. However, in this proposed update,
staff recommends that appeals of the Beautification Commission be heard by a hearing officer or
body designated by the City Manager. As noted in the Development and Redevelopment section
of this staff report, removal of a tree that would otherwise physically preclude the development of
a state-mandated ministerial project (SB9, ADU) would not be appealable, as this would be in
violation of state law.
Update of Tree Ordinance June 17, 2024
7
City-owned trees are presently not subject to appeal, and staff does not recommend a change to
this practice.
Replacement and Reforestation Requirements
Whether due to removal of a protected tree or as a result of development, tree plantings of specific
sizes and quantities are required under the current code and continue in the proposed update, with
some changes. These trees are intended to be retained for the benefit of the entire community.
Trees provide significant benefit and are considered as critical infrastructure when planted in the
City right-of-way (ROW). Staff proposes replacement schedules as follows:
1. A tree replacement plan for private protected trees located on lots that include single or two-
unit dwellings must provide for the replacement as follows:
TRUNK DIAMETER REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE TREE*
to 20 inches One – 24-inch box or two – 15-gallon
> 20 inches to 30 inches One – 36-inch box, or two – 24-inch box, or four 15-gallon
> 30 inches to 40 inches Two – 36-inch box, or three – 24-inch box, or six 15-gallon
> 40 inches to 50 inches One – 48-inch box, or two – 36-inch box, or four – 24-inch box
> 50 inches Two – 48-inch box, or three – 36-inch box, or five – 24-inch box
*Replacement Landscape Trees are a woody perennial usually having one dominant trunk and a
mature height of greater than 15 feet and mature width of 10 feet at twenty years of age according
to the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, PLANTS
Database, or similar database as designated by the Director. Trees must be in good health,
standard form, and meet the above definition of a landscape tree. The Director reserves the right
to require specific species and/or size landscape trees as replacement. Off-site plantings within the
300’ neighborhood will be considered at the sole discretion of the Director or City Arborist.
A tree replacement plan for private protected trees located on all other lots (including commercial
development) must provide for the replacement of trees at a ratio of one-inch DSH of tree replaced
for each inch DSH of tree removed (1:1 ratio). The following equivalent sizes shall be used
whenever new trees are planted (either on-site or off-site) pursuant to a tree replacement plan:
DSH EQUIVALENT REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE TREE CONTAINER SIZE
One Inch 15-gallon container
Two Inch 24-inch box
Three Inch 36-inch box
Four Inch 48-inch box
Where trees cannot be replaced on-site or off-site within the neighborhood (defined as within 300’
of subject property) as required, staff proposes that the applicant pay an in-lieu fee or apportioned
amount payable to the Tree Replacement Fund, to be utilized for the planting and fostering of young
trees elsewhere in the urban forest. The proposed update increases the size and quantity of trees
needing to be planted, dependent upon the size of the tree being removed or the proposed
development. It also differentiates replant requirements between typical residences and large
commercial/mixed use/residential properties.
Update of Tree Ordinance June 17, 2024
8
2. Reforestation requirements related to development are proposed as follows:
Development Reforestation Requirements. A development or redevelopment project must
include reforestation of the subject property with landscape trees as required below:
DEVELOPMENT TYPE REFORESTATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
One and Two-Unit Dwellings One Landscape Tree/ 1,000 Square Feet of Habitable
Space
Multi-Unit Dwellings/Mixed
Use Buildings
One Landscape Tree/ 2,000 Square Feet of Structural Lot
Coverage
Commercial/Industrial Zoning One Landscape Tree/ 5,000 Square Feet of Structural Lot
Coverage
Existing trees on the parcel that meet current City criteria may qualify as credit toward
replanting/reforestation requirements.
This section also provides deference for the Director to adjust or waive replanting requirements
prior to Planning Commission approval in development projects, or when considering a private
protected tree removal permit application.
Penalties
Based upon the feedback received from the Beautification Commission, Planning Commission,
City Council, and members of the community, the previously discussed portions of the code relating
to violations, penalties, remedies, definitions, and benefits were well-received concepts. However,
these concepts have been further refined following additional research.
First, staff proposed to raise the fine amount for violators to $1,000 per violation. This is the
maximum amount permitted under California Law (Cal. Gov’t Code 36901). However, in addition
to the larger fine amount, staff also proposes to require restitution for any violation that results in
the loss or damage of a tree, either through in-kind replanting or payment of an amount up to the
tree’s appraised value. Finally, staff is proposing to explicitly state that violations of this Title can
be prosecuted as a misdemeanor by the City Attorney.
Together, staff believes these stronger penalties will discourage potential violators from illegally
removing trees. However, due to the increased fine and restitution amounts, even an illegal removal
will result in action that will help to restore the loss to the urban forest.
FISCAL IMPACT
Tree Replacement Fund
The proposed update also includes a mechanism to help fund the care and maintenance of the
urban forest: the Tree Replacement Fund. This newly created fund would be the repository for
many of the proposed updates, including in-lieu fees and the civil penalties discussed above. This
Update of Tree Ordinance June 17, 2024
9
fund would primarily be used for tree planting and preservation programs but would also be
available for City Council-directed programs consistent with this purpose.
Other Fiscal Impacts
Staff anticipates an increase in the appeal fee for tree removal, which will now fully recover the cost
of the appeal hearing.
Staff also forecasts an increase in expenditures due to expanded public noticing and increased
mailing costs, as well as an additional 500 staff hours per annum to process the new noticing
requirements.
Attachments
Exhibit A: Minutes from Beautification Commission Meeting - November 2, 2023
Exhibit B: Minutes from City Council Meeting - November 20, 2023
Exhibit C: Minutes from Beautification Commission Meeting - May 2, 2024
Exhibit D: Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting – May 28, 2024
MINUTES
BEAUTIFICATION
COMMISSION
11/3/2023
BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
Approved Minutes November 2, 2023
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by
Chair Bauer.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Chair Bauer, Commissioner Khoury, Kirchner and
Batte (arrived at 6:38 p.m.)
Commissioner Chu
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Holtz, and
Recording Secretary Diaz
Others: None
MINUTES
Chair Bauer made a motion to approve the October 5, 2023, Regular Meeting minutes. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Khoury and was approved. 3-0-0 (Batte was absent)
CORRESPONDENCE
None
PUBLIC COMMENT
Jennifer Pfaff stated that she had an idea to honor the trees of Burlingame. She suggested that the
community be able to nominate a tree of their choice, and that tree get an award. Ms. Pfaff stated that there
are landscape awards. Dale Perkins did paintings to honor trees, and it was her idea to broaden the
beautification awards.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the City Arborist's Approval of the
Removal of a Protected Private Tree at 1134 Douglas Ave
Parks Superintendent Holtz summarized the staff report for the Commissioners and why he approved
removing the tree. He noted that at the last meeting, there was a question about ownership and that the item
was continued to allow more time to determine ownership.
Parks Superintendent Holtz also noted that at the previous meeting, there was a discussion about 1132
Douglas Ave. taking liability for the tree at 1134 Douglas Ave. He stated that no agreement had been
reached to his knowledge. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that Commission action was required to
determine if the application met the conditions for removal under the Municipal Code.
Chair Bauer questioned if there were any updates from the tenant at 1132 Douglas Ave.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated no updated information had been received since the last meeting.
Chair Bauer opened the floor to public comment from parties not part of the action.
driveway, and other trees ... and, (d)(7) the economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to
remain, which stay with the owner of the tree. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated the parties can work out
an agreement privately, but the determination of whether the tree meets that threshold for removal was the
decision before the Commission.
Commissioner Batte questioned who is financially responsible for the tree removal cost.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that the tree owner would take on the cost. He said that 1134 Douglas
Ave. owns the tree and overhangs onto 1132 Douglas Ave. The tree could be pruned by 1132 Douglas
Ave. without permission from 1134 Douglas Ave. up to 25% over their property line so long as it does not
cause tree failure or health issues.
Commissioner Kirchner stated that at the end of last month's meeting, a survey was suggested to determine
the tree's ownership as it seems right on the property line. He stated that he was not aware of any survey
being done. Therefore, the purview remains with the owner of 1134 Douglas Ave. Commissioner Kirchner
noted that he favored removing the tree per the City Arborist's recommendation due to the current
conditions of the tree and per the ordinance.
Chair Bauer stated that she agreed with Commissioner Kirchner and favored removing the tree due to its
leaning and maintenance cost. She said putting the liability and cost on the owner of 1134 Douglas Ave
was unreasonable.
Commissioner Khoury stated that everyone on the Commission loved and wanted to protect the trees of
Burlingame. However, there were times when a tree needed to be removed. She stated her concern is the
cost and many years of required maintenance. Commissioner Koury said that per the City Arborist's
recommendation to remove the tree, she agreed due to the tree leaning and the amount of trimming needed,
potentially creating a broccoli tree.
Chair Bauer made a motion to deny the appeal for the removal of 1134 Douglas Ave. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Batte and approved 4-0-0.
Chair Bauer stated the tree at 1134 Douglas Ave. could be removed after the property owner received the
written Commission determination via mail. She stated that to appeal the Commission's decision to the
City Council, an appeal should be filed with the City Clerk's office and an appeal fee of $614.00.
