The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2017.05.01C, _ TTS' 'SPT Monday, May 1, 2017 City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final City Council 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CIN HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers CLOSED SESSION - 5:45 p.m. - Conference Room A a. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda b. Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the Public May Address the Council on any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time C. Adjournment into Closed Session d. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (California Government Code Section 54956.8): Property: City of Burlingame Parking Lot E (APN 029-204-230) Agency Negotiators: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney; Lisa Goldman, City Manager William Meeker, Community Development Director: Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Negotiating Parties: Burlingame Park Square, LLC Under Negotiation: price and terms for possible disposition Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non -agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 412712017 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 1, 2017 a. San Mateo County Green Business Winners b. Presentation bV Burlingame Historical Society C. Solid Waste Collection Revised Franchise Agreement 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion. Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council's consideration of the consent calendar. a. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes April 17, 2017 Attachments: Meeting Minutes b. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Final Parcel Map (PM 16-021 Lot Subdivision at 300 Airport Boulevard Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Final Parcel Map C. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter of Opposition Regarding AB 1250, Counties and Cities: Contracts for Personal Services Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Draft Letter Bill Text d. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter of Opposition Regarding Senate Bill 649 — Wireless and Small Cell Telecommunications Facilities Attachments: Staff Report Resolution League of Cities Opposition Letter Senate Bill 649 City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 412712017 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 1, 2017 e. Set Public Hearing Date for an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action Regarding Applications for Design Review and a Hillside Area Construction Permit for First- and Second -Story Additions to a Home Located at 1556 Alturas Drive Attachments: Staff Report Appeal Letter f. Approval of an Application for the Charge! Program Attachments: Staff Report Approval Letter 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) a. Public Hearing and Adoption of Broadway Area Business Improvement Assessments for Fiscal Year 2017-18 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution BID Assessments b. Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule Effective July 1, 2017 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Worksheet of Capped Fees Proposed Master Fee Schedule 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) a. Adoption of the Revisions to the Priorities Identified During the FY 2017-2018 Goal -Setting Session Attachments: Staff Report 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT City or Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 412712017 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 1, 2017 Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at (650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burtingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next City Council Meeting -Wednesday May 10, 2017 Budget Study Session) at 6:30 p.m. Next regular City Council Meeting - Monday, May 15, 2017 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO "CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS" 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 at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 4/27/2017 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8c a MEETING DATE: May 1, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 1, 2017 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter of Opposition Regarding AB 1250, Counties and Cities: Contracts for Personal Services Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to send a letter of opposition regarding AB 1250, Counties and Cities: Contracts for Personal Services. BACKGROUND Existing State law authorizes City Councils to contract with any specially trained and experienced person, firm, or corporation for special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, or administrative matters. Assembly Bill 1250, introduced by Assembly Member Reginald Jones -Sawyer, would significantly restrict the ability of cities and counties to contract for such services. If enacted, this bill would place substantial burdens on local agencies by adding onerous, over prescriptive, and unnecessary requirements that impede local control and have significant negative impacts on local governance. The League of California Cities has taken an oppose position on this bill and requested that cities do so as well. As of the writing of this staff report, the bill was pending before the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement, and Social Security Committee, with a hearing and vote scheduled for April 27, after the publishing of the City's agenda packet that day. Should the bill fail in committee, staff will inform the City Council that this letter is no longer necessary. Should the bill pass, it will then be referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. DISCUSSION As currently drafted, AB 1250 creates significant cost and workload requirements for cities and counties interested in entering or renewing a contract. For example: The bill eliminates local agency hiring discretion by limiting a local agency's ability to utilize a contract for the sole purpose of cost savings through salaries and benefits. This creates a significant hurdle as many local agencies continue to struggle financially and have not achieved the same level of economic prosperity compared to pre -2008 recession levels. 1 Opposition to AB 1250 May 1'. 2017 AB 1250 requires that the local government agency provide an orientation to contracted employees, a mandate that creates significant cost and logistical concerns. The bill requires a City to create a new, fully searchable database that must be posted on the City website and include substantive and sensitive information such as the names, job titles, and salary of each contracted employee (and subcontractor). This potentially costly requirement poses significant privacy concerns. • AB 1250 requires a City, before entering a contract or renewing a contract, to perform a full economic analysis of the potential impacts of outsourcing, including the impact on local businesses if consumer spending power is reduced (among other factors). • AB 1250 mandates that a City conduct a full environmental impact analysis the potential effects caused by contracting for the services caused by contracting for the services. The bill also forces a City to conduct an annual audit of each contract and prohibits a City from renewing or granting a new contract before the report is released and considered by the City Council. • AB 1250 applies joint and several liability for employment law violations arising from performance of the contractor as well as torts committed by the contractor or any of its subcontractors in the course of providing services under the contract. This would place overly } restrictive requirements on cities and potentially open the agency up to litigation. t 1 In summary, the workload, privacy concerns, costs, and potential litigation created by this measure could place an overwhelming and significant burden on nearly every City department and would create a de facto ban on virtually all contracting services. For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council oppose the bill and authorize the Mayor to share the City's opposition with the bill's author, the League of California Cities, and others. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of this bill is unknown, but is anticipated to be significant given the unfunded mandates the bill places on cities. Exhibits: Resolution • Draft letter of opposition Bill text 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER OF OPPOSITION REGARDING ASSEMBLY BILL 1250, COUNTIES AND CITIES: CONTRACTS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, existing State law authorizes City Councils to contract with any specially trained and experienced person, firm, or corporation for special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, or administrative matters; AND WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 1250 significantly restricts the ability of cities and counties to contract for such services by adding onerous, over prescriptive, and unnecessary requirements that impede local control and have significant negative impacts on local governance; and WHEREAS, AB 1250 eliminates local agency hiring discretion by limiting a local agency's ability to utilize a contract for the sole purpose of cost savings through salaries and benefits; and WHEREAS, AB 1250 requires that the local government agency provide an orientation to contracted employees, a mandate that creates significant cost and logistical concerns; and WHEREAS, AB 1250 requires a City to create a new, fully searchable database that must be posted on the City website and include substantive and sensitive information such as the names, job titles, and salary of each contracted employee (and subcontractor); and WHEREAS, AB 1250 requires a City, before entering a contract or renewing a contract, to perform a full economic analysis of the potential impacts of outsourcing, including the impact on local businesses if consumer spending power is reduced (among other factors); and WHEREAS, AB 1250 mandates that a City conduct a full environmental impact analysis of the potential effects caused by contracting for the services; and WHEREAS, the bill also forces a City to conduct an annual audit of each contract and prohibits a City from renewing or granting a new contract before the report is released and considered by the City Council; and WHEREAS, AB 1250 applies joint and several liability for employment law violations arising from performance of the contractor as well as torts committed by the contractor or any of its subcontractors in the course of providing services under the contract. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT: The City of Burlingame opposes AB 1250 and authorizes the Mayor to send a letter of opposition to the bill's author, Assembly Member Jones -Sawyer, with a copy to the League of 1 California Cities and others Mayor Ricardo Ortiz I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1 st day of May, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk ARDO MICHAEL ORWNRIYOR MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, VICE MAYOR The City of Burlingame DONNA COLSON TEL: (650) 558-7200 EMILY BEACH CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD FAX: (650) 566-9282 ANN KEIGHRAN BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org May 2, 2017 The Honorable Reginald Jones -Sawyer California State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 2117 Sacramento, CA 95814 VIA FAX: 916-319-2159 RE: AB 1250 (Jones -Sawyer). Counties and Cities: Contracts for Personal Services Notice of Opposition Dear Assembly Member Jones -Sawyer I am writing on behalf of the City Council of the City of Burlingame to let you know of our opposition to your Assembly Bill (AB)1250, which effectively eliminates almost all contracting services for cities and counties. Local governments have a long history of addressing service delivery challenges with creativity, self-reliance, and innovation. Unique local challenges and limited budgets continue to fuel innovative efforts to obtain expertise and provide high-quality services. City employees provide many services, while others, such as refuse collection and specialized services, are provided on a contract basis. As amended, AB 1250 places substantial burdens on local agencies by adding onerous, over prescriptive, and unnecessary requirements that impede local control and have significant impacts on local governance. Specifically AB 1250: Creates significant cost and workload requirements: AB 1250 eliminates local agency hiring discretion by limiting a local agency's ability to utilize a contract for the sole purpose of cost savings through salaries and benefits. This creates a significant hurdle as many local agencies continue to struggle financially and have not achieved the same level of economic prosperity compared to pre -2008 recession levels. Unemployment rates remain high in certain areas; some agencies are at a near breaking point on their unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) and