NEW BUSINESS
1.Update to Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 11 (Trees and Vegetation)
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that he would be discussing proposed updates to Chapter 11 of the
Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC). He shared that some elements of the City's present tree code had not
been updated in 52 years. In 2018, a different City Arborist and City Attorney began the process. Parks
Superintendent Holtz stated that there would be several future meetings to discuss the matter but would be
sharing concepts with the Commission and the community to get feedback before presenting to the Council
and then beginning to develop language changes to the Code. He stated that he had looked at other cities'
municipal codes, including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, the City of Sacramento, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated the goals to be addressed by updated BMC Chapter 11 would be to define
terms and roles which would identify what parties, including City staff and Commission, had authority,
address development to stress the importance of mature tree retention, establish removal criteria to clearly
define what requirements must be met, increase replacement requirements, and increase penalties for failure
to follow the Code including criminal prosecution by the City Attorney.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) were industry leaders in arboriculture. He noted some terms
were being looked at and incorporated into the Code, as well as specific roles for the Parks and Recreation
Director, the City Arborist, the City Manager, the Beautification Commission, and the Planning
Commission. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that currently, for development projects, he was not seeing
the tree removal application until the plans had been approved. He wanted to discuss that process with the
Community Development Department staff and the Planning Commission.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that there had been an improvement in protection measures for mature
trees during development in recent years. He said it was important to encourage the retention of large trees
and recognize the important community benefit that these large mature trees play in our community. Parks
Superintendent Holtz stated that the Planning Commission's role would need to be defined to establish their
ability and authorization to request or require changes to retain a mature protected tree. He stated that
sometimes, depending on the site condition or development, the planting space is limited and frequently
excused. The new Code could utilize funds or alternative planting elsewhere in the urban forest for the
community's benefit. He stated that he would also like to be able to empower staff to stop work when any
of these measures are not being followed.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated the proposed update would clarify reasons for tree removal, identify
which are subject to public notification/discussion, the appeal process, and the fees, as it requires a
significant amount of mailing. He stated that the Beautification Commission is currently the leader for the
appeal process in most situations, followed by the City Council. Other communities have appeals overseen
by the City Manager.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that a dead tree should be non-appealable, although some residents think
it could be a living space for critters. He said the Tree Risk Assessment ratings had four levels: low,
moderate, high, and extreme. When a tree was in the high or extreme rating, and there was no appropriate
mitigation measure to reduce the likelihood of failure, it should be non-appealable if the City Arborist
agreed with the independent Arborist report.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that the tree health rating would be a tree that was mostly dead or had a
known terminal disease that limited its life within the next year should be non-appealable. He also stated
that some communities have a list of non-desirable species that are not considered appropriate for the urban
environment due to their increased risk or propensity to be invasive. These communities exempt the species
from the appeal process, and Palo Alto exempts them from the application process. Parks Superintendent
Holtz stated that all trees should be subject to the application process because replacement trees should be
protected.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that if a tree was causing verifiable structural damage or damage to a
home via a structural engineer, it should not be appealable. He said that applications due to interference
with utilities would be appealable.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that replacement requirements are currently on a 1: 1 basis. He said that
where trees could not be replaced on the required basis, payment would be required to the Tree Replacement
Fund to be utilized for planting and fostering young trees elsewhere in the urban forest. If a larger tree was
removed, there should be greater planting requirements. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that there should
be more flexibility for the City Arborist to adjust planting requirements to site conditions. There are large
properties that could accommodate more trees. He stated that he had been working with the Assistant City
Attorney on ways to recover the value of the removed trees. The City aimed to educate the public on tree
benefits and Burlingame's rules for protected trees. Parks Superintendent Holtz shared some penalty
scenarios: the property owner removed a dead pine tree without a permit, the City's goal is to educate the
property owner and require a permit post removal and a replacement. When a property owner tops a 100'
redwood tree to 60' without a permit, the City would educate the homeowner and require a permit post
excessive pruning and payment to the Tree Replacement Fund proportionate to the tree canopy removed.
Lastly, if the property owner removed a 60' cedar tree after being denied a permit to do so, the City would
consider criminal prosecution, and the owner would be required to obtain a permit and make a payment to
the Tree Replacement Fund to treble the value of the tree and require replanting.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that this was the beginning stage of the Code update. He didn't have
specific language to share yet, but there would be multiple opportunities for public comment at future
Council meetings. He stated that the current Code dealt with City and private trees separately and would
like them all considered protected trees.
Commissioner Kirchner stated that he is interested in refining the replacement requirements and that the
replacement trees are automatically protected no matter their size. He questioned how it would be
documented or how the tree would be attached to a property owner or a developer.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that an asset management system called Arbor Access was currently
being used for the City trees. He said there is an element in the system that could be used to track private
trees.
Commissioner Kirchner stated that he would like the Commission to be able to review the tree removal
applications that are related to development.
Parks Superintendent Holtz questioned at what stage that would be in.
Commissioner Kirchner stated it would have to be in the preliminary stage. He said there were rules that
if you are within the footprint allowed by building codes, there is no option, and the trees must be removed.
He was looking forward to the pricing requirements for replacements.
Chair Bauer stated that she would like to see that the greater the trunk diameter, the greater the replacement
requirement. She said that she did not think there should be an option to do eight smaller 15-gallon trees
and liked the first level of the removal replacement schedule.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that the smaller the container that was planted, the faster the tree would
acclimate and grow, and the longer the trees had been in containers and sized up, the longer it could take to
acclimate. From a quantity perspective, he stated that eight smaller 15-gallon trees would do more for the
urban forest than one tree.
Commissioner Khoury questioned if a 15-gallon tree was well maintained could it catch up to a 24-inch
box tree.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated it could take a couple of years. He stated that it was harder to get larger
trees planted in homes built on hillsides and would require small trees to be planted instead. Park
Superintendent Holtz stated a challenge for Menlo Park was that it was hard for replacements to take place
when the residents are on a fixed income.
Chair Bauer opened the floor to public comment.
Leslie McQuade stated that residents were parking between the new Citridora trees planted along Easton.
Ms. McQuade noted that the Commission should work with realtors to stress the importance of trees in the
community to new residents coming to Burlingame and builders. She stated that it was important to keep
the big trees as Burlingame is a City of trees.
Gerard Manning stated that he would like the Commission to consider changes to the Code. Mr. Manning
said that trees overshadowed rooftops, and residents could not put in rooftop solar. He stated that the
climate would change and that Burlingame's residents, who were among the richest communities in the
world, were emitting more carbon dioxide. Mr. Manning stated that a solution was to electrify homes and
use solar power. He said that we need to triple our electricity supply in California by 2045. We do not
have a plan to bring in new transmission lines and would be stuck with power outages in the middle of heat
waves, resulting in people going to the emergency room. Mr. Manning stated he would like the Commission
to consider the pros and cons of tree retention concerning solar as they looked at the new Code.
Jennifer Pfaff stated that she requested planting different trees besides maple trees. She said she was glad
to hear that the new Code was expanding the definition of protected trees and the public benefit of including
newly planted trees in new projects and renovations. Ms. Pfaff stated that in the last decade, she had
witnessed dozens of trees that were lost.
Gordon Foster, a resident of Burlingame for 43 years, stated when he moved to Morrell Ave., there were
four big trees on the comer, and they were no longer there. He said he was worried about the number of
big trees being removed. He was glad to hear about the updates to the ordinance and stated that large trees
created fear and anxiety in residents, especially after big storms, but thought those were not valid reasons
to remove a tree. Mr. Foster stated that he would like carbon sequestration to be a criterion when removing
large trees and planting the replacements.
Linda Ryan stated she was concerned about the time the process was taking because of climate change.
Ms. Ryan said that her neighbor removed two big trees in front of her house eight years ago, which the City
replaced. She stated it took eight years to walk under them and felt time was of the essence. She noted that
it was important for the new ordinance to include notifying more neighbors of tree removals and giving
them more time to appeal. Lastly, she wanted neighbors to be notified when tree removal work was to
occur so they could plan accordingly, as some residents work from home.
Ani Safavi said she was glad to hear that the ordinance was being updated after 50+ years. Ms. Safavi
stated that her concern was that residents were not being informed when a tree was being removed. She
stated the ordinance should apply to everyone because potential residents buying a house in Burlingame vs
a developer may have different interests.
Chair Bauer closed the floor to public comment.
REPORTS
Commissioner Kirchner reported that at the last City Council meeting where the landscape awards were
handed out, there was a point about apartments or apartment balconies being included as part of the design
award criteria. He stated that could be put on the agenda for next month's meeting to discuss.
Commissioner Kirchner suggested that student drawings be given to the owner of the business award, which
could be in memory of Dale Perkins.
Chair Bauer stated there could be a competition with Arbor Day, and the drawing winner could become
part of the landscape award. She stated that the guidelines for next year's landscape awards could be
discussed at the next meeting.
Commissioner Khoury reported that the Christmas lights were up and thanked Director Glomstad, the City
Electrician, the Public Works Department, Jenny Kelleher, and Bay Luminations. She stated that the side
streets could not get lights this year but would have holiday decorations, and 32 planters would be decorated
with flowers.
Director Glomstad reported that Parks Superintendent Holtz was working on door hangers for homeowners
who got a City tree planted to provide information on the benefits and importance of watering trees. She
stated that the door hangers should be ready for the next street tree planting. Director Glomstad also
reported that Administrative Assistant Flores gave birth to a baby boy named Ezequiel. Both mother and
baby are doing well at home. Lastly, the Tree Lighting is scheduled for Friday, December 1, 2023, and the
Commission should confirm their attendance via email to Supervisor Crossfield. The Winter Craft Fair is
scheduled for December 2 and 3.
Parks Superintendent Holtz reported that City staff was hardworking and efficient in planting 38 Citriodora
trees along Easton Drive. He stated that City staff was gearing up for winter preparations and that the city
council had authorized significant work on Eucalyptus trees.
ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
11/20/2023
ACA Spansail asked if the Council wanted to permit the sale of hookah for off site consumption. The
Council replied in the negative.
b.DISCUSSION OF MODERNIZATION OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 11 (TREES AND
VEGETATION)
City Arborist Holtz stated that staff made a presentation to the Beautification Commission on November 2
about potential updates to the Burlingame Tree Ordinance.
City Arborist Holtz reviewed the City's current challenges with Municipal Code Chapter 11:
•Hasn't been updated in 25 to 52 years
•Doesn't follow industry practices
•Doesn't allow for equitable replacement of trees removed
•Limits tools available to the City to adapt to immediate needs
•Hasn't been an effective deterrent to intentional wrong doing
City Arborist Holtz reviewed the goals that will be addressed by updating Municipal Code Chapter 11:
•Define terms and roles -many terms and practices have been defined by the industry over the last
SO years. The update will include modern definitions and identify what parties including City staff
and Commission have authority
•Address development
o The update seeks to stress the importance of mature tree retention and to increase
requirements where possible in the design phase
•Establish removal criteria
o There are many reasons an applicant seeks to remove a tree; some should not be appealable
nor subject to the public noticing process
o Criteria will be established to clearly define what requirements must be met
•Refine replacement requirements
o The current replacement model does not keep pace with what the actual loss is to the urban
forest
o Replacement requirements will be increased and better defined
•Increase penalties
o Increase in the fines for failure to follow the code
o Individuals may also be criminally prosecuted by the City Attorney
City Arborist Holtz discussed potential updates to the terms and roles section of Chapter 11. He stated that
staff borrowed heavily from American National Standards Institute ("ANSI") and the International Society of
Arboriculture ("ISA"). He added that staff also wanted to update the roles of the City Arborist, City
Manager, Beautification Commission, and Planning Commission in regard to trees.
City Arborist Holtz discussed the updates in regard to addressing development including:
•Clearly define trees requiring identification, assessment, and valuation
11
•Encourage tree retention
•Establish tree protection requirements
•Define Planning Commission role
•Increase planting requirements
•Provide alternative planting opportunities when applicable
•Authorize staff to stop work
City Arborist Holtz discussed the updates in regard to addressing removal criteria:
•Develop criteria for removal reasoning
•Identify which criteria are subject to public notification and discussion
•Redefine the appeal process
•Incorporate fees for appeal
City Arborist Holtz discussed staff's proposals on what would be appealable and what wouldn't be
appealable in regards to tree removal:
Non-Appealable Appealable
tree is dead interferes with utilities
tree risk assessment rating any other reason not specified
tree health
non desirable species
causing verifiable structure damage
City Arborist Holtz discussed staff's proposals on what the replacement requirements should be:
•Increase payment required to tree replacement fund
•Increase size and quantity of trees planted
•Authorize staff to adjust planting requirements to site conditions
Trunk Diameter Replacement Landscape Tree
14 inches to 20 inches One -24 inch box or two -15 gallon
Less than 20 inches to 30 inches One 36 inch box, two -24 inch box or two -15
gallon
Less than 30 inches to 40 inches Two -36 inch box, three -24 inch box of six 15
gallon
Less than 40 inches to 50 inches One -48 inch box, two -36 inch box, four -24
inch box or eight -15 gallon
Less than 50 inches Two -48 inch box, three -36 inch box, five -24
inch box, or ten -15 gallon
City Arborist Holtz discussed staff's proposals on how to update the penalties under the code including:
•Increase fines payable to tree replacement
•Recover the value of the tree
12
•Authorize City Attorney to prosecute as a misdemeanor
City Arborist Holtz reviewed a few penalty scenarios including:
•Property owner removes dead pine tree without permit
o educate
o apply for permit post removal
o require replacement
•Property owner tops a 100-foot redwood tree to 60 feet without permit
o educate
o apply for permit post excessive pruning
o require payment to the Tree Replacement Fund
•Property owner removes a 60 foot cedar tree after having been denied a permit to do so
o consider criminal prosecution
o require a permit with payment to the Tree Replacement Fund up to treble the value of the
tree
o require replanting
Councilmember Beach asked if prosecution was currently a tool in the City's toolbox. ACA Spansail replied
in the negative.
City Arborist Holtz asked the Council to consider the following:
•What reasons should a tree be allowed to be removed?
•Which reasons should be appealable?
•What authority should hear appeals?
•Are the replacement requirements appropriate?
•Are the proposed penalties prohibitive enough?
Former Beautification Commissioner Leslie Mcquaide discussed how the Beautification Commission and
Planning Commission used to work together when a design required a tree removal. She explained that
she believed the two commissions needed to work together again.
Councilmember Stevenson voiced concern about the fee associated with removing a large tree that died of
natural causes. He asked if other cities that updated their code to include the larger fee had done it in
phases. City Arborist Holtz discussed his conversations with the City Arborist in Menlo Park and how they
stated that this was the hardest part of the code to enforce.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed that updates to the tree ordinance should include incentives. He
discussed how the City could incentivize developers to maintain larger trees on properties by allowing them
relaxed front setback requirements.
Councilmember Beach discussed the evaluation of at-risk trees. She explained that different arborists
utilized different assessment ratings in order to evaluate at risk trees. She asked about the different levels
13
of assessment and how the City would be approaching this process. City Arborist Holtz replied that there
are multiple evaluation methods. He noted that ISA has a program called "TRAQ," which stands for tree
risk assessment qualification. He explained that this method seems to be utilized in the majority of
independent arborist reports. He reviewed other methods that arborists use that look at mitigation
measures that might increase or decrease risk. He added that another component would be considering
what level of risk is acceptable.
Councilmember Beach stated that it seemed that there was a rigorous standard that arborists are trained in
to evaluate a tree's risk. City Arborist Holtz replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked about undesirable species. City Arborist Holtz replied that there are certain
types of black acacia trees that individuals think of as a weed because of their proliferation and how these
trees attract birds that drop their seeds throughout an area. He noted each community values different
things, and this can be sorted by description on different tree sites. He added that some of Burlingame's
neighboring cities don't allow non native trees. He noted that the majority of the trees that the City plants
are non native. He added that the City will need to review what the community values and how to define
undesirable species.
Mayor Brownrigg discussed a situation where an individual purchased a home and then found that they
were very allergic to one of the trees on their property. He asked about an individual's ability to remove a
tree in this scenario. City Arborist Holtz stated that if it is a private tree and of a protected size, it would be
appealable.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Jennifer Pfaff stated that she was concerned about "undesirable trees". She noted that she thought it was
an effort to streamline processes by cities. She discussed the importance of public input and ensuring that
tree removals are appealable.
Sandra Lang discussed the point where urban forestation meets non-urban forests and the importance this
plays for climate change and sea level rise.
Alvin Begun stated that he thought any ordinance the City adopts should have a preamble that trees are
deemed to be protected unless otherwise proven that they are a hazard. He added that he thought the
criteria for removal needed to be strengthened.
Brian Benn stated that he feels strongly that the big trees in Burlingame make the city beautiful and unique.
He noted that he thought the biggest of trees should be treated as a special category for protection. He
added that he believed it was too easy for an applicant to hire an arborist to represent their view. He
stated that he thought the applicant should pay the City to hire an arborist.
Linda Ryan discussed her disappointment in some of the big trees that were recently removed.
14
Mayor Brownrigg asked if a developer had a parcel with a big tree, would she feel comfortable with the
developer being able to build three stories in order to keep the tree. Ms. Ryan replied that she would need
to see the plans.
Ani discussed the importance of trees and updating the ordinance. (Comment submitted via
publiccomment@burlingame.org).
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
Mayor Brownrigg voiced concern about charging individuals a fee if the tree dies a natural death.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that Council discussed creating a more expedient process for removing a tree
in specific situations. He added the importance of erring towards allowing public hearings on whether
trees are removed. He explained that he liked the idea of appealing certain tree removals to the City
Manager with the understanding that some situations would require appealing all the way to the City
Council.
Vice Mayor Colson asked staff to look into how SB 9 will work in conjunction with the City's tree ordinance.
City Arborist Holtz replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson asked about the City's liability if the City denies a tree removal and the tree then falls
and damages a structure. City Attorney Guina replied that a reviewing court would give deference to the
City as long as it found that the City was acting reasonably in issuing or not issuing a permit.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that in regard to utilizing the 15 inch box for replacement, SFPUC was
encouraging tree replacements to be seedlings in order to create strong trees. She explained that she
agreed with SFPUC, and therefore that the smaller sizes for tree replacement was a good idea.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she liked the idea of incentivizing the protection of trees and planting trees.
She wondered if there was a way to wholesale purchase trees for residents to buy for their property. She
explained that the City was able to purchase trees cheaper than an individual, and therefore the City could
set up a program where individuals purchase the replacement trees through the City. She also discussed
the need to assist residents with maintaining their trees when they can't afford it. She explained that it can
cost $10,000 to maintain a tree.
Councilmember Stevenson stated that he agreed that the City needed an incentive program.
Councilmember Stevenson asked in regard to liability if it was better for the City Arborist to undertake the
risk assessment for a tree first or have an independent arborist. City Arborist Holtz replied that Menlo Park
retains an independent arborist that is utilized when there is a disagreement between a resident's
independent arborist report and the City Arborist. He noted that when he visits a site, he is reviewing
whether the independent arborist report is correct.
15
Councilmember Beach stated that she liked the idea of protecting trees that are required as a condition of
removal. She added that she likes the idea of incentives, but that it needs to be further reviewed as she
was concerned about subsidizing homeowners. She concurred with her colleagues that she was concerned
about charging individuals large fines when a tree dies a natural death. She added that trees that are dead
or dying should be removed without an appeal process.
Councilmember Beach stated that she wanted more information about how staff proposed defining
structural damage and undesirable trees.
Councilmember Beach stated that she wanted to have different criteria around urban trees that interact
with wild land in order to ensure wildfire mitigation. She explained that she loved the idea of having the
City hire the independent arborist for a resident so that the economic interest isn't directly linked between
the independent arborist and the resident.
Councilmember Beach stated that she thought Planning Commission appeals should go to City Council but
was okay with Beautification Commission appeals going to the City Manager. She added that she was okay
with the replacement trees being smaller in order to allow them to be successful long term. She also
stressed the importance of educating the public on the rules regarding trees, especially when individuals
are purchasing property.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was in favor of the ability of the City to file criminal charges against
bad actors.
Mayor Brownrigg asked about homeowners taking out trees versus developers removing trees. City
Arborist Holtz replied that it was 2 to 1 with more trees being removed by homeowners. He gave the
caveat of Top Golf, which is removing 80 smaller sized trees.
Mayor Brownrigg talked about the number of aesthetic guidelines for development that get in the way of
protecting trees. He explained that if the City wanted to make more space for urban forests, then the City
should review the design guidelines.
Mayor Brownrigg thanked the City Arborist for his report.
12.COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reviewed their committee appointments.
13.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items.
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
16
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are
available online at www.burlingame.org.
15.ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:19 p.m. in memory of Sally Krakow.