normal pension costs; and some communities remain in significant financial difficulty. Moreover, AB 1250 requires that the agency provide an orientation to contracted employees. Last year's AB 2835 (Cooper), which mandated that public employers provide an orientation to their own employees, was tagged at $350 million in ongoing costs by the California Department of Finance. Having a local agency provide an additional orientation to non -City employees creates significant cost and logistical concerns. Additionally, AB 1250 would require a City to create a new, fully searchable database that must be posted on the City website and include substantive and sensitive information such as the names, job titles, and salary of each contracted employee (and subcontractor). We have significant concerns not only about posting this information but also about the potential cost to do so. The Honorable Reginald Jones -Sawyer May 2, 2017 Page 2 Creates a series of new and burdensome reporting requirements prior to entering or renewing a contract: AB 1250 would require a City, before entering a contract or renewing a contract, to perform a full economic analysis of the potential impacts of outsourcing, including the impact on local businesses if consumer spending power is reduced (among other factors). AS 1250 mandates that a City conduct a full environmental impact analysis of the potential effects caused by contracting for the services. Further, the measure forces a City to conduct an annual audit of each contract and prohibits a City from renewing or granting a new contract before the report is released and considered by the City Council. Increases litigation for local agencies: AS 1250 applies joint and several liability for employment law violations arising from performance of the contractor as well as torts committed by the contractor or any of its subcontractors in the course of providing services under the contract. This would place overly restrictive requirements on cities and potentially open the agency up to litigation. In summary, the workload, privacy concerns, costs and litigation created by this measure place an overwhelming and significant burden on nearly every City department and would create a de facto ban on virtually all contracting services. For these reasons, the City of Burlingame strongly opposes AB1250. Sincerely, Ricardo Ortiz Mayor c: State Assembly Member Kevin Mullin State Senator Jerry Hill Seth Miller, League of California Cities Michael Bolden, Chief Consultant, Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement, and Social Security Joshua White, Consultant, Assembly Republican Caucus Camille Wagner, Legislative Secretary, Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. Meg Desmond, League of California Cities Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Budingame.org AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 17, 2017 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 4, 2017 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE -2017-18 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1250 Introduced by Assembly Member Jones -Sawyer February 17, 2017 An act to add Sections 31000.10, 31000.11, 37103.1, and 37103.2 to the Government Code, relating to local government. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1250, as amended, Jones -Sawyer. Counties and cities: contracts for personal services. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of a county to contract for special services on behalf of various public entities with persons who are specially trained, experienced, expert, and competent to perform the special services, as prescribed. These services include financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, and other specified services. Existing law also authorizes legislative bodies of cities to contract with any specially trained and experienced person, firm, or corporation for special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, or administrative matters. This bill would establish specific standards for the use of personal services contracts by counties and cities. Beginning January 1, 2018, the bill would allow a county or county agency, or a-eity, city or city agency, to contract for personal services currently or customarily performed by county employees, as applicable, when specified conditions are met. Among other things, the bill would require the county or city to clearly demonstrate that the proposed contract will 97 AB 1250 —2— result 2— result in actual overall costs savings to the county or city and also to show that the contract does not cause the displacement of county or city workers. The bill would require a contract entered into under these provisions to specify that it may be terminated upon material breach, if notice is provided, as specified. Additionally, the bill would require the county or city to provide an orientation to employees of the contractor who would perform services pursuant to the contract, and would establish liability provisions for employment law violations and torts committed in the course of providing services under contract, among other conditions. The bill would impose additional disclosure requirements for contracts exceeding $100,000 annually, would exempt certain types of contracts from its provisions, and would require each county or city to maintain on its Internet Web site a searchable database of all of its contracts exceeding $100,000. By placing new duties on local government agencies, the bill would impose a state -mandated local program. The bill also would provide that its provisions are severable. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 3 1000. 10 is added to the Government 2 Code, to read: 3 31000.10. The purpose of this section and Section 31000.11 4 is to establish standards for the use of personal services contracts 5 by counties. 6 (a) If otherwise permitted by law, a county or county agency 7 may contract for personal services currently or customarily 8 performed by county employees when all the following conditions 9 are met: 10 (1) The board of supervisors or county agency clearly 11 demonstrates that the proposed contract will result in actual overall 97 -3— AB 1250 1 cost savings to the county for the duration of the entire contract 2 as compared with the county's actual costs of providing the same 3 services, provided that: 4 (A) In comparing costs, there shall be included the county's 5 additional cost of providing the same service as proposed by a 6 contractor. These additional costs shall include the salaries and 7 benefits of additional staff that would be needed and the cost of 8 additional space, equipment, and materials needed to perform the 9 function. 10 (B) In comparing costs, there shall not be included the county's 11 indirect overhead costs unless these costs can be attributed solely 12 to the function in question and would not exist if that function was 13 not performed in county service. Indirect overhead costs shall 14 mean the pro rata share of existing administrative salaries and 15 benefits, rent, equipment costs, utilities, and materials. 16 (C) In comparing costs, there shall be included in the cost of a 17 contractor providing a service any continuing county costs that 18 would be directly associated with the contracted function. These 19 continuing county costs shall include, but not be limited to, those 20 for inspection, supervision, and monitoring. 21 (2) Proposals to contract out work shall not be approved solely 22 on the basis that savings will result from lower contractor pay rates 23 or benefits. Proposals to contract out work shall be eligible for 24 approval if the contractor's wages are at the industry's level and 25 do not significantly undercut county pay rates. 26 (3) The contract does not cause the displacement of county 27 employees. "Displacement" includes layoff, demotion, involuntary 28 transfer to a new class, involuntary transfer to a new location 29 requiring a change of residence, and time base reductions. 30 "Displacement" does not include changes in shifts or days off or 31 reassignment to other positions within the same class and general 32 location. 33 (4) The contract does not cause vacant positions in county 34 employment to remain unfilled. 35 (5) The contract does not adversely affect the county's 36 affirmative action efforts. 37 (6) The savings shall be large enough to ensure that they will 38 not be eliminated by private sector and county cost fluctuations 39 that could normally be expected during the contracting period. 97 AB 1250 —4 1 (7) The amount of savings clearly justifies the size and duration 2 of the contracting agreement. 3 (8) The contract is awarded through a publicized, competitive 4 bidding process. The county shall reserve the right to reject any 5 and all bids or proposals. 6 (9) The contract includes specific provisions pertaining to the 7 qualifications of the staff that will perform the work under the 8 contract, as well as assurance that the contractor's hiring practices 9 meet applicable nondiscrimination, affirmative action standards. 10 (10) The potential for future economic risk to the county from 11 potential contractor rate increases is minimal. 12 (11) The contract is with a firm. "Firm" means a corporation, 13 partnership, nonprofit organization, or sole proprietorship. 14 (12) The potential economic advantage of contracting is not 15 outweighed by the public's interest in having a particular function 16 performed directly by county government. Before executing a 17 contract for personal services under this section, the county shall 18 demonstrate that outsourcing the particular functions at issue is in 19 the public interest, addressing the cost of the contract, the cost of 20 administering the contract, the effect on the quality of services 21 provided to the public, and any other relevant circumstances. 22 (13) The contract shall provide that it maybe terminated at any 23 time by the county without penalty if there is a material breach of 24 the contract and notice is provided at least 30 days before 25 termination. 26 (14) The county shall provide an orientation to employees of 27 the contractor who will perform services pursuant to the contract. 28 The orientation shall include, but is not limited to, all of the 29 following: 30 (A) A description of the services to be provided pursuant to the 31 contract. 32 (B) A description of the function and goals of the public agency 33 responsible for providing the services in the absence of the contract. 34 (C) Any applicable rules governing provision of the services 35 and how the employee may report violations of applicable rules 36 or contractual requirements. 37 (15) The county shall be jointly and severally liable with the 38 contractor and any of its subcontractors for: 97 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 -5— AB 1250 (A) Employment law violations arising from performance of the contract, unless otherwise provided by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement covering the affected employees. (B) Torts committed by the contractor or its subcontractors in the course of providing services under the contract. (16) If the contract is for personal services in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) annually, all of the following shall occur: (A) The county shall require the contractor to disclose all of the following information as part of its bid, application, or answer to a request for proposal: (i) A description of all charges, claims, or complaints filed against the contractor with any federal, state, or local administrative agency during the prior 10 years. (ii) A description of all civil complaints filed against the contractor in any state or federal court during the prior 10 years. (iii) A description of all state or federal criminal complaints or indictments filed against the contractor, or any of its officers, directors, or managers, at any time. (iv) A description of any debarments of the contractor by any public agency or licensing body at any time. (v) The total compensation, including salaries and benefits, the contractor provides to workers performing work similar to that to be provided under the contract. (vi) The total compensation, including salaries, benefits, options, and any other form of compensation, provided to the five highest compensated officers, directors, executives, or employees of the contractor. (vii) Any other information the county deems necessary to ensure compliance with this section. (B) Prior to entering into the contract, the county shall conduct, and make public, a study of the potential impact of outsourcing the work covered by the contract, including, but not limited to: (i) The potential loss of employment opportunities within the county and resultant loss of income to workers. (ii) The economic impact on local businesses if consumer spending power is reduced as a result of reduced wages under the contract. 97 AB 1250 —6 1 (iii) The impact on the county's ability to provide social services 2 and the effect of any reduction in social services on county 3 residents. 