Respectfully submitted,
/sf
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
17
MINUTES
BEAUTIFICATION
COMMISSION
5/2/2024
MINUTES
PLANNING
COMMISSION
5/28/2024
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
6/17/2024
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
10/7/2024
CITY c-
BU
ERLINGAME
Hnt Eo J
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on October 7, 2024
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in person and via Zoom
at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Nancy Call.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Colson, Lee, Pappajohn, Stevenson
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
There was no request.
Z I I:i 1 jiY:Z If•[I I,j I j L PI
There was no closed session.
Mayor Colson reviewed upcoming events in the city.
7. PRESENTATIONS
a. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 2024 AS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
CORA Legal Services Manager Melissa Gibbs accepted the proclamation on behalf of CORA. She thanked
the City Council for presenting the proclamation and bringing awareness to this issue.
The Council discussed the importance of CORA and thanked the organization for its hard work.
1
b. PROCLAMATION HONORING ART ATTACK!'S 30TH ANNIVERSARY
Mayor Colson read the proclamation recognizing Nancy Call and her art studio, Art Attack!, on its 30'
anniversary.
The Council all spoke about the impact art has on an individual's life and thanked Ms. Call for her
commitment to the community.
Nancy Call thanked Council for the proclamation and the recognition.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS
An individual discussed his concerns about Peninsula Avenue and asked the City to work with the City of
San Mateo to make it more pedestrian safe.
9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Colson asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Lee pulled item 9j. Councilmember Pappajohn and members of the public pulled item 9c.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve items 9a, 9b, 9d, 9e, 9f, 9g, 9h, and 9i; seconded by
Vice Mayor Stevenson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 16.2024 CLOSED SESSION
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes for the September
16, 2024 Closed Session.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2024 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes for the September
16, 2024 City Council meeting.
c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 13.56, "ELECTRIC MICROMOBILITY DEVICES," TO
TITLE 13 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378, 15061(B)(3)
Councilmember Pappajohn stated that she supported the ordinance as written. However, she explained
that she heard from members of the community that they wanted to see the City not include Class I e-bikes
in the ordinance as they are similar to regular bikes. She added that she wanted to receive an update from
staff after the ordinance takes effect.
Mayor Colson opened up public comment.
Mike Swire voiced concern about the ordinance and stated that the City should focus on vehicle safety.
Comment submitted via publiccomment@burlingame.org)
Matt Jones, from Silicon Valley Bike Coalition, thanked Council for the ordinance and for the continued
allowance of e-bikes on the Bay Trail. He hoped to see more collaboration between his organization and
the City in the future.
Mayor Colson closed public comment.
Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Ordinance Number 2031; seconded by Vice Mayor Stevenson. The
motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (PM 23-05), LOT
COMBINATION OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5, BLOCK 7, MAP OF EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK
NO. 2 SUBDIVISION AT 1499 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY: CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT
PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES 15061 (B)(3
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 119-2024.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP (PM 24-03
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, SUBDIVISION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 6, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION
SUBDIVISION AT 1029 CAPUCHINO AVENUE; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES 15061 (13)(3)
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 120-2024.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP (PM
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, SUBDIVISION OF LOT 6, BLOCK 6, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION
SUBDIVISION AT 1025 CAPUCHINO AVENUE; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES 15061 (13)(3)
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 121-2024.
g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S RETENTION SCHEDULE
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 122-2024.
h. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO ART LIAISON VACANCIES
City Manager Goldman asked Council to open the nomination period to fill two vacancies.
L OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING
COMMISSION
City Manager Goldman asked Council to open the nomination period to fill two vacancies.
j. APPROVAL OF QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30,202
Councilmember Lee explained that she wanted to re-examine the decision to have corporate notes in the
City's investment portfolio. She stated that having worked for a credit risk agency, she is aware that things
that are rated investment grade can go bankrupt in days. She added that she is concerned about the
amount of corporate credit in the portfolio and whether the risk is worth the return.
Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that the City's investment policy is updated every year. She added that
the City contracts with PFM Asset Management to assist in managing the City's portfolio. She explained
that roughly 10% of the City's portfolio is corporate notes.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the corporate notes are held individually or as part of a basket of
securities. Finance Director Yu -Scott replied that they are held individually.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Mayor Colson suggested creating an ad -hoc investment subcommittee with Councilmember Brownrigg and
Councilmember Lee serving on the subcommittee.
Councilmember Lee made a motion to accept the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending June
30, 2024, with an addition of forming an ad -hoc subcommittee comprised of Councilmembers Lee and
Brownrigg; seconded by Vice Mayor Stevenson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
4
it 1Ll92;Z:11091.1&T_Ii<Uxeral II 010ILore%11150 Lill
a. DISCUSSION OF TREE ORDINANCE UPDATE - BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 11 (TREES AND
VEGETATION)
City Arborist Holtz began with a review of the current challenges of Municipal Code Chapters 11.04 and
11.06:
Has not been updated in decades
Does not follow current industry practices
Does not allow for equitable replacement of trees removed
Limits tools available to the City when addressing urgent needs
Has not been an effective deterrent to intentional wrong -doing
City Arborist Holtz stated that over the past year, staff has done several presentations to the community,
Commissions, and Council in order to obtain feedback. He reviewed the concerns that staff received from
the community:
The rate protected size trees are removed
Tree removals approved due to development
Public involvement in the removal process
Appeal fees (and effect on public participation)
Undesirable species"
Removal of criteria and considerations
Arborist shopping"
Permit costs and processes
Effects of large trees and insurability
Lack of native trees to support local wildlife
Next, City Arborist Holtz reviewed the feedback that staff received from the City's Commissions and
Council:
Requirements for trees that perish naturally
Tree protection vs. state mandates
Use of tree replacement fund for private trees
Better definition of "undesirable" trees
Criteria for trees in wildland areas
Outreach to new property owners
Preservation and reforestation opportunities for developers
Effect of large trees on insurability
Easier to understand rules for the public
Species of replacement and reforestation trees
Proactive approach by city to designate planting location
Undue burden on development
I
City Arborist Holtz explained that the City actively began the process to update the City's tree ordinance in
2018. He stated that since 2018, staff has reached out to various tree cities including Pasadena, Palo Alto,
Menlo Park, and Sacramento, and talked with private arborists and City contractors about their concerns.
City Arborist Holtz reviewed the goals of updating Chapter 11.06 of the City's Municipal Code:
1. Define terms including the expansion of trees protected by municipal code and clarifying
responsibilities.
2. Address development including codifying tree preservation requirements and requiring real estate
disclosure.
3. Refine removal process including increased public notification and expanded evaluation.
4. Replacement requirements including increased replacement requirements, differentiation between
commercial and residential, and planting alternatives.
5. Increase penalties including fines, civil penalties, and criminal penalties.
City Arborist Holtz stated that staff is proposing that seven days prior to the close of real property
transactions, individuals are required to disclosure protected trees on the property. He added that the
disclosure form would be provided by the City.
City Arborist Holtz reviewed the proposed replacement plans for both commercial and residential
properties:
Commercial Replacement Concept
DSH Equivalent Replacement Landscape Tree Container Size
One Inch 15 Gallon Container
Two Inch 24 Inch Box
Three Inch 36 Inch Box
Four Inch 48 Inch Box
Five Inch 60 Inch Box
Residential Replacement Concept
Trunk Diameter Replacement Landscape Tree
14 to 29 Inches One — 24-Inch Box or Two — 15-Gallon
30 to 45 Inches One — 36-Inch Box, Two — 24-Inch Box, or Four — 15
Gallon
45 Inches Two — 36-Inch Box, or Three — 24-Inch Box
City Arborist Holtz reviewed the proposed native replacement plans for both commercial and residential
properties:
Commercial Native Replacement Concept
DSH Equivalent Replacement Landscape Tree Container Size
Two Inch 15-Gallon Container
2
Four Inch 24 Inch Box
Six Inch 36 Inch Box
Eight Inch 48 Inch Box
Ten Inch 60 Inch Box
Residential Native Replacement Concept
Trunk Diameter Replacement Landscape Tree
14 to 29 Inches One- 15-Gallon
30 to 45 Inches One- 24-Inch Box, or Two- 15-Gallon
45 Inches One- 36-Inch Box, or Two- 24-Inch Box
Next, City Arborist Holtz reviewed reforestation requirements:
Development Type Reforestation Plan Requirements
One and two -unit dwellings One landscape tree/1,000 square feet of habitable
space
Multi -unit dwellings One landscape tree/2,000 square feet of structural
lot coverage/2,000 square feet of paving
Commercial zoning One landscape tree/5,000 square feet of structural
lot coverage /5,000 square feet of paving
City Arborist Holtz reviewed a few additional elements of the proposed tree ordinance:
Unique economic burdens such as insurance policies being canceled due to trees
Giving the Director authority to create regulations to implement Chapter 11.06 requirements
Increased tree preservation requirements
Inclusion of replacement and reforestation trees as protected trees
This update rescinds Chapters 11.04 and 11.06, replacing them with a new, all-inclusive chapter
11.06
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if this would require a full CEQA review. ACA Spansail replied that the
City would know what type of CEQA review is needed after sending the proposed ordinance out for review.
Mayor Colson opened the item for public comment.
Brian Benn discussed the tree replacement needs and the in -lieu fee. (Comment submitted via
publiccomment@burlingame.org)
Gerard Manning discussed trimming of trees around solar panels. (Comment submitted via
publiccomment@burlingame.org)
Leslie McQuade voiced concern about enforcing tree replacement. (Comment submitted via
publiccomment@burlingame.org)
7
Kris Cannon voiced her support for the proposed amendments. (Comment submitted via
publiccomment@burlingame.org)
John Easterbrooke voiced concern about distressed trees in the city. (Comment submitted via
publiccomment@burlingame.org)
Tony Paul discussed the classification of the dead trees before the rainy season.
Mayor Colson closed public comment.
Councilmember Pappajohn asked about the in -lieu fee. City Arborist Holtz replied that the cost given was
an example. He noted that a fee study would be necessary. He explained that the fee to not plant a tree is
high on purpose, as the City wants to incentivize the replanting of trees.