4 (iv) Any environmental impact caused by contracting for the 5 services at issue. 6 (C) The contract shall provide that the county is entitled to 7 receive a copy of any records related to the contractor's or any 8 subcontractor's performance of the contract, and that any of those 9 records shall be subject to the California Public Records Act 10 (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of 11 Title 1). In furtherance of this subdivision, contractors and any 12 subcontractors shall maintain records related to performance of 13 the contract that ordinarily would be maintained by the county in 14 performing the same functions. 15 (D) The county shall include in the contract specific, measurable 16 performance standards and provisions for a performance audit by 17 the county, or an independent auditor approved by the county, to 18 determine whether the performance standards are being met and 19 whether the contractor is in compliance with applicable laws and 20 regulations. The county shall not renew or extend the contract prior 21 to receiving and considering the audit report. 22 (E) The contract shall include provisions for an audit by the 23 county, or an independent auditor approved by the county, to 24 determine whether and to what extent the anticipated cost savings 25 have actually been realized. The county shall not renew or extend 26 the contract before receiving and considering the audit report. 27 (b) This section does not preclude a county from adopting more 28 restrictive rules regarding the contracting of public services. 29 (c) When otherwise permitted by law, the absence of any 30 requirement of subdivision (a) shall not prevent personal services 31 contracting when any of the following conditions are met: 32 (1) The contract is for a new county function and the Legislature 33 has specifically mandated or authorized the performance of the 34 work by independent contractors. 35 (2) The services contracted cannot be performed satisfactorily 36 by county employees, or are of such a highly specialized or 37 technical nature that the necessary expert knowledge, experience, 38 and ability are not available among county employees. 39 (3) The services are incidental to a contract for the purchase or 40 lease of real or personal property. Contracts under this criterion, 97 -7— AB 1250 1 known as "service agreements," shall include, but not be limited 2 to, agreements to service or maintain office equipment or 3 computers that are leased or rented. 4 (4) The legislative, administrative, or legal goals and purposes 5 cannot be accomplished through the utilization of county 6 employees. Contracts are permissible under this criterion to protect 7 against a conflict of interest or to ensure independent and unbiased 8 findings in cases where there is a clear need for a different, outside 9 perspective. These contracts shall include, but not be limited to, 10 obtaining expert witnesses in litigation. 11 (5) The nature of the work is such that the standards of this part 12 for emergency appointments apply. These contracts shall conform 13 with Section 31000.4. 14 (6) Public entities or officials need private counsel because a 15 conflict of interest on the part of the county counsel's office 16 prevents it from representing the public entity or official without 17 compromising its position. These contracts shall require the written 18 consent of the county counsel. 19 (7) The contractor will provide equipment, materials, facilities, 20 or support services that could not feasibly be provided by the 21 county in the location where the services are to be performed. 22 (8) The contractor will conduct training courses for which 23 appropriately qualified county employee instructors are not 24 available, provided that permanent instructor positions in academies 25 or similar settings shall be filled by county employees. 26 (9) The services are of such an urgent, temporary, or occasional 27 nature that the delay incumbent in their implementation by county 28 employees would frustrate their very purpose. 29 (d) All persons who provide services to a county under 30 conditions constituting an employment relationship shall -by be 31 employed directly by the county. 32 (e) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), this section shall 33 apply to all counties, including counties that have adopted a merit 34 or civil service system. 35 (2) This section does not apply to a charter county formed 36 pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI of the California Constitution. 37 (f) (1) This section does not apply to any contract for services 38 described in Section 4525 or 4529.10. 97 AB 1250 —8 1 (2) This section does not apply to any contract that is subject 2 to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 3 2 of the Labor Code. 4 (3) This section does not apply to a contract for public transit 5 services, including paratransit services, if the county's transit 6 services are fully funded by Federal Transit Administration 7 assistance and the county is thereby subject to the guidelines 8 established in FTA Circular 4220.1F or any subsequent guidelines 9 or revisions issued by the Federal Transit Administration. 10 (g) This section shall apply to personal services contracts entered 11 into, renewed, or extended on or after January 1, 2018. 12 SEC. 2. Section 31000.11 is added to the Government Code, 13 to read: 14 31000.11. (a) Each county shall maintain on its Internet Web 15 site a searchable database of all contracts of an annual value in 16 excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) entered into 17 pursuant to Section 31000.10. The database shall include, but is 18 not limited to, the following: 19 (1) A description of the services provided under the contract. 20 (2) The name of the agency, department, or division responsible 21 for providing the service in the absence of the contract. 22 (3) The name of the contractor and any subcontractors providing 23 services under the contract. 24 (4) The effective and expiration dates of the contract. 25 (5) The annual amount paid pursuant to the contract to the 26 contractor in the past three fiscal years and the current fiscal year, 27 including the funding source for all amounts paid. 28 (6) The annual amount expected to be paid pursuant to the 29 contract to the contractor in the next three fiscal years. 30 (7) The total projected cost of the contract for all fiscal years 31 and the funding source for all amounts to be paid. 32 (8) The names of the employees of the contractor and any 33 subcontractors providing services pursuant to the contract and their 34 hourly pay rates, and the total number of full-time equivalent 35 positions involved in performing the services under the contract. 36 (9) The names of any workers providing services pursuant to 37 the contract as independent contractors and the compensation rates 38 for such workers. 39 (b) The information identified in subdivision (a) shall be 40 compiled in an annual service contractor expenditure budget 97 -9— AB 1250 1 accompanying the county budget, reflecting all spending on 2 personal services contracts by the county. 3 SEC. 3. Section 37103.1 is added to the Government Code, to 4 read: 5 37103.1. The purpose of this section and Section 37103.2 is 6 to establish standards for the use of personal services contracts by 7 cities. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 (a) If otherwise permitted by law, a city or city agency may contract for personal services currently or customarily performed by city employees when all the following conditions are met: (1) The city council or city agency clearly demonstrates that the proposed contract will result in actual overall cost savings to the city for the duration of the entire contract as compared with the city's actual costs of providing the same services, provided that: (A) In comparing costs, there shall be included the city's additional cost of providing the same service as proposed by a contractor. These additional costs shall include the salaries and benefits of additional staff that would be needed and the cost of additional space, equipment, and materials needed to perform the function. (B) In comparing costs, there shall not be included the city's indirect overhead costs unless these costs can be attributed solely to the function in question and would not exist if that function was not performed in city service. Indirect overhead costs shall mean the pro rata share of existing administrative salaries and benefits, rent, equipment costs, utilities, and materials. (C) In comparing costs, there shall be included in the cost of a contractor providing a service any continuing city costs that would be directly associated with the contracted function. These continuing city costs shall include, but not be limited to, those for inspection, supervision, and monitoring. (2) Proposals to contract out work shall not be approved solely on the basis that savings will result from lower contractor pay rates or benefits. Proposals to contract out work shall be eligible for approval if the contractor's wages are at the industry's level and do not significantly undercut city pay rates. (3) The contract does not cause the displacement of city employees. "Displacement" includes layoff, demotion, involuntary transfer to a new class, involuntary transfer to a new location 97 AB 1250 —10 1 requiring a change of residence, and time base reductions. 2 "Displacement" does not include changes in shifts or days off or 3 reassignment to other positions within the same class and general 4 location. 5 (4) The contract does not cause vacant positions in city 6 employment to remain unfilled. 7 (5) The contract does not adversely affect the city's affirmative 8 action efforts. 9 (6) The savings shall be large enough to ensure that they will 10 not be eliminated by private sector and city cost fluctuations that 11 could normally be expected during the contracting period. 12 (7) The amount of savings clearly justifies the size and duration 13 of the contracting agreement. 14 (8) The contract is awarded through a publicized, competitive 15 bidding process. The city shall reserve the right to reject any and 16 all bids or proposals. 17 (9) The contract includes specific provisions pertaining to the 18 qualifications of the staff that will perform the work under the 19 contract, as well as assurance that the contractor's hiring practices 20 meet applicable nondiscrimination, affirmative action standards. 21 (10) The potential for future economic risk to the city from 22 potential contractor rate increases is minimal. 23 (11) The contract is with a firm. "Firm" means a corporation, 24 partnership, nonprofit organization, or sole proprietorship. 25 (12) The potential economic advantage of contracting is not 26 outweighed by the public's interest in having a particular function 27 performed directly by city government. Before executing a contract 28 for personal services under this section, the city shall demonstrate 29 that outsourcing the particular functions at issue is in the public 30 interest, addressing the cost of the contract, the cost of 31 administering the contract, the effect on the quality of services 32 provided to the public, and any other relevant circumstances. 33 (13) The contract shall provide that it may be terminated at any 34 time by the city without penalty if there is a material breach of the 35 contract and notice is provided at least 30 days before termination. 36 (14) The city shall provide an orientation to employees of the 37 contractor who will perform services pursuant to the contract. The 38 orientation shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following: 39 (A) A description of the services to be provided pursuant to the 40 contract. 97 -11— AB 1250 1 (B) A description of the function and goals of the public agency 2 responsible for providing the services in the absence of the contract. 3 (C) Any applicable rules governing provision of the services 4 and how the employee may report violations of applicable rules 5 or contractual requirements. 6 (15) The city shall be jointly and severally liable with the 7 contractor and any of its subcontractors for: 8 (A) Employment law violations arising from performance of 9 the contract, unless otherwise provided by a bona fide collective 10 bargaining agreement covering the affected employees. 11 (B) Torts committed by the contractor or any of its 12 subcontractors in the course of providing services under the 13 contract. 14 (16) If the contract is for personal services in excess of one 15 hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) annually, all of the following 16 shall occur: 17 (A) The city shall require the contractor to disclose all of the 18 following information as part of its bid, application, or answer to 19 a request for proposal: 20 (i) A description of all charges, claims, or complaints filed 21 against the contractor with any federal, state, or local administrative 22 agency during the prior 10 years. 23 (ii) A description of all civil complaints filed against the 24 contractor in any state or federal court during the prior 10 years. 