Mayor Colson stated that she wasn't sure removing a tree for a solar panel is better for the environment.
City Arborist Holtz replied that a majority of the solar versus tree matters are private matters.
Councilmember Brownrigg voiced support for the updated ordinance. He wondered if a resident should be
held to the same replacement standards if the tree is removed due to a utility issue or health of the tree
rather than the removal of a healthy tree. City Arborist Holtz replied that through research, they learned
that most cities don't differentiate between trees being removed voluntarily or due to natural causes. He
added that it is about what the tree provides to the community.
Mayor Colson suggested renaming the tree replacement fund to tree replacement and maintenance fund.
City Arborist Holtz replied that the tree replacement fund language is crafted to help maintain the urban
forest via planting or by Council direction.
Vice Mayor Stevenson asked about the replacement of trees like for like versus one big tree for four smaller
trees and if the tree fund can help offset this cost. ACA Spansail replied that the tree replacement fund is
set up to capture money for tree replacement in one place, and the uses for the funds have not been fully
outlined yet.
Councilmember Lee asked about the estimated 500 staff hours that are getting absorbed without adding
additional staff. City Arborist Holtz replied that it is an estimate, and they are going to work it into their
schedule.
Councilmember Brownrigg supported sending educational cards out to realtors about the rules and
regulations of the urban forest. He noted that his street has oaks that are planted right under PG&E wires
and that he hoped there would be some common sense about tree planting.
Council thanked City Arborist Holtz for his repot.
0
12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reviewed their committee appointments.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Brownrigg commented on the increase in emails related to traffic and wanted to be
proactive about it. He suggested addressing it at the next goal setting meeting.
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are
available online at www.burlingame.org.
15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Colson adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. in memory of Sidar Ergin.
Respectfully submitted,
s/
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
9
1
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date November 26, 2024
To Scott Spansail, Assistant City Attorney, City of Burlingame
From Maria Kisyova, Project Manager
Akoni Danielsen, Principal Project Manager
Subject Burlingame Tree Ordinance Update – CEQA Categorical Exemption Qualification
I. Introduction to Categorical Exemptions
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contain classes or categories of projects
that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and are, therefore,
exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 – 15333 constitute the list of
categorically exempt projects and contain specific criteria that must be met in order for a project to
be found exempt under one or more classes.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15307 Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources
sets forth exemptions for actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local
ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the
regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment
consist of actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state or local ordinance to assure
the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the
regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.
Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 includes a list of exceptions to exemptions, none of
which may apply to a project in order for it to qualify for a categorical exemption (i.e., if an
exception applies, a project is precluded from being found categorically exempt). The exceptions
included Section 15300.2 are discussed below in Section IV of this memo.
The City of Burlingame , serving as the Lead Agency, is completing environmental review for the
Tree Ordinance Update project (“project”) in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines
(California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the City
of Burlingame . This Memorandum describes the proposed project, provides analysis and substantial
2
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com
evidence to support a determination by the City of Burlingame that the project is categorically
exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308.
II. Background
Shortly after Burlingame’s incorporation as a city in 1908, the City enacted the Burlingame
Municipal Code (BMC). The BMC included provisions to protect a historic grove of trees along
County Road (modern day El Camino Real). With time, the City updated rules governing both public
and private trees to regulate and protect the urban forest. In 1971, the City Council created Chapter
11.04 “Protection of City Street Trees” and Chapter 11.06 “Urban Reforestation and Tree
Protection” to add protections for the rest of the urban forest. Chapter 11.06 was revised in 1992
and 1998. Since then, the City’s tree protection provisions in the BMC have remained unchanged.
The City of Burlingame has an established Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) that details City
rules, recommendations, and practices in managing the urban forest. The UFMP is updated
regularly and the Tree Ordinance is now being updated to better align with the UFMP and present-
day urban forestry practices.
Further, state law now requires ministerial review processes for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
and certain minor subdivisions and housing development projects (Senate Bill [SB] 9). These
ministerial process es generally preclude cities from imposing subjective development standards or
requiring any kind of discretionary decision or review. Accordingly, the proposed Tree Ordinance
Update establishes objective standards regarding tree protection and incorporates ministerial
review for these types of projects into the City’s tree removal regulations.
III. Project Description
The proposed project is a City-initiated update to the tree protection provisions in the BMC to
address inconsistencies with the City’s UFMP and to align the BMC tree protection provisions with
state laws requiring ministerial review for ADUs and housing p rojects under SB 9. The proposed
project would rescind the existing Chapters 11.04 and 11.06 of the BMC, and replace them with a
new Chapter 11.06. The intent of the update is to strengthen the ordinance to be more protective
of trees where the City retains discretion , while also creating a ministerial process for situations
where trees are required to be removed to facilitate construction of residential projects that are
ministerial under state law. Generally, the proposed update would increase the size and quantity of
trees needing to be planted depending on the size of the tree being removed or on the nature of a
proposed development. The update would also differentiate replanting requirements between
residential developments and commercial/mixed use developments. Proposed updates are detailed
below by topic.
3
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com
Discretionary Projects
The update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would also address situations where the City retains discretion
whether to allow for removal of tree(s). The update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would require protective
actions for trees that are re tained , retention of a project arborist for large developments 1 or those
significantly impacting a mature tree to be retained 2, and submission of arborist reports.
Specifically, large r developments would require tree replacement or reforestation plans and/or
payment of an in-lieu fee for trees that are removed but not replanted or reforested. BMC
11.06.010 currently allows tree removal to occur for “the economic enjoyment” of property. The
project proposes to redefine the rationale for tree removal as: “the tree must be removed to use
the property for any City authorized or permitted use under Title 25 (the Zoning Ordinance) for the
zoning district in which the property is located, and the use could not be made of the property
unless the tree is removed.”
Additionally, the current discretionary tree removal process requires an applicant to apply for both
a tree removal permit and a development permit, which are processed separately. The update to
BMC Chapter 11.06 would simplify this process by requiring that a development application also
include all related tree removal permits so that the approval authority for the development project
would also take action on the tree permit through their review of the project. Those tree removal
permits would become part of the Planning Commission development permit approvals for the
project. Any approvals for tree removal permits, as well as requirements for tree protection and
tree planting (based on recommendations from the City Arborist), would be incorporated into the
approved development permit as part of the project approval process. Appeals to the tree removal
due to proposed development would be heard by the Planning Commission as part of design review
processes.
Tree Removal Criteria
The proposed update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would codify past department practice by identifying
which tree removal approvals may be appealed, and which body or bodies within the City
administration would have authority to consider appeal proceedings.
The proposed update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would update the discretionary tree removal criteria to
allow the decision maker to weigh a variety of factors when determining whether approval is
appropriate. The update includes, but is not limited to consideration of root and infrastructure
conflict, whether there are reasonable alternative means to avoid removal, species desirability and
environmental benefits to tree retention.
1 Large developments are considered projects with more than two dwellings or those with designated commercial
use.
2 Work significantly impacting a mature tree refers to construction activity that would occur within the natural
dripline of the subject tree.
4
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com
Definitions
The update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would update various definitions. Notably, the definition of a
“protected tree” would be updated as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Definition of “Protected Tree”
Existing Ordinance Updated Ordinance
(1) Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or
more when measured 54 inches above natural
grade; or
(1) Any City-owned or maintained tree; or
(2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the City
Council based upon findings that it is unique and of
importance to the public due to its unusual
appearance, location, historical significance or other
factor; or
(2) Any private tree with a circumference of 44 inches or
more when measured 54 inches above natural grade ; or
(3) A stand of trees in which the director has
determined each tree is dependent upon the others
for survival
(3) A designated Heritage Tree or Heritage Grove, or any
other tree or stand of trees or species of tree, so
designated by the Beautification Commission, City Council,
or Director based upon findings that it is unique and of
importance to the public due to its unusual appearance,
location, historical significance or other factor; or
(4) A stand of private trees in which the Director or
designee has determined each tree is dependent upon the
others for survival; or
(5) Replacement trees, regardless of size, that were
required to be planted as replacements for authorized and
unauthorize protected private tree removals; or
(6) Reforestation trees required to be planted for a
development or redevelopment project pursuant to
11.06.100 of the updated BMC
Public Notices
Currently, public notice is required for private protected tree removals within 100 feet of the
subject property. For tree removals subject to a discretionary process, the proposed update to BMC
Chapter 11.06 would allow the Parks and Recreation Director to expand the notification area and
require physical and/or electronic postings and notifications dependent upon the impact the tree
has on a neighborhood. The new public notice requirement would require notice of tree removals
of City trees that are at least 14 inches in diameter at standard height (DSH).3
3 Diameter at standard height refers to the level measurement of the trunk diameter measured at 54 inches above
soil grade.
5
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com
Tree Planting Requirements
Replacement and Reforestation Requirements
The existing ordinance establishes reforestation plan requirements for single-family or duplex and
apartments or condominiums. The project would maintain these requirements, and would add
requirements for mixed -use and commercial/industrial projects where there are none now.
Changes are summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Reforestation Plan Requirements
Development Type Reforestation Plan Requirements
Existing Requirements
Single-family or duplex One landscape tree for every 1,000 square feet of lot coverage or habitable space
Apartments or condominiums One landscape tree for every 2,000 square feet of lot coverage
Proposed Requirements
One- and two-unit dwellings One landscape tree per 1,000 square feet of habitable space
Multi-unit dwellings / mixed-
use buildings
One landscape tree per 2,000 square feet of structural lot coverage and/or one
landscape tree per 2,000 square feet of paving
Commercial / industrial One landscape tree per 5,000 square feet of structural lot coverage and/or one
landscape tree per 5,000 square feet of paving
Consistent with the existing code, lot coverage and habitable space includes both existing and new
construction. The Director shall determine the number of existing trees which are of an acceptable
size, species, and location to be counted toward this requirement.
Removal of Protected Trees
Existing Replacement Requirements
The existing ordinance includes the following tree replacement guidelines for removal of protected
trees (based on the existing definition of private trees shown in Table 1):
• Replacement shall be three 15-gallon size, one 24-inch box size, or one 36-inch box size
landscape tree(s) for each tree removed as determined below.