25 (iii) A description of all state or federal criminal complaints or 26 indictments filed against the contractor, or any of its officers, 27 directors, or managers, at any time. 28 (iv) A description of any debarments of the contractor by any 29 public agency or licensing body at any time. 30 (v) The total compensation, including salaries and benefits, the 31 contractor provides to workers performing work similar to that to 32 be provided under the contract. 33 (vi) The total compensation, including salaries, benefits, options, 34 and any other form of compensation, provided to five highest 35 compensated officers, directors, executives, or employees of the 36 contractor. 37 (vii) Any other information the city deems necessary to ensure 38 compliance with this section. 97 AB 1250 —12 I (B) Prior to entering into the contract, the city shall conduct, 2 and make public, a study of the potential impact of outsourcing 3 the work covered by the contract, including, but not limited to: 4 (i) The potential loss of employment opportunities within the 5 city and resultant loss of income to workers. 6 (ii) The economic impact on local businesses if consumer 7 spending power is reduced as a result of reduced wages under the 8 contract. 9 (iii) The impact on the city's ability to provide social services 10 and the effect of any reduction in social services on city residents. 11 (iv) Any environmental impact caused by contracting for the 12 services at issue. 13 (C) The contract shall provide that the city is entitled to receive 14 a copy of any records related to the contractor's or any 15 subcontractor's performance of the contract, and that any such 16 records shall be subject to the California Public Records Act 17 (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 18 1). In furtherance of this subdivision, contractors and any 19 subcontractors shall maintain records related to performance of 20 the contract that ordinarily would be maintained by the city in 21 performing the same functions. 22 (D) The city shall include in the contract specific, measurable 23 performance standards and provisions for a performance audit by 24 the city, or an independent auditor approved by the city, to 25 determine whether the performance standards are being met and 26 whether the contractor is in compliance with applicable laws and 27 regulations. The legislative body shall not renew or extend the 28 contract prior to receiving and considering the audit report. 29 (E) The contract shall include provisions for an audit by the 30 city, or an independent auditor approved by the city, to determine 31 whether and to what extent the anticipated cost savings have 32 actually been realized. The city shall not renew or extend the 33 contract before receiving and considering the audit report. 34 (b) This section does not preclude a city from adopting more 35 restrictive rules regarding the contracting of public services. 36 (c) When otherwise permitted by law, the absence of any 37 requirement of subdivision (a) shall not prevent personal services 38 contracting when any of the following conditions are met: 97 -13— AB 1250 1 (1) The contract is for a new city function and the Legislature 2 has specifically mandated or authorized the performance of the 3 work by independent contractors. 4 (2) The services contracted cannot be performed satisfactorily 5 by city employees, or are of such a highly specialized or technical 6 nature that the necessary expert knowledge, experience, and ability 7 are not available among city employees. 8 (3) The services are incidental to a contract for the purchase or 9 lease of real or personal property. Contracts under this criterion, 10 known as "service agreements," shall include, but not be limited 11 to, agreements to service or maintain office equipment or 12 computers that are leased or rented. 13 (4) The legislative, administrative, or legal goals and purposes 14 cannot be accomplished through the utilization of city employees. 15 Contracts are permissible under this criterion to protect against a 16 conflict of interest or to ensure independent and unbiased findings 17 in cases where there is a clear need for a different, outside 18 perspective. These contracts shall include, but not be limited to, 19 obtaining expert witnesses in litigation. 20 (5) The nature of the work is such that the standards of this title 21 for emergency appointments apply. These contracts shall conform 22 with Section 45080. 23 (6) Public entities or officials need private counsel because a 24 conflict of interest on the part of the city attorney's office prevents 25 it from representing the public entity or official without 26 compromising its position. These contracts shall require the written 27 consent of the city attorney. 28 (7) The contractor will provide equipment, materials, facilities, 29 or support services that could not feasibly be provided by the city 30 in the location where the services are to be performed. 31 (8) The contractor will conduct training courses for which 32 appropriately qualified city employee instructors are not available, 33 provided that permanent instructor positions in academies or similar 34 settings shall be filled by city employees. 35 (9) The services are of such an urgent, temporary, or occasional 36 nature that the delay incumbent in their implementation by city 37 employees would frustrate their very purpose. 38 (d) All persons who provide services to a city under conditions 39 constituting an employment relationship shall—by be employed 40 directly by the city. 97 AB 1250 —14 1 (e) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), this section shall 2 apply to all cities, including cities that have adopted a merit or 3 civil service system. 4 (2) This section does not apply to a charter city formed pursuant 5 to Section 3 of Article XI of the California Constitution. 6 (f) (1) This section does not apply to any contract for services 7 described in Section 4525 or 4529.10. 8 (2) This section does not apply to any contract that is subject 9 to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 10 2 of the Labor Code. 11 (3) This section does not apply to a contract for public transit 12 services, including paratransit services, if the county's transit 13 services are fully funded by Federal Transit Administration 14 assistance and the county is thereby subject to the guidelines 15 established in FTA Circular 4220.1 F or any subsequent guidelines 16 or revisions issued by the Federal Transit Administration. 17 (g) This section shall apply to personal services contracts entered 18 into, renewed, or extended on or after January 1, 2018. 19 SEC. 4. Section 37103.2 is added to the Government Code, to 20 read: 21 37103.2. (a) Each city shall maintain on its Internet Web site 22 a searchable database of all contracts of an annual value in excess 23 of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) entered into pursuant 24 to Section 37103.1. The database shall include, but is not limited 25 to, the following: 26 (1) A description of the services provided under the contract. 27 (2) The name of the agency, department, or division responsible 28 for providing the service in the absence of the contract. 29 (3) The name of the contractor and any subcontractors providing 30 services under the contract. 31 (4) The effective and expiration dates of the contract. 32 (5) The annual amount paid pursuant to the contract to the 33 contractor in the past three fiscal years and the current fiscal year, 34 including the funding source for all amounts paid. 35 (6) The annual amount expected to be paid pursuant to the 36 contract to the contractor in the next three fiscal years. 37 (7) The total projected cost of the contract for all fiscal years 38 and the funding source for all amounts to be paid. 39 (8) The names of the employees of the contractor and any 40 subcontractors providing services pursuant to the contract and their 97 -15— AB 1250 1 hourly pay rates, and the total number of full-time equivalent 2 positions involved in performing the services under the contract. 3 (9) The names of any workers providing services pursuant to 4 the contract as independent contractors and the compensation rates 5 for such workers. 6 (b) The information identified in subdivision (a) shall be 7 compiled in an annual service contractor expenditure budget 8 accompanying the county budget, reflecting all spending on 9 personal services contracts by the county. 10 SEC. 5. The provisions of this act are severable. If any 11 provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity 12 shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given 13 effect without the invalid provision or application. 14 SEC. 6. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that 15 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to 16 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made 17 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 18 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. U 97 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d a MEETING DATE: May 1, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 1, 2017 From: Kathleen Kane — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter of Opposition Regarding SB 649 — Wireless and Small Cell Telecommunications Facilities RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to send a letter of opposition regarding Senate Bill 649 — Wireless and Small Cell Telecommunications Facilities. BACKGROUND Existing federal and state law significantly limits cities' ability to regulate the placement and size of telecommunications facilities. Beginning with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and continuing through successive federal, state, and regulatory enactments, local control over aesthetics, placement, and size of wireless and cell phone infrastructure has been severely constrained. SB 649 (Hueso) further limits local control by prohibiting discretionary review of "small cell" wireless antennas. Those installations and supporting equipment would, under the proposed law, be allowed as of right in all zones. Further, cities would not be allowed to restrict placement of such installations on city -owned property other than fire stations and would be deprived of their current power to establish lease terms benefitting the public for private cell phone companies' use of public facilities. DISCUSSION As currently drafted, SB 649 invades what had been traditional areas of local control, including aesthetics and the appropriate use of city -owned property. Should this law pass, the legislature will remove cities' ability to determine fair lease terms for their own infrastructure. The constitutionality of this measure is in serious doubt — it transfers rights to publicly owned property to private companies without adequate compensation to the public. The Council has consistently taken positions in favor of supporting appropriate local control over wireless facilities expansion — recognizing the need for wireless infrastructure but seeking to retain some level of influence for the neighbors most immediately affected by the installation of private companies' equipment in public spaces. Staff suggests that the Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter of opposition to the bill's author and other committees or legislators as 1 Opposition to SB 649, 2017 May 1, 2017 appropriate in a form substantially similar to that authored by the League of California Cities, which is attached to this staff report. As of the time of this writing, the bill was scheduled for hearing in the Committee on Government and Finance on April 26. Staff will be able to work with the Mayor to determine the appropriate recipients for his letter based on the outcome of that hearing. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of this bill is unknown; it will reduce or eliminate funding that would otherwise be available from certain wireless facility leases on city -owned property. Exhibits: • Resolution • League of Cities Letter of Opposition • Bill text 9 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER OF OPPOSITION REGARDING SENATE BILL 649, WIRELESS AND SMALL CELL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, existing state and federal law already substantially impair cities' ability to influence the location, size, and impacts of telecommunications facilities; AND WHEREAS, Senate Bill 649 further limits the ability of local citizens to determine what impacts are acceptable in their neighborhoods from telecommunications installations; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 649 effectively eliminates local agencies' control over the installation of private telecommunications equipment on public infrastructure; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 649 benefits the shareholders of privately held corporations at the detriment of local public entities, imposing burdens on neighborhoods while depriving taxpayers of lease income that could offset impacts on public infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame recognizes the need for and supports the development of a robust telecommunications infrastructure; and WHEREAS, existing state and federal law and regulations already provide robust protections and advantages to the telecommunications industry encouraging the buildout of such systems; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 649 represents an unnecessary transfer of property rights from public entities and the taxpayers they serve to private corporations. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT: The City of Burlingame opposes Senate Bill 649 and authorizes the Mayor to send a letter of opposition to the bill's author, Senator Hueso, with a copy to the League of California Cities and others. Mayor Ricardo Ortiz I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day of May, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk L LEAGUE" 1TA CITIES The Honorable Ben Hueso California State Senate, District 40 State Capitol Building, Room 4035 Sacramento, CA 95814 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org RE: SB 649 as Proposed to be Amended by RN 17 08941 (Hueso). Wireless and Small Cell Telecommunications Facilities. Oppose Dear Senator Hueso: The League of California Cities respectfully opposes your SB 649 and proposed amendments in RN 17 08941 (proposal) related to the permitting of wireless and small cell telecommunications facilities. This proposal unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strips local authority over public property and shuts out public input and local discretion by eliminating consideration of the aesthetic and environmental impacts of "small cells." This proposal would prohibit local discretionary review of "small cell" wireless antennas , including equipment collocated on existing structures or located on new "poles, structures, or non -pole structures," including those within the public right-of-way and buildings. The proposal preempts adopted local land use plans by mandating that "small cells" be allowed in all zones as a use by -right, including all residential zones. As such, the proposal provides a de facto exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the installation of such facilities and precludes consideration by the public of the aesthetic, nuisance, and environmental impacts of these facilities, all of which are of particular importance when the proposed location of facilities is within a residential zone. The proposal's use of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) definition of a "small cell" include other "small cell" equipment such as electric meters, concealments, telecom demarcation boxes, ground-based enclosures, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switches, cutoff switches, cables, or conduits. The proposal allows for an unlimited number of antennas of less than three cubic feet each or six cubic feet for all antennas, while placing no height restrictions on the pole. While proponents argue that an individual "small cell" has very little impact, the cumulative size specifications of all the small cells and associated equipment far exceed the perceived impacts from a single cell. The "associated equipment" as defined in this proposal includes up to 28 cubic feet for collocations on all non -pole structures such as on building and water tanks and 21 cubic feet for collocations on all pole structures such as light poles/traffic signal poles/and utility poles when the structures can support less than three providers. For structures that can support at least three providers, the definitions would allow for up to 35 cubic feet for non -pole collocations and 28 cubic feet for pole collocations. The proposal also unconstitutionally preempts local authority by reauirinp local governments to make available sites they own for the installation of a "small cell." While the city may place "fair and reasonable terms and conditions" on the use of city property, the proposal does not provide the city with any discretion to deny a "small cell' to be located on city property except for fire department sites. In effect, this measure unconstitutionally gives control of public property to private telecommunications companies, while also precluding local governments from leasing or licensing publicly owned property. Further, the requirement that a city allow the installation of a small cell on city -owned property not within the right-of-way to the extent that it allows access to the property for other commercial projects or uses has the potential to lead to absurd and illogical results. For example, if a city -owned Little League field allows commercial signage on its outfield wall, the city would be precluded from denying a demand to allow a small cell on the property no matter how inappropriate such a use would be. Under this proposal, local governments would be required to give preferential treatment to one industry that has received "most favored nation" status under state law. No justification is provided for why this is necessary. This bill strips local government of the authority to protect the quality of life of our residents, and to protect public property and the public right-of-way from relatively unconstrained access by small cells. Local governments typically encourage new technology into their boundaries because of its potential to dramatically improve the quality of life for their residents. However, this proposal goes too far by requiring local governments to approve "small cells" in all land use zones, including residential zones, through a ministerial permit, thereby shutting the public out of decisions that could affect the aesthetics of their community and the quality of their environment. For these reasons, the League respectfully Opposes this proposal. If you have any questions regarding our position, please contact Rony Berdugo at 916-658-8283 or at rberdugo@cacities.org. Sincerely, Rony Berdugo Legislative Representative cc: Members, Senate Energy, Utilities, and Commerce Committee Nidia Bautista, Consultant, Senate Energy, Utilities and Commerce Committee Kerry Yoshida, Principal Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 28, 2017 SENATE BILL No. 649 Introduced by Senator Hueso (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Quirk) (Coauthor: Senator Dodd) February 17, 2017 An act to amend "--`ions 65850.6 --' Section 65964-4 of, and to add Section 65964.2 to, the Government Code, relating to telecommunications. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 649, as amended, Hueso. Wireless telecommunications facilities. Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that wireless telecommunications collocation facility, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit. Existing law defittes terms for these purposes. This bill would provide that a small cell is a permitted use, not subject to a city or county discretionary permit, if the small cell meets specified requirements. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state -mandated local program. The bill would authorize a city or county to require an administrative permit for small cell, as specified. The bill would define the term "small cell" as a pattiett4ae type of teleeatntrtdnieations faeili�,- for these purposes. Under existing law, a city or county, as a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction of a 98 SB 649 —2— development project for a wireless telecommunications facility, may not require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof, unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility, or require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county, as specified. This bill would feeilities as defined by this biff. require permits for these facilities to be renewed for equivalent durations, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: fte-yes. State -mandated local program: ae-yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: I SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that, to ensure 2 that communities across the state have access to the most advanced 3 wireless communications technologies and the transformative 4 solutions that robust wireless connectivity enables, such as Smart 5 Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work 6 in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a 7 statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless 8 communications infrastructure in California that does all of the 9 following: 10 (a) Reaffirms local governments' historic role and authority 11 with respect to wireless communications infrastructure siring and 12 construction generally. 13 (b) Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities 14 in the rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a 15 statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of 16 telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both 17 statewide and national concern. 18 (c) Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual 19 small wireless facilities will be sufficiently minor and that such 98 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 -3— SB 649 deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not be subject to discretionary zoning review. (d) Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions adopted at the time the site was originally approved. (e) Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety, and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility deployments on a ministerial basis. (f) Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, street lights, and other suitable host infrastructure located within the public right-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums, parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements, including Public Utilities Commission General Order 95. (g) Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching small wireless facilities to utility poles, street lights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally. (h) Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based. (i) Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today. SEE. 2. Seetiea 65839.6 of the Gavemmentcode isxanende ad to read: 98 SB 649 — 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 98 •••, • - 6 negative • ,i:lil•\:l:ri.,.:I:�f:.:l .i.•�ii': 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 98 -5— SB 649 1 2 r_o 3 "Small 4 within the valume limits established by the Federal. 6 assoeiated equipment irt the First Amendment to Nationwide 7 8 9 10 and tietwork eomponents stteh as towers, utility poles, transmitters, 11 base stations, and emergeney power systents that are integral to 12 providing wireless teleeommunientions seffiees. 13 " means 14 15 €aeilities. 16 (e) The Legislature finds and deelares that both stnall eel! 17 18 19 that term is used itt .. S.tion 5 of A!� r]_1. VT of the _1 f oriti 200 Genstittition, but of statewide eoneern. 21 22 23 be limited to that authorized by Seetion 332(e)(7) of Tide 44 of 24 the Un4ted States Code, or as that seetion ntay be hereafte 25 amended. 26 SEG. '.r. 27 SEC. 2. Section 65964 of the Government Code is amended 28 to read: 29 65964. Asa condition of approval of an application for a permit 30 for construction or reconstruction for a development project for a 31 wireless telecommunications faeility or sma4l teI47faciliry, as 32 defined in Section 65850.6, a city or county shall not do any of 33 the following: 34 (a) Require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless 35 telecommunications facility or any component thereof. However, 36 a performance bond or other surety or another form of security 37 may be required, so long as the amount of the bond security is 38 rationally related to the cost of removal. In establishing the amount 39 of the security, the city or county shall take into consideration 98 SB 649 —6 1 information provided by the permit applicant regarding the cost 2 of removal. 3 (b) Unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless 4 telecommunications facility. Limits of less than 10 years are 5 presumed to be unreasonable absent public safety reasons or 6 substantial land use reasons. However, cities and counties may 7 establish a build -out period for a site. A permit shall be renewed 8 for an equivalent duration unless the city or county makes afmding 9 that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with 10 the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit I I was initially approved. 12 (c) Require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be 13 limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction 14 of the city or county. 15 SEC. 3. Section 65964.2 is added to the Government Code, to 16 read: 17 65964.2. (a) A small cell shall be a permitted use not subject 18 to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies the following 19 requirements: 20 (1) The small cell is located in the public right-of-way in any 21 zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use. 22 (2) The small cell complies with all applicable state and local 23 health and safety regulations. 24 (3) The small cell is not located on afire department facility. 25 (b) (1) A city or county may require that the small cell be 26 approved pursuant to a single administrative permit provided that 27 the permit is issued within the time frames required by state and 28 federal law. 29 (2) An administrative permit may be subject to the following: 30 (A) The same administrative permit requirements as similar 31 construction projects applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. 32 (B) The submission of additional information showing that the 33 small cell complies the Federal Communications Commission's 34 regulations concerning radio frequency emissions referenced in 35 Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of Title 47 of the United States Code. 36 (3) The administrative permit shall not be subject to: 37 (A) Requirements to provide additional services, directly or 38 indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions such 39 as reservingfiber, conduit, orpole space. 98 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 -7— SB 649 (B) The submission of any additional information other than that required ofsimilar constructionprojects, except as specifically provided in this section. (C) Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size or smaller. (D) The regulation of any antennas mounted on cable strands. (c) A city or county shall not preclude the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public right-of-way orpublic utility easements under the terms set forth in this paragraph. Vertical infrastructure shall be made available under fair and reasonable fees, terms, and conditions and offered on a nondiscriminatory basis for small cells. Fees shall be cost -based, and shall not exceed the lesser of either of the following: (1) The costs of ownership of the percentage of the volume of the capacity of the vertical infrastructure rendered unusable by a small cell. (2) The rate produced by applying the formula adopted by the Federal Communications Commission for telecommunications pole attachments in Section 1.1409(e)(2) of Part 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (d) A city or county shall not unreasonably discriminate in the leasing or licensing of property not located in the public right-of-way owned or operated by the city or county for installation of a small cell. A city or county shall authorize the installation of a small cell on property owned or controlled by the city or county not located within the public right-of-way to the same extent the city or county permits access to that property for commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions. (e) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) (A) "Small cell" means a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in Section 65850.6, using licensed or unlicensed spectrum that meets the fallowing qualifications: (i) Any individual antenna, excluding the associated equipment, is individually no more than three cubic feet in volume, and all antennas on the structure total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether in a single array or separate. 98 SB 649 —8 1 (ii) (I) The associated equipment on pole structures does not 2 exceed 21 cubic feet for poles that can support fewer than three 3 providers or 28 cubic feet for pole collocations that can support 4 at least three providers, or the associated equipment on nonpole 5 structures does not exceed 28 cubic feet for collocations that can 6 supportfewer than three providers or 35 cubic feet for collocations 7 that can support at least three providers. 8 (II) The following types of associated ancillary equipment are 9 not included in the calculation of equipment volume: 10 (ia) Electric meters and any required pedestal. 11 (ib) Concealment elements. 12 (ic) Any telecommunications demarcation box. 13 (id) Grounding equipment. 14 (ie) Power transfer switch. 15 (ifJ Cut-off switch. 16 (ig) Vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other 17 services. 18 (B) "Small cell "does not include communications infrastructure 19 extending beyond the telecommunications demarcation box. 20 (2) "Vertical infrastructure" means allpoles orsimilarfacilities 21 owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public 22 right-of-way or public utility easements and meant for, or used in 23 whole or in part for, communications service, electric service, 24 lighting, traffic control, signage, or similarfunctions. 25 (0 The Legislaturefinds and declares that small cells, as defined 26 in this section, have a significant economic impact in California 27 and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of 28 Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of 29 statewide concern. 30 SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to 31 Section 6 of ArticleMIIB of the California Constitution because 32 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service 33 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or 34 level ofservice mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 35 17556 of the Government Code. Cel 99 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8e a MEETING DATE: May 1, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 1, 2017 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7255 Subject: Set Public Hearing Date for an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action Regarding Applications for Design Review and a Hillside Area Construction Permit for First- and Second -Story Additions to a Home Located at 1556 Alturas Drive RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council set the date of the public hearing on the appeal for May 15, 2017. BACKGROUND At its regular meeting of April 10, 2017, the Planning Commission approved requests related to the construction of first- and second -story additions onto an existing home located at 1556 Alturas Drive. The appeal period following the Planning Commission's action ran until 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 20th. A timely appeal of the Commission's action was filed by the property owner (Mark Wilson) on that date with the City Clerk's office (letter attached). The applicant is specifically appealing the requirements of one of the conditions of project approval related to replacement of existing windows. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibit: Appeal Letter 1 4//';L ()// A--o� Ze / s;5-6 6414G.rd-j Of -,1 wUwl l Iiia, te) C�o1,e�j �p � jari i /0' lf le4myl w� ��el 'd✓p� rSSa S �h ,� c�7 v�-�c,� c ?I t ry, f�h/3alJ RECEIVED APR 2 fv� 2017 CITY CLERICS OFFICE CyT� U INGAME 2 0 2Q1% CITY OF E3TID aGAMIIE 4"Cif3•Ft F;:\!FiIPiCi t iIN. B�R`�E STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 1, 2017 AGENDA NO: 8f MEETING DATE: May 1, 2017 From: Sigalle Michael, Sustainability Coordinator — (650) 558-7261 Subject: Approval of an Application for the Chargel Program Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter on behalf of the City of Burlingame authorizing the City's application for the Charge! program to install workplace electric vehicle charging stations in four City of Burlingame facilities: City Hall, Main Library, Police Station, and the Public Works Corp Yard. BACKGROUND California is working to expand electric vehicle (EV) purchases and the EV charging station network to meet adopted greenhouse gas emission goals. AB 32 directs the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15% in 2020 and by 80% in 2050. In 2016, Governor Brown signed an Executive Order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% in 2030. Transforming the state's transportation system away from gasoline to zero -emission vehicles is a key part of California's strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the growth of EVs will significantly improve air pollution. Vehicle emissions are the largest contributor to air pollution in California and in the Bay Area. Burlingame's climate action goals are aligned with AB 32's greenhouse gas reduction targets. Burlingame adopted its first climate action plan in 2009 and is now updating it as part of the City's general plan update process. The updated climate action plan will most likely stay consistent with the state's climate goals and include strategies to enhance and support Burlingame's EV network. DISCUSSION Several Burlingame staff members have expressed interest in the City providing workplace charging stations so that they can charge their EV commute vehicles. EVs are becoming more common in workplaces as more and more people commute by EV. Employees may commute by EV to reduce pollution emissions, avoid fossil fuel use, save money, and take advantage of carpool lane benefits offered to EV drivers. Workplaces are installing EV chargers to support their employees, ease commutes, recruit and retain employees, and meet corporate goals and or government regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 1 Charge! Program Grant Funding May 1, 2017 Staff surveyed Burlingame City employees to gauge interest and demand for EV chargers. The highest demand was found by staff working in City Hall, where six people currently drive an EV and up to eight would potentially purchase an EV if a charging station existed. The Police Station was a close second in demand for workplace EV charging stations. The survey results are summarized in the table below. EV Charging Station Survey City police Corp Rec Library Parks Results Hall Yard Center Yard Currently drives an EV 6 5 3 2 0 0 Would charge at work if could 6 5 3 2 0 0 Would pay to charge at work 6 4 1 1 0 0 Would purchase an EV if charging stations were 8 5 1 4 0 1 A number of local jurisdictions and businesses have workplace EV charging stations. The cities of San Carlos, San Mateo, Menlo Park, and Portola Valley have EV charging stations at their City Halls for staff and public use; and the cities of Millbrae, San Mateo, and Redwood City have EV charging stations at their libraries for staff and public use. San Mateo's City Hall EV chargers are for staff use only during business hours. San Mateo County also has EV charging stations exclusively for County staff use. Burlingame has four public EV charging stations at the Burlingame Caltrain Station and no other recorded public, workplace, or multi -family charging stations. The San Francisco Airport Marriott, and possibly other Burlingame hotels, and Putnam Nissan auto dealership have EV chargers for customer use. Staff recommends that the City Council consider installing additional charging stations in Burlingame for staff and public use. Staff received a preliminary cost proposal from a contractor to estimate the cost of installing one charging station each at City Hall, the Police Station, the Corp Yard, and the Library. The Police Station and Corp Yard chargers will be exclusively for staff use; the City Hall and Library chargers will be for staff and public use. The City Hall and Library charging stations will be an added benefit for downtown Burlingame businesses and visitors and for the many multi -family residents in the neighborhood. The estimated conservative project costs are summarized in the table below. The Rec Center was not included due to tentative future plans for a new Community Center to replace the existing building. In addition to the project costs below, ChargePoint charges $400/charger/year for their payment system. 