• Any tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two 24-inch box size, or two
36-inch box size landscape trees for each tree so removed as determined below.
• Replacement of a tree be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exists on the
property to meet all other requirements of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection
ordinance.
• Size and number of the replacement tree(s) shall be determined by the director and shall be
based on the species, location and value of the tree(s) removed.
6
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com
• If replacement trees cannot be planted on the property, payment of equal value shall be
made to the city. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree planting fund to be drawn
upon for public tree planting.
Proposed Replacement Requirements
The update to BMC Chapter 11.06 proposes to refine the guidelines for removal of protected trees
(based on the updated definition of private trees shown in Table 1) to differentiate between one- or
two-unit dwellings and all other types of development. The tree replacement plan would be
required of both ministerial and discretionary projects.
A tree replacement plan for private protected trees located on lots that include one - or two-unit
dwellings must comply with the specifications in Table 3.
Table 3. Replacement for Private Protected Trees on Lots with One- or Two-Unit
Dwellings
Trunk Diameter Replacement Tree
14 to 29 One 24-inch box or two 15-gallon boxes
>30 to 45 inches One 36-inch box or two 24-inch boxes or four 15-gallon boxes
>45 inches Two 36 -inch boxes or three 24-inch boxes
A tree replacement plan for private protected trees located on other lots (e.g., multi-unit dwellings,
mixed-use buildings, commercial/industrial) must provide for replacement of trees at a ratio of one -
inch DSH of tree replaced for each inch DSH of tree removed (1:1 ratio). Th e equivalent sizes to be
used whenever new trees are planted (either on-site or off-site) pursuant to a tree replacement
plan are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Replacement Equivalency for Private Protected Trees on Other Lots
DSH Equivalent Replacement Landscape Tree Container Size
One Inch 15-gallon container
Two Inch 24-inch box
Three Inc h 36-inch box
Four Inch 48-inch box
Five Inch 60-inch box
Where the current ordinance requires any tree removed without a valid permit to be replaced by
two 24-inch box size or two 36-inch box size trees, the update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would include
fines and penalties that can be levied (including criminal prosecution) for trees removed without a
valid permit.
7
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com
The update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would change the requirements for trees with a diameter of 29
inches or less. As shown in Table 3, the replacement requirements for 29-inch trees would be one
24-inch or two 15-gallon trees, whereas the current requirements require one 24-inch, three 15-
gallon, or one 36-inch tree. The City evaluated its replacement requirements and determined that
replacement of smaller trees (i.e., those 29 inches or less) are most appropriately replaced with a
similarly -sized 24-inch tree or two 15-gallon trees).
The update would further set more onerous replacement requirements for trees with a diameter of
30 inches or more . The current ordinance require s the same replacement ratio regardless of the
size of the tree to be removed. Finally , the update would introduce requirements for non-
residential development, and would also include stricter penalties for trees removed without a valid
permit . Thus, the proposed requirements would ultimately result in more trees planted than would
be required under the current ordinance.
Tree Replacement Fund
On-site or Off -Site Replacement or Reforestation
The existing ordinance does not include specifications between on-site and off-site tree
replacement requirements. The proposed update to BMC Chapter 11.06 requires that a tree
replacement or reforestation plan that includes on-site or off-site replacement must specify where
the trees shall be planted. The plan must also specify how the trees shall be monitored and
maintained. Off-site plantings within 300 feet of the project site would be considered at the
Director’s discretion.
In-Lieu Fee and Tree Replacement Fund
The existing ordinance does not include a funding mechanism. The proposed update to BMC
Chapter 11.06 would introduce in-lieu fees as an option , for both ministerial and discretionary
projects, where trees cannot be replaced on-site or off-site within the neighborhood. The fund
would be used primarily for citywide tree planting and preservation programs but would be
available for City Council-directed programs consistent with this purpose. The amount of the in-lieu
fee would be $325 per inch of tree diamete r at standard height for that tree . This amount is based
on the labor and material costs of planting and would be included in the update to the Master Fee
Schedule adopted by City Council concurrent with the update to BMC Chapter 11.06.
Credit for Existing Landscape Trees
The proposed update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would allow a replacement credit for preservation of
trees on the same lot, as long as those trees are viable long-term and meet the definition of
landscape tree.
8
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com
IV. Environmental Review
The purpose of this section is to assess the project’s eligibility for a Categorical Exemption from
CEQA under Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308, and document whether any of the exceptions
listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the proposed updates to BMC Chapter 11.06.
Section 15307 – Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15307 relates to actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by
state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural
resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of a natural resource. As
presented above in Section III Project Description, the City proposes updates to BMC Chapter 11.06
with the intent of protecting existing trees, a natural resource, and enhancing the existing urban
forest. The proposed updates to BMC Chapter 11.06 would involve the following updated provisions
to protect trees:
• Expanded Definition of Protected Tree : The definition of a protected tree would be
expanded to include 1) any City-owned or maintained tree, 2) any private tree with a
circumference of 44 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade, as
opposed to the current definition of 48 inche s, 3) any replacement tree for private tree
removals, and 4) any replacement tree for development projects. By expanding the
definition of a protected tree, the proposed update would serve to increase protections for
the urban forest.
• Expanded Notice Requirements: The proposed update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would
include language allowing the Parks and Recreation Director to expand the notification
area and require physical and/or electronic postings and notifications dependent upon the
impact the tree has on a neighborhood. The new public notice requirement would require
notice of tree removals of City trees that are at least 14 inches in diameter at standard
height. Expanded noticing would serve to increase protections for the urban forest.
• Increased Replacement and Reforestation Requirements: The proposed update to BMC
Chapter 11.06 would increase replacement requirements for one- and two-unit dwellings
and multi-unit dwellings/mixed -use buildings. As shown in Table 3, replacement
requirements would increase as the size of the tree to be removed increases, whereas the
current ordinance requires three 15-gallon, one 24-inch box, or one 36-inch box per tree to
be removed, regardless of size. Although the current ordinance allows replacement of 29-
inch or smaller trees with either one, two, or three trees (i.e. one 24-inch tree or three 15-
inch trees or one 36-inch tree) and the proposed update to BMC Chapter 11.06 instead
allows replacement of those trees with one or two trees (one 24-inch or two 15-inch
trees), the update also proposes higher replacement requirements for trees with a
diameter of 30 inches or more and would result in greater tree replacement overall. In
addition, the updated ordinance would increase replacement requirements for
9
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com
commercial/industrial projects, and would have stricter penalties for trees removed
without a valid permit . Increasing the replacement and reforestation requirements would
serve to enhance the existing urban forest.
• Establish Replacement Fund: The existing BMC Chapter 11.06 does not include a funding
mechanism. The proposed update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would introduce in-lieu fees as an
option where trees cannot be replaced on-site or off-site within the neighborhood. The
fund would be used primarily for citywide tree planting and preservation programs, which
would serve to enhance the existing urban forest.
In sum, the project would adopt regulatory procedures to assure the maintenance, restoration, and
enhancement of the City’s existing urban forest, thus protecting natural resources. Accordingly, the
project qualif ies for exemption under Guidelines Section 15307.
Section 15308 – Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment
CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 relates to actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by
state or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the
environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.
Per the Guidelines, construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental
degradation do not qualify for exemption under 15308.
The project proposes to update the City’s existing Tree Ordinance with stronger replacement and
noticing requirements and codify current City practices. The project is aimed at protecting existing
trees and enhancing the existing urban forest. As noted above in the discussion of Guidelines
Section 15307, the proposed update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would serve to protect trees (and the
environment generally) by 1) expanding the definition of a protected tree, 2) expanding the notice
requirements for removal of protected trees, 3) Increasing or adding replacement and reforestation
requirements, and establishing a tree replacement fund.
Finally , the updates to BMC Chapter 11.06 acknowledge that there are certain development
projects (e.g., ADU s or other ministerial housing projects) where the City could not preclude tree
removal. The provisions governing ministerial projects are not a “relaxation of standards” allowing
environmental degradation which would preclude reliance on Guidelines Section 15308; instead,
those provisions implement and are consistent with state law requirements.
In sum, the project would adopt procedures that assure the maintenance, restoration,
enhancement, or protection of the environment and would thus qualify for exemption under
Guidelines Section 15308.
Section 15300.2 – Exceptions
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 sets the following exceptions:
10
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to
be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in
a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered
to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource
of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted
pursuant to law by federal, state, or local age ncies.
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative
impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due
to unusual circumstances.
(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in
damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock
outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic
highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an
adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a
site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government
Code.
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Exception 15300.2(a) only applies to Class 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 exemptions. The proposed update to
BMC Chapter 11.06 is categorically exempt under Class 7 and 8; therefore, this exception is not
applicable to the project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(a). As noted in the proposed
ordinance, trees that are designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted by the City are
protected by Chapter 11.06.
The proposed update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to
tree removals, as there are no other programmatic actions being considered by the City that would
also involve changes to the City’s tree protection policies. Th e proposed update to BMC Chapter
11.06 does not propose or allow for any specific development. Once adopted, the ordinance would
include higher tree replacement ratios for future development projects throughout the City, as
described in detail in Section II. Additionally, the definition of a protected tree would be modified to
include any private tree with a circumference of 44 inches or more when measured 54 inches above
natural grade as opposed to the current definition of 48 inches. These changes would be
environmentally beneficial. As such, the proposed update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would not result in
a cumulatively considerable impact, and no exception to the exemption would apply under
15300.2(b).
11
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com
The proposed update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would not cause a significant effect due to unusual
circumstances. It is intended to and will promote tree replacement and reforestation. The project
would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as it does
not address or otherwise regulate development or its impacts to historical resources. Thus, no
exception to the exemption applies under 15300.2(c) or 15300.2(f).
There are no state scenic highways within the City of Burlingame. As such, the provisions of BMC
Chapter 11.06 do not apply to trees within state highway right-of-way. Since the project is not
focused on a particular site and would not result in specific development, it would not be located
on a site included on any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Thus, no
exception to the exemption applies under 15300.2(d) or 15300.2(e).