2 Charge! Program Grant Funding Location Cost City Hall $12,980 Police Station $13,260 Corp Yard $12,530 Library/Lot A $11,700 Soft costs (staff time, signage, permit fees, $20,188 etc.,+40%a) ChargePoint fees $3,040 Total $73,698 May 1, 2017 To fund the project, staff recommends applying for a grant from The Charge! program, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's $5 million grant program that offsets up to 75% of the cost of purchasing, installing, and operating charging stations. The Charge! program's purpose is to rapidly expand the Bay Area's EV charging network. The application process is open until May 22, and funds are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis. Burlingame staff is preparing the Charge! program application to fund the City's proposed workplace EV charging station project. The Charge! program's criteria requires applicants to secure funding for at least 25% of the project costs. The project's preliminary cost proposal equals $73,698. Assuming the project total is $73,698, staff recommends applying for $53,598 in grant funds and committing to cover the $20,000 project balance. If the City is awarded the grant funding, staff will undertake a competitive bid process and release a request for proposals (RFP) for the project, which will likely result in a different final cost and grant award. Staff proposes that the City commit to funding 25% of the project, up to a total project cost of $100,000 (or a $25,000 maximum match). If funded, the City will agree to purchase, install, and operate the EV charging stations within the Charge! program's stated timeframe and requirements. Because the Charge! program requires a letter of authorization from the City Council as part of the application, staff has drafted a letter for the Mayor's signature authorizing the City to complete the application for the Charge! program's grant funds. Given the competitive, first-come, first- served nature of these funds, staff recommends that the City submit its application as soon as possible. Should the City not receive any grant funds from this program, then staff will need to return to the City Council for a discussion about which chargers, if any, to install at the City's expense. FISCAL IMPACT The preliminary project costs totaled $73,698. This cost will change depending on the project's RFP process and final project details. If the City is awarded the Charge! program grant, the maximum cost to the City will be $25,000. Funds for this purpose are available from the City's general fund. Exhibit: Letter of Authorization 3 ARDO MICHAEL OR WNRIYOR The City of Burlingame MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, VICE MAYOR DONNA COLSON EMILY BEACH ANN KEIGHRAN May 1, 2017 Attn: Ms. Karen Schkolnick Air Quality Program Manager Bay Area Air Quality Management District 375 Beale Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94105 CITY HALL -- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 RE: Commitment to Implement Charge! Application Dear Ms. Schkolnick: TEL: (650) 558-7204 FAX: (650) 342-8386 www.burlingame.org I am writing on behalf of the City Council of the City of Burlingame to authorize the enclosed application for the Charge! Program to( install workplace electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in four City of Burlingame facilities: City Hall, Main Library, Police Station, and the Public Works Corp Yard. Sigalle Michael, Burlingame's Sustainability Coordinator, will be the lead contact for this project. The City of Burlingame is seeking to expand its EV charging network for use by City employees, residents, downtown Burlingame patrons, and the general public. Burlingame's City Hall and Main Library are located near Downtown Burlingame and within a predominantly multi -family residential neighborhood. The charging stations at these two facilities would serve City employees and the public. The EV charging stations at the Police Station and Corp Yard would be exclusively for employee use. The proposed EV charging stations will greatly enhance the City's EV network, which is currently Comprised of two double charging stations at the Burlingame Caltrain Station. The City of Burlingame agrees to comply with all of the funding and eligibility requirements for the Charge! Program. The project's preliminary cost proposal is approximately $73,698. Assuming the project total is $73,698 we are applying for $53,598, and we have $20,000 in secured funds from the City's general fund to cover the project's balance. If the City is awarded funding for the project, we will initiate a competitive bid process and release a request for proposals for the project, which may lead to a different final cost. The City is prepared to fund 25% of the project, up to a total project cost of $100,000 (for a maximum match of $25,000). If funded, we agree to purchase and install the EV charging stations within the agreed time from the date the funding agreement is executed, and we will operate the stations at least until the minimum requirements are met. I am confident that the project will be successfully implemented due to our experience with EV chargers at the Burlingame Caltrain Station, and our past positive experience with other Air District grants. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to Ms. Karen Schkolnick May 1, 2017 Page 2 positive response to the City's grant application. Please contact Sigalle Michael at smichael@budingame.org or 650-558-7261 with any questions. Sincerely, Ricardo Ortiz Mayor ❑ Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlinaame org ❑ �C �.- w(7 AGENDA ITEM NO: 9a BURL STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 1, 2017 Honorable Mayor and City Council To: Date: May 1, 2017 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 Subject Public Hearing and Adoption of Broadway Area Business Improvement Assessments for Fiscal Year 2017-18 Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Hold a public hearing to consider any protests to the Broadway Business Improvement District (BID) assessments; 2. End the public hearing and ask the City Clerk to report out any protests filed with the City; and, 3. If protests do not represent the majority of the assessments, then adopt the resolution setting the 2017-18 fiscal year assessments. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted a resolution of intention to set the 2017-18 fiscal year Broadway Area BID assessments on April 3, 2017, and established May 1, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. as the public hearing date and time. No changes in the boundaries, assessments or business classifications of the business district are proposed. If there is a protest by businesses that represent a majority of the value of the assessments, then the resolution cannot be approved. As of the time of writing this memorandum, the City had not received any protests, although protests may be presented in writing before or at the hearing. Any and all protests must be received by the City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. FISCAL IMPACT Up to $27,050 in assessments is collected annually with City business licenses. All of these funds are forwarded to the Broadway Area Business Improvement District for improvements as authorized by. the BID Board of Directors. The City of Burlingame covers the expenses associated with the renewal of the BID. Exhibits: • Resolution • Broadway BID Assessment Roll (showing weight of protest votes) 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING AND LEVYING 2017-18 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the City Council of the City of Burlingame established the Broadway Area Business Improvement District ("BABID") for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of said business district; and WHEREAS, the BABID Advisory Board has filed its 2016-17 annual report with the City Clerk and has requested the Burlingame City Council to set and levy the BABID assessments for the 2017-18 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2017, the Burlingame City Council approved the BABID's annual report and adopted a Resolution of Intention to levy BABID assessments for the 2017-18 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the Burlingame City Council set a public hearing to consider its levy of assessments on the businesses in the BABID for May 1, 2017, at 7:00 p.m, at the Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, and said public hearing was duly noticed as required by State law; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on May 1, 2017, the Burlingame City Council received and considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons and any and all written protests presented by businesses within the BABID; and WHEREAS, the current level of assessments on businesses in the BABID will continue to be levied for the fiscal year 2017-18 so that improvements and programs may continue in the BABID; and WHEREAS, the BABID's proposed activities and improvements, the proposed assessments, and the boundaries of the District for the 2017-18 fiscal year are without change from those currently in place for the BABID. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND FIND AS FOLLOWS: 1. All of the facts and assertions recited above, in the staff report, and in supporting documentation are true and correct. 2. Written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received at or before the close of the public hearing on May 1, 2017, that constituted a majority as defined in Government Code sections 36500 and following. 3. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the 2017-18 fiscal year on businesses in the BABID as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1461, to pay for improvements and activities of the BABID. 4. The types of improvements and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the BABID are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein. 5. The method and basis for levying the assessments on all businesses within the BABID are set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 1st day of May, 2017, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: 2 Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk EXHIBIT A TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE FUNDED BY THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS 1) Streetscape Beautification, Seasonal Decorations, and Public Arts Programs a. Seasonal street plantings of flowers. b. Seasonal flags and banners. C. Sidewalk enhancement and maintenance. 2) Business Recruitment and Retention a. Matching funds for storefront improvement incentive b. Develop strategy to fill commercial vacancies. C. Small business assistance workshops. 3) Commercial Marketing, Public Relations, and Advertising a. Organize special events throughout the year. 4) Shuttle a. Establish a people mover system between the area and the hotel district, to be funded on a cooperative cost sharing basis. EXHIBIT B BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT BASIS* BUSINESS TYPE RETAIL & RESTAURANT SERVICE PROFESSIONAL FINANCIAL NO. OF STAFF ** ANNUAL ASSESSMENT 4+ ----------------------------------------- $450 1-3 $300 3+ ----------------------------------------- $250 1-2 $150 3+ $200 --- 1 - 2 $150 NA $500 ----- Amount shown is annual total ** --- Staff means any persons working (full time or full time equivalency) including owners, partners, managers, employees, family members, etc. Business Definitions (Burlingame Municipal Code § 6.52.010): Retail ❑ Businesses that buy and resell goods. Examples are clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies, etc. Restaurant ❑ Selling prepared food and drink. Service ❑ Businesses that sell services. Examples are beauty and barber shops, repair shops that do not sell goods, contractors, auto shops, etc. Professional ❑ Includes engineering firms, architects, attorneys, dentists, optometrists, physicians, realtors, insurance offices, etc. Financial ❑ Banks, savings and loans, household finance companies, etc. Il o \ o \ a° o \ a: o \ a: o o \ \ o \ \ o \ o tp w W tD t0 l0 LD W t0 tp lD tp LD w 1p lD -I N -I N 0 tp tp Up tp tp tp tp tp l0 lD 1p 1p lD 1p tD m l0 tD l0 e-1 N r1 c c� a .--I O ------------------- ci L W r r r r r> r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r a r a W a a a a a a a a a a a¢ a¢ a¢ a a a a a a a Q a a a a t� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c¢ Q Q a Q a Q a a a a a a Q a Q a Q a a a Q a a a a 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N m m z� m z z m� m m m o: s s o: w o: w z m m w w m w o c z o: z s o: z s� m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m O w 0 N O m O m O N w m w w N 0 Ifl M O t0 O -0 rl Ch -zt m N a 1� M t0 lD N n 0 0 0 0 m O� c m O O M N N M 1, w m O N N N W N e�-I c�-I N .�-� eN-I N N N emi emi am -I em -I } J U H LL z U � ¢ Z j (J 2i V Q U Q Z a w ¢ U z a ~ - a o = =U O p Z w a w J z V Z m F m O m w p w z OW p Zp Z (7 O O z (7 t^ Z z Q O❑ U}❑ K U vJi m m 2' w j Z 2� p Z � O Z j = O O z Y Z p Q¢ a twi s= Y Vf c/i S w U O w N Q r Z w c¢ G CY cc p r 2 p J LU ❑ 2 W c� m Q w Y Z 1 o¢ n K Y Ln a Z J g z n cc D Z Z (D zJ� ❑ °� °� z a g Z Q U e W Q a Q a Z W w .Z g U Q g z Y a 2 s Q O w z z a Q m m w c LL LL 3 j ? � pr > o w❑ U W o m a LL i--� U m m w r¢ J V) w C IQ V Z J (A Q J U w H a Q (7 z EA m Z N w w F� LL W x Z W }> W F O Z) O O O W ¢ O a J oiS z F V cc W O W m Z_ ¢ � a m w V f-. ~ Z ~ K cO. Q U N z ❑ o: W Q J W C z Z V Z a z OJ z Ln o a 0 cw Q m Z_ a Z {n K LL Q U U p Z G U W pC J C ❑ QLU LL Z :=7 Z D U tp 0 w z< 2, O J O¢ O ¢ V O g Q O U❑ Z 0 a O 0 LL ¢ w� w❑ o: o: K U U U O w l U w ¢ U �- O w U to Q r W W Q Z 0_ p IW- W w 3 a Ln m¢ Z❑ � w 'n O z 0 �7 0g Q r� z r 0 Z J w Z m z w O Z U V= O Z C) w ¢V' 2i in O Q Q ❑ oiS n W a n Z Q 0 LU Y r a❑ Cal m S p m O r a (7 O z K Q W Z Z O 3 a M ❑ W g C W¢ p m w Z w z W c� J ¢ g_ z g o o W¢ O W a¢ O z w (D Z U k z N rc Z z a r w w O J¢ Y F `n a w> U m W Q m w m Q J w Z Q 0 0¢ D W _Y ¢ >j p z O r C- p U m m 7 to m U K m❑ m¢ Q 2 w J cn CO �- m > r K d r> a m N V N m O m m m O N t0 m t0 m N W m m r, (n N m H N ei m N 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w M uY M m m N N m� to to to m N� N N u1 to Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL V V V C M m M m M M m m m 0 m W ---------------------- O H U ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O w M W N m M 0 M I- M N m d' N N 00 N al 1p O '-I N m t0 V V al W V) N dl ri 0) N I, m ei I, O n O n H O w V m N 0 to I- m N O w m O O m V N M ul O Z N 0) m e I, M 00 d' 0) V M-* t0 I, c I- Ol 0) O LD N t0 O tp O 00 O 00 M V1 O O O V m M m m O V i, at O n n O N Vl N m n �'I O N N M m N N N y,� m N e -I M N N N M O N O M N N N N e O N N m N N U J e a a a a a a a a: o a o a' o o o a �'-� N ri ci �--� ri N N N N N c -I H •-i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 4Y In Ln Ln M ri N ri H ri H N N N N r -I N ri H N c -I m Ol Ol Ol Cl 01 01 M 0l Ol 01 M Ol In m Ln Ln N ri c -I ri N ri N N N N N N ci .