For the reasons described above, none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2
apply to the project, and the proposed update to BMC Chapter 11.06 would not be disqualified for a
categorical exemption.
V. Conclusion
As documented in Section IV . Environmental Review, none of the exceptions contained in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the project and the project meets the criteria in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15307 and 15308. The project, therefore, qualifies as exempt from the
provisions of CEQA under Classes 7 and 8 of the CEQA Guidelines.
RESOLUTION NO. ____-2024
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO ADOPT A TREE REPLACEMENT IN-
LIEU FEE AND AN INCREASE FOR APPEALS OF BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE
DECISIONS; AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO MAKE SUCH
AMENDMENTS; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA
GUIDELINES 15078, 15061(b)(3)
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has always sought to invest in, regulate, and
protect its urban forest by updating the rules governing public and private trees; and
WHEREAS, in 1971, the City Council added “Protection of City Street Trees” to
Title 11 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC), and later added Chapter 11.06, “Urban
Reforestation and Tree Protection”; and
WHEREAS, revisions to BMC Chapter 11.06 last took place in 1992 and 1998; and
WHEREAS, City staff undertook significant review and discussion of other
agencies’ tree protection codes and experiences, including but not limited to codes in the
cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Sacramento, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara; and
WHEREAS, beginning in November 2023, the Beautification Commission,
Planning Commission, and City Council held various public meetings to consider potential
updates to BMC Chapter 11.06; and
WHEREAS, on December ___, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.___
updating BMC Chapter 11.06 (the “Tree Ordinance Update”) to include new tree
replacement requirements and procedures, including updates that necessitate
amendments to the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the current Master Fee Schedule contains a fee for appeals of the
Beautification Commission’s decisions that are made to the City Council, but the Tree
Ordinance Update requires such appeals to be made to the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the Tree Ordinance Update’s new appeal procedure is nearly identical
to the Wireless Permit appeal in that the City Manager will act as a hearing officer and
thus the costs for such an appeal are also the same; and
WHEREAS, the Tree Ordinance Update allows payment of an in-lieu fee for tree
removal permit applicants who do not wish to replace a tree, and revenue generated will
be used to further tree planting and tree replacement to offset the effects of the tree
removal; and
WHEREAS, the in-lieu fee has been determined based on the labor and material
costs of planting a new tree at the same diameter at standard height (DSH), and the
amount of this in-lieu fee has been compared to neighboring jurisdictions and found to be
similar; and
WHEREAS, the in-lieu fee is an alternative to tree replacement as a condition of
issuance of a tree permit and is not a tax under Proposition 26 because it falls under
either or both exception 1 (fees for benefit and privileges) and exception 6 (fees for
development of property).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into
this action.
2. The proposed amendments to the Master Fee Schedule are administrative and
are not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15078, and even if these amendments were
considered to be a project, their adoption would be exempt from CEQA review
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with
certainty that minor edits to the Master Fee Schedule and adoption of an in-lieu
fee would not have an impact on the environment.
3. The Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended as follows (deletions shown in
strikeout, additions shown in italics/underline):
TREES AND PARK FEES Unit Fee
Memorial Tree Plantings
15 Gallon Per tree $350
24” Box Size Per tree $1,041
Memorial Bench Per bench $7,942
Additional Street Tree
Plantings
15 Gallon Per tree $773
24” Box Size Per tree $1,041
Protected Tree Removal
Application Fee
Residential Per Application $439
Residential – No Public
Notification
Per Application $750
Commercial Per Application $140
Failure to Meet Replanting
Requirements of Permit Tree
Replacement In-Lieu Fee
Per Tree $1,500 $325 per inch of
diameter at standard
height
Arborist’s Plan Review for
landscaping requirements on
planning applications
Residential Each $166
Commercial Each $385
Arborist Check of
construction plans and
inspection of landscape
requirements on building
permit submittals
Residential Each $333
Commercial Each $676
Appeal to City Council City
Manager or designee from
Beautification Commission
decision (does not include
noticing costs)
Per Appeal $600 $968
Noticing, City Council Appeal Per Appeal $150
Street Banner Hanger Per Banner $940
Private Tree Emergency Work
Business Hours (M-F; 7-3:30) Per Hour $134
After Hours (Weekends &
Holidays)
Per Hour $151
4. This Resolution shall not become effective unless and until the City Council adopts
the Tree Ordinance Update (Ordinance No.___) and such Ordinance becomes
effective. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to make the amendments to
the Master Fee Schedule described above upon the effective date of this
Resolution.
_______________________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
l, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify the foregoing
resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _____ day
of December 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_______________________________________
Megan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 10c
MEETING DATE: December 2, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: December 2, 2024
From: Michael Guina, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Scott Spansail, Assistant City Attorney – (650) 558-7275
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 8.19 of Title 8 of the Burlingame
Municipal Code to Allow Existing Tobacco Retailer Permit Holders an
Exemption From Certain Relocation Distance Requirements for a Period of
Two Years, Eliminating Certain Restrictions on Retailer Permit Transfers and
Discontinuing the Issuance of New Tobacco Retailer Permits; CEQA
Determination: Exempt Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378
and 15061(b)(3)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt the first reading of the
proposed Ordinance by taking the following actions:
1. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff.
2. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed Ordinance.
3. Close the public hearing, discuss the proposed Ordinance, and determine whether to bring the
Ordinance back for adoption at a future Council meeting.
4. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the Ordinance at least five days before proposed
adoption.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
In 2023, San Mateo County Supervisors passed an ordinance to further regulate tobacco retailers
in the unincorporated portions of the county. This new law, proposed by the County Health
Department, expanded the program that was already in place, and increased penalties on
businesses that sell tobacco products to minors in an effort to prevent youth nicotine addiction. It
requires that all tobacco retailers obtain a “Tobacco Retailer Permit,” and requires enforcement
checks twice per year aimed at combatting youth tobacco sales. The law also prohibits issuing
these permits to any location within 1,000 feet of a “youth populated area,” including schools and
playgrounds, or within 500 feet of an existing tobacco retailer. The County has continued to
encourage cities within San Mateo County to adopt their model ordinance and has offered to
administer the permit program and provide enforcement for cities that adopt it without alteration.
Amending BMC Chapter 8.19 re: Existing Tobacco Retailer Transfer Exemptions December 2, 2024
2
At the March 4, 2024 City Council meeting, the Burlingame City Council adopted Ordinance No.
2026 (attached), which created a Tobacco Retailer Permit Program within the city limits. This
program was codified into a new Burlingame Municipal Code Title 8, Chapter 8.19 – “Tobacco
Retailer Permit.” The City’s program generally mirrored the recently adopted San Mateo County
Tobacco Retailer Permit Program, except that it allowed an exemption for on-site hookah
consumption and made other small administrative changes. Since the City Council did not adopt
the County’s Ordinance in its totality, the County would not administer the City’s program. Instead,
the Burlingame Police Department manages its administration and enforcement.
The City’s program has been in place for approximately six months, and the Burlingame Police
Department continues to administer and enforce the program successfully. While the program itself
has been well-received by the public, City staff has received feedback from some existing retailers
that the distance and transfer requirements of the new program have created an issue with their
plans to sell or relocate their property. The Economic Development Subcommittee discussed this
topic at its regular meeting on October 16, 2024. At the meeting, Mayor Colson and Vice Mayor
Stevenson expressed concern over how the new program’s quick effective date may have
disrupted the short-term plans of existing tobacco retailers in the city. The Subcommittee
specifically noted that the program’s distance and transfer limitations may have created a hardship
on retailers by halting a transfer to a family member or disrupting their immediate plans to relocate
their business. At the conclusion of this item, the Subcommittee directed staff to draft an ordinance
that addressed these concerns through implementation of a two-year “grace period” for existing
tobacco retailer permit holders to conduct limited transfers of their permit.
At the Subcommittee’s direction, staff presented a draft ordinance reflecting the two-year grace-
period described above for consideration by the full Council at the City Council’s November 18,
2024, regular meeting. Following the public comment portion of the meeting, the Councilmembers
discussed additional concerns with the current Tobacco Retailer Permit ordinance. These concerns
included the inability for a retailer to make a bona-fide sale of their business into the future, and
rules surrounding the relocation of a business. Finally, the City Council expressed their desire to
promote the public health and safety of the community by discontinuing the issuance of any new
Tobacco Retailer Permits in the future. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council directed staff
to make further amendments to address the above concerns. Staff has taken the Council’s direction
and is now presenting an updated ordinance for review.
Proposed Ordinance
In the proposed Ordinance, staff presents amendments to Burlingame Municipal Code Sections
8.19.110 and 8.19.120 of Chapter 18.19 in accordance with the City Council’s direction. The
amendment to Section 8.19.110 simply adds a prohibition on the issuance of new Tobacco Retailer
Permit, including any new Hookah Tobacco Retailer Permits, following the effective date of the
proposed Ordinance.
The proposed amendments to Section 8.19.120 are similar to those presented at the November
18, 2024 regular meeting, with one significant change. Similar to the draft ordinance reviewed on
November 18, 2024, the proposed Ordinance contemplates a change that would allow existing
retailers the ability to transfer their permit to a new owner at the same physical location so long as
Amending BMC Chapter 8.19 re: Existing Tobacco Retailer Transfer Exemptions December 2, 2024
3
there has been a complete transfer of ownership in an “Arm’s Length Transaction.” At the prior
hearing, the transaction, and the corresponding transfer of the permit, must have been completed
by January 1, 2027, to be effective. Following direction of the City Council, the updated proposed
Ordinance would allow this type of transfer to continue indefinitely.
Second, and substantively the same as presented at the November meeting, the proposed
amendments allow an existing tobacco retailer to transfer their permit to a new physical location for
a short period of time. To be effective, the retailer must not propose any additional changes to the
permit (such as a change in ownership), and the location may not be located within 250 feet of a
Youth-Populated Area, as defined in the existing code. Finally, the new retail location must be
occupied by the retailer prior to January 16, 2027, to be effective. Assuming these criteria are met,
the retailer would not be subject to the remaining distance requirements found Section 8.19.230.
This amendment addresses the concern expressed by retailers that the City’s program halted their
short-term relocation plans by allowing existing retailers a brief period for relocation.
FISCAL IMPACT
If a transfer is requested, staff time will be required to administer the transfer and re-issue the
permit. The fiscal impact of this additional staff time is nominal and can be absorbed into current
Department budgets.
Exhibits:
• Proposed Ordinance
• Ordinance No. 2026
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.19 OF TITLE 8 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE
TO ALLOW EXISTING TOBACCO RETAILER PERMIT HOLDERS AN EXEMPTION
FROM CERTAIN RELOCATION DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PERIOD OF
TWO YEARS, ELIMINATING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON RETAILER PERMIT
TRANSFERS AND DISCONTINUING THE ISSUANCE OF NEW TOBACCO RETAILER
PERMITS; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTION 15378 AND 15061(b)(3)
WHEREAS, the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and the
U.S. Public Health Service estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke causes an
estimated 41,000 deaths each year 1; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has stated that the
adverse health effects of second-hand smoke remain the same regardless of whether the
exposure occurs indoors or outdoors, and that outdoor secondhand smoke inhalation poses
health risks to children2; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) has found that as
of 2019, only 6.9% of Californians currently smoke cigarettes3; and
WHEREAS, the Burlingame Municipal Code currently prohibits smoking in various
portions of the City, including (but not limited to) buildings, restaurants, sports fields, and
within 25 feet of most city-owned parks and facilities; and
WHEREAS, an updated Tobacco Retailer Permit Program was recently adopted by
San Mateo County to combat youth tobacco sales through tougher enforcement measures;
and;
WHEREAS, the County had encouraged its municipalities to adopt an identical
program, and has incentivized adoption by offering to perform the administration of any
identical program; and
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of
Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014. Printed with corrections, January 2014.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Is outdoor exposure to secondhand smoke comparable to indoors?
Accessed 10 March 2023. www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/outdoor-exposure-secondhand-smoke-
comparable-indoors
3 California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and
Figures 2021. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health; November 2021.
2
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2026, adopted March 18, 2024, the City
Council did establish a Tobacco Retailer Permit Program, codified in Chapter 18.19,
“Tobacco Retailer Permit,” of Title 8 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, which regulates the
sale of tobacco in the City limits; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Tobacco Retailer Permit Program provided certain
exemptions for on-site hookah consumption, thereby requiring the City to manage
administration of the program through the Burlingame Police Department; and
WHEREAS, among other restrictions, the City’s Tobacco Retailer Permit Program
established limitations on transfers of tobacco permits, and does not allow new tobacco
retailers to be located within 500 feet of an existing tobacco retailer, or within 1,000 feet of
a “youth populated area,” as defined by Ordinance No. 2026; and
WHEREAS, City staff has received feedback from members of the public that
Ordinance No. 2026’s distance and transfer requirements have created a hardship for
existing tobacco retailers who had been considering the movement or sale of their business;
and
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Subcommittee considered public feedback
at their meeting on October 16, 2024, and directed staff to prepare amendments to
Ordinance No. 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the transferability of Tobacco Retailer
Permits at their November 18, 2024 Regular Meeting, and directed Staff to draft an
Ordinance allowing a short period of time for existing tobacco retailers to relocate their
business, eliminating certain restrictions on the transfer or sale of their business of a
business, and halting the issuance of new Tobacco Retailer Permits within the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. 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. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is in the public
interest.
Section 3. The Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of
the CEQA Guidelines because it is not a “project” and 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
3
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 4. 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 5. Chapter 8.19 of Title 8 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is amended
as reflected in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit A
shows additions with underlined text and deletions with strike out text. The Sections of
the Chapter which do not include amendments are not shown in this exhibit, and remain
unchanged.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall go into effect 30 days following its adoption.
Section 7. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in a manner
required by law.
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that
the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
2nd day of December 2024 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
4
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 8.19 - TOBACCO RETAILER PERMIT
8.19.110 – Requirement for a permit.
(a) No tobacco retailer or other person shall sell or offer for sale any tobacco product
without a current and valid tobacco retailer permit from the city of Burlingame for
each location where such activities are conducted.
(b) Permits are valid for one year and must be renewed annually by the permit holder in
order to continue to sell or offer for sale any tobacco product. A retailer must obtain
a separate permit for each location at which any tobacco product will be sold, offered
for sale or distributed. A permit shall expire at the end of its term, unless renewed
prior to its expiration, and the tobacco retailer must obtain a new permit prior to any
further sale, offer for sale, or distribution of any tobacco product.
(1) The city will permit no more than two hookah tobacco retailers within the city
limits. To become a hookah tobacco retailer, the applicant must specifically
note this request upon their tobacco retailer permit application, and must
otherwise comply with all other requirements of this chapter. This includes,
but is not limited to, the additional requirements for the sale of hookah tobacco
located in Section 8.19.160.
(i) A hookah tobacco retailer is also required to offer customers at
least one non-tobacco, non-nicotine hookah alternative.
(2) The city will not issue any new Tobacco Retailer Permits after the effective
date of this Ordinance. This prohibition shall include the issuance of any new
Hookah Tobacco Retailer Permits. All transfers of permits must be done in
accordance with Section 8.19.120 below.
(c) No tobacco retailer shall violate, or cause or allow the tobacco retailer's agents or
employees to violate, any provision of this chapter or any other local, state, or federal
law applicable to tobacco products or tobacco retailing.
(d) Tobacco retailers are responsible for the actions of their employees and agents
relating to the sale, offer to sell, and furnishing of tobacco products at the retail
location. The sale of any tobacco product by a tobacco retailer employee shall be
considered an act of the tobacco retailer, and the permit holder shall be responsible
for any and all penalties levied.
(e) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to penalize the purchase, use, or
possession of a tobacco product by any person not engaged in tobacco retailing.
5
8.19.120 - Permit is Nontransferable.
(a) Tobacco Retailer Permits are nontransferable as between Persons, locations, or
otherwise except as noted in this Section. Any attempted transfer other than those
noted below shall render the Permit null and void.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, prior violations of this Chapter
at a location shall continue to be counted against that location and Permit ineligibility
and suspension periods shall continue to apply to that location unless:
(1) One hundred percent of the interest in the stock, assets, or income of the
business, other than a security interest for the repayment of debt, has been
transferred to the new owner(s); and
(2) The City is provided with clear and convincing evidence, including an
affidavit, that the business has been acquired in an Arm's Length Transaction.
An Arm’s Length Transaction, for the purposes of this section, means a
transaction in which two or more unrelated and unaffiliated parties agree on the
transfer in question; the parties act independently and in their own self-interest;
and the parties have equal bargaining power and symmetric information,
leading the parties to agree upon fair-market terms.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, an existing Tobacco Retailer
Permit Holder may transfer their Permit to a Transferee at the same physical location
under the following circumstances:
(1) One hundred percent of the interest in the stock, assets, or income of the
business, other than a security interest for the repayment of debt, has been
transferred to the new owner(s); and
(2) The City is provided with clear and convincing evidence, including an
affidavit, that the business has been acquired in an Arm's Length Transaction.
An Arm’s Length Transaction, for the purposes of this Section, means a
transaction in which two or more unrelated and unaffiliated parties agree on the
transfer in question; the parties act independently and in their own self-interest;
and the parties have equal bargaining power and symmetric information,
leading the parties to agree upon fair-market terms; and
(3) The transferring Tobacco Retailer had obtained a valid Tobacco Retailer
Permit from the City prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, an existing Tobacco Retailer
Permit Holder may transfer the location of their permit and not be subject to the
distance limits set forth in Section 8.19.230(c) and Section 8.19.230(d) under the
following circumstances:
6
(1) Other than the change in location, there are no additional changes made to
the existing Tobacco Retailer Permit, including (but not limited) changes to
persons or owners; and
(2) The new location is not located within 250 feet of a Youth-Populated Area;
and
(3) The sale of tobacco at the new location complies with all other applicable
local, state and federal laws and regulations, including (but not limited to) the
City’s Zoning Code; and
(4) The Tobacco Retailer had obtained a valid Tobacco Retailer Permit from the
City prior to the effective date of this Ordinance; and
(5) The City is provided clear and convincing evidence that the Tobacco Retailer
Permit Holder has executed a lease or purchase agreement for the new retail
location, and that occupancy of the new location by the Tobacco Retailer Permit
Holder will occur prior to January 16, 2027.
(d) If a transfer of a Tobacco Retailer Permit is completed pursuant to Paragraphs (b)
or (c) above, prior violations of this Chapter by the former owner or location shall
continue to be counted against the Transferee or location, respectively, and Permit
ineligibility and suspension periods shall continue to apply.
(e) The exemption to Tobacco Retailer Permit Transfers found in Paragraph (c) of this
Section shall expire at midnight on January 16, 2027.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 11a
MEETING DATE: December 02, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: December 02, 2024
From: Alyssa Diaz, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Consideration of Three Appointments to the Beautification Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council make appointments to fill three vacancies on the
Beautification Commission or take other action.
BACKGROUND
The vacancies are due to the expiring terms of Commissioners Sean Chu, Richard Kirchner, and
Hadia Khoury. The vacancies were publicized, and notification letters were sent to past
Commission applicants. The City received five applications as of the deadline of October 11, 2024.
The City Council interviewed Sean Chu, Antoinette Damico, Hadia Khoury, Richard Kirchner, and
Laura Medanich, on November 19, 2024. Commissioner Khoury subsequently withdrew her
application from further consideration.
The terms will be for three years, ending October 7, 2027.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 11b
MEETING DATE: December 02, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: December 02, 2024
From: Alyssa Diaz, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Consideration of Two Appointments to the Parks & Recreation Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council make appointments to fill two vacancies on the Parks &
Recreation Commission or take other action.
BACKGROUND
The vacancies are due to the expiring terms of Commissioners John Brunello and Leslie Holzman.
The vacancies were publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants.
The City received five applications as of the deadline of October 18, 2024. The City Council
interviewed Doug Bojack, John Brunello, John Giere, and Kim Kilgo on November 19, 2024.
The terms will be for three years, ending October 7, 2027.