-I N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 rl 00 3t a a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a a ¢ ¢ a ¢ a a ¢ ¢ a a ¢ a a ¢ ¢ a a Q ¢ Q Q Q ¢ a Q Q Q a¢ Q¢ Q¢¢ Q¢ Q Q¢¢ Q Q¢¢¢ ¢¢¢ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m� m m m� m� m z� m� m z� m m m m s m m, m z� s s z rc z z ac z m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m N m r -I N H m O n m m m O N m N O N Cr m H N V O Ln o H M ON N lD tD r-1 m� o O o N N In w O N M m In Ln p O N m H N N O In w w N w O N N N m N N N to m m M m m M 'cl' ct V V V c} N N N ri c-1 N N 1-1 N rl N N rH H N N N U Z Z M Q u O z Z D U 0 u x `c U z u O J > J J J J Z Z } 7 J Y W O `^ G J¢ d' W❑ 1x.7 a Z Q H Q 0 Z Z m J f., Z ❑ W Z Q Q O W J a Z Q N o to W U ¢ } w w H Lj N Z c Y O l7 Q H 7 0_ V Z J w a z -' m Z W G G ¢ V F Q LL x m cl co ❑ N 0 ¢ W J H m ¢ x lJ ¢ C J N O O z Z 0 0 K❑ Q m w u a m 0 2> 2 2❑ Q w } Z K 0 Q z Z a 0 0 O❑ O¢ w `-n n, z J O J 6< o Z E N oM C7 z oc Z O} z 00 _ °C Z J F Q z �_ Z w g> w Z `m'I w � 2 w= C7 2> w O Q g aW' J_ z 0 C7 O U W z m w Q Q 7❑ O z O Q Q �i VI W D W v O W„ Q 2 x to d J O a O z x O x Q > l.7 an z ri ❑ U, a C7 U O J Q x a¢ H z U O F w x Ln N w w J W N ¢W In V '~n IuI-- O W W U J ❑ YL ¢ J ❑ DC W Z Z ❑ U V J Z 0 o_ w 0¢ O In z Q J 0 z ¢ } ti 0 a i Z m Z m m u z W 0 W W F❑ W ❑ u Q a= N V m Q Q �-- cW G U z� ~ J Z ca 1' Y W �r 0 W r c Q O O Q Q z Q C Q Z K W z U N> J G F c� Q Z D_ K }❑ U❑ m¢ z v O¢ O F 2i O W w o C z O o o m Z J¢ O F o N U 3 Z c Y O Q N❑ C7 of 0 7 J P❑ O w o w O j Z U an m Q Q Q z Ln w Z m z Q cc Z J w p In z Q O Z W Z Z w O N Q U a m W> Q O w Q �n a (7 N N❑ 2 Z J~¢ J H >�❑ w W O Q J w 7 v 2 a a CO O w o 2 K aw[ ¢ w a p °� 2 Q O a a Z U m CO an C7 m ❑ Y to 1- a Q U H I- D_ Z _ Ln of m W aC U l7 Z ❑ N N N N m r -I N m m N m M (N N I -I r M w M tD M l V to V M to N ci N N r -I O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 O O O O O 0000 O O m to m N Ln N m M an u1 v7 to N L L to an In m m m m M m m m M M M M to m m M N N N N N N N N N N N N N H H N N N vt tr• V> <n .n ----------------- v} to vn vn v} v>• v> vt vt- <n. vt <n vt• .n sn <n yr an N N N NNN N N N N N N N N N N M M M M m m m m M M M M m a a v a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I, N m tD N N -:I, n N lD to lD N O) Ol a> U'1 N m to O N W m m N N -;t M In m to M V w m r O I, N m m V N M m m M w M o tD W r I, V In n N ri m Ct O I� Z3.to LD w tD V V m V In m ri O n M m M N N� to r� m N M m V n m m N O m lD O w I, r- N N m m O . m m M LO P, N N m I� n n O to O O I, m m m "N w to N N N N r N N O m m m N N a r N m 't N O r N N m m m N N N N N N o r m N 0 0\ O O\\\ 0 0 0\ I O O O O\\ m In Ill L.fl Ln Ln m IA ll'I In lf1 In In Ln Ln Ln In Ln Ln ill m l!1 W Ln ul 111 Ln m Ln Ln Ln in Ln In In in Ln Ln in ul in ul In m' Ln Vi In m w O'J w m In 0 N Ln 0 In 0 in 0 Ln 0 Ln 0 0 N Ln 0 In 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LD W r J O rn W � N M m Ln IC 3L 3i 4t Ik ik N # S N Ik N Ik m Y } IL } 7F } 7k } } } } } } Q F } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } Q } Q } Q } Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Vl Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 > 0 3 cl Z 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 C2 0 0 0 0 0 0 a cl a 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q a a a Q Q Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q a Q Q Q a Q a a Q Q Q Q Q Q a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0=D O o O o 0 o O o O o O o o U 000000000000 m m m m 2 m m m m m m m m m m m m J m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m U m m m m m m m m m m m m W m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 Ol Ln Ln lA Ln In Ill Il O 01 m m N W m 0 m 0 0 Ln Ill 0 00 M m d' m n d' N N N m N LD Ql M CF c-1 N N c-1 Q FiT Z z Z W Y Z a z m w_ Q Q Q O Q w m Ln w F _ z vl ❑ U 7 In p w an Z a Y Y 2 ~ J w z Y 3 Q O m O Q 3 O W J_ (7 Q S a❑ > Vl W Ln a z Q U Z Y U w F U m O U m 2 to ❑ LL O Y in m z o2$ U o Q g z W J a< Z z z w w m Q Q�� w= 5 O w z 2 m J 0} a> Q Vl 7 J (D 2 O w 3- w Z a z F, m m Q 2 �Q O m? a 2 2 m wa N Z Z m H D Z Z} m N N o Ir_ LL Y W z Z 2 0 D m❑ z O¢ a 0 N 2 2 W m Y J z g a> m Y m J= J Q J (7 O m Z Q Q F❑ >. J w Q Z a Z❑ Z m w 2 U 7 a J m w z Q a K 2 N Z o Q❑ m Z R g 2 w 01 2 2i 7 to w U to K a( m CO U Q N in a H a w C) Q F F (7 U z w z Z m Q ZO w F (7 < Q U m Q W ? m d (7 ❑ J Z z ❑ ❑ o}}f w m N 7 Z Q N Z N a m Q Z m w z of W Z❑ Q {O{U-- cr Z V=1 z WO U w z VFl 0� U U o D W W 0❑ Q QU�e� Z O J m O j z= m z Z Z m twit a a w N= J m❑ W 2 Q w m O z 2 m Y } a W J Vl } Q m M fa-. 0ii ]& w Z Y U Z a } O U Q N O a N o Z a U m U W Q Z cw w J U H Z Z } m O } ❑ K W ❑ J Z U m }} Z U Q Q C Z Q= Z W g J a O w J Z !n W V1 m a Q Z J< u- Z 2 5 Z c❑ 2 a J m OF >j a W 2❑ Z O m Q LL (9 a () Q � 0❑ LL j t m W O Vaj m a F O Y Z O� U Z N o a w Z 7 z 0 U m❑❑ Z I}i m J w Y m m � Q a m Y m Z w J J m O m 0 0 Q s 7 m Q o z Q z❑ z w -� g Q 2 w z 7❑ O Z s N 0 o O> U W w Q H a m m K J 2 w O c g w ❑ m Q F a W U F w LL to N N rl N .--I N .--I N N N N N m M N N N e -I c -I N r• -I N i m l0 N N c -I N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m m m m m O 0 m m m tom m N 0 0 0 0 m m to M m Ln o m Ln Ln m M W Ln m Ln N N r-1 N rl r-1 ei e -I N e -I M Ln m O n N Vf V} -------------------------- VF Vn VT Vt- V? yn V? VT Vl• Vt• V} +/! V} V} V} VT ur N V) V} VT V} V} V} V} VT V �t �t V d' V d' a a d' In N LD W LD m LD LO LD W d' V M � � 00 N 0^0 N N O O Ol LOO O Ol m LO V M m m tt I, 00TCCYO)N� -I V to ""� V LD V tn r, N n O M d' LO m O N OO1O1 N 00 M mr M M N c N V m 41 W Lb a -I Ol d' i� V M N I� CI' O �'-� M lX1 m I� Vl c -I M Ml0 N N N N O N N N N e -I N c -I N N N O N N a STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 9b MEETING DATE: May 1, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 1, 2017 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director— (650) 558-7222 Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule Effective July 1, 2017 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Hold a public hearing in connection with updates to the City's Master Fee Schedule, and 2) Adopt a resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2017-18. BACKGROUND The City Council has traditionally approved a Master Fee Schedule as part of the budget process. Fee adjustments are not automatic; they require an annual review and approval by the City Council. An annual review and update ensures that fees reflect current costs to provide services, allows the addition of fees when applicable for new City services, and provides for the elimination of fees for discontinued services. Since the City's Master Fee Schedule generally reflects user fees that are intended to represent 100% cost recovery of fully burdened rates, a comprehensive cost allocation plan and user fee study is needed to help determine the actual cost of providing City services, and to help the departments establish appropriate user fees. An update of the City's cost allocation plan was completed based on fiscal year 2015-16 costs, and was used last year to inform staff recommendations for fees charged in the current 2016-17 fiscal year. For many services, an increase to full cost recovery significantly increased the fee. Upon review of these recommendations, the City Council indicated some discomfort in authorizing fees that were increased by more than double the current fee charged per the 2015-16 Master Fee Schedule. As a result, certain fees were reduced from staff's initial proposal to reflect no more than two times the then -current fee, even where such a cap created a shortfall between the actual cost of services and the fee charged. This year's review of fees allowed departmental staff to reassess the factors that are considered in establishing fees for various services, as well as to determine whether the prior year's cost recovery strategy for each fee remains appropriate. For example, if full cost recovery for a service was recommended last year and remains an appropriate strategy, the fee recommendation for the service was to again increase the fee to recover as much of the City's 7 Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2017.18 May 1, 2017 costs as possible, while adhering to a cap of double the current fee. As this methodology was not clearly delineated at the April 3rd meeting, where Council was asked to set tonight's public hearing, this report is intended to clarify the recommendations provided by staff for the 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule. DISCUSSION California law gives cities the ability to impose fees for governmental services when an individual's use of the City service is voluntary, and the fee charged is reasonable to the level of service and the cost of providing the service. The 2015 user -fee study was undertaken to ensure that the City meets the statutory test for imposing user fees. The study also identified all costs associated with providing services (levels that would reflect 100% cost recovery), as well as services in which the General Fund subsidizes the fees charged by the City. User fees that are intended to represent the full cost of each service include the cost of direct labor (direct staff time spent on service); indirect labor (administrative and supervisory time); and central services overhead (other budgetary support for the department providing service). User fees that are highly sensitive and promote citizen engagement are exceptions to the objective of full cost recovery. Typically, the amount of cost recovery that is desired from any user fee relates to the amount of general public benefit derived from offering of the service. Many services that are totally discretionary in nature (e.g., document handling and processing fees, fingerprinting, recreation classes, and certain permits) confer benefits largely to the user alone, and 100% cost recovery is appropriate. Note that in order to achieve 100% cost recovery for any service, "full costs" per the 2015 user -fee study should be increased each year based on the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI) to reflect general cost increases. The CPI as of February 28, 2017, increased 3.4% from the prior year. Although the recommendations presented by staff were meant to ensure that charges keep pace with the costs of providing services, were competitive with comparable programs (where applicable), and were responsive to demands for the service within the community, some members of the Council questioned the suitability of authorizing significantly large fee increases for some services. In addition, certain services, fees, or recommendations needed further explanation in the context of the annual fee -setting process. Fee increases Canoed at 100% As noted, the fees recommended in the 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule process were greatly informed by the cost of services study concluded in fiscal year 2015-16. Not surprisingly, many of the fees being charged for totally discretionary services were found to be far less than the actual cost of providing the related service. When reviewing the cost of each service compared to the fees that were being charged, staff found that significant fee increases were needed to prevent a high level of subsidization from tax revenues. In order to achieve fuller cost recovery for services, fee recommendations reflected increases that more than doubled the then -current fee charged per the 2015-16 Master Fee Schedule. The City Council was understandably hesitant to raise fees markedly in one year, and directed that fees for the 2016-17 fiscal year should reflect no more than two times the current fee. These fee changes impacted charges for services in four areas: Building, Engineering, Planning, and Police. 2 Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2017-18 May 1, 2017 To assist in presenting the impact of these changes, the Finance Department prepared a worksheet of fees for which the recommended fee exceeded the threshold, noting the "capped fee", the 100% full cost recovery amount for each service, and the percentage of cost recovery at the new (capped) rate. (Excluded from this exercise were refundable deposits or bonds, where the City refunds all amounts collected to the applicant that exceed the cost of the work performed by the City.) This same worksheet has been updated and attached to this staff report to help explain the recommended fees in the 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule. Highlighted rows indicate fees that were again capped (at twice the currently -charged fees) for the 2017-18 fee recommendation from staff. The worksheet illustrates that nearly all the Building fees capped in the 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule can now be established in the 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule at or near 100% cost recovery without significant increases in a single fiscal year. Only the fees charged for services related to Energy Upgrade California services have been set at a lower level of cost recovery so as not to discourage the use of the program. Only six Engineering fees were 'capped" last year to avoid significant increases in a single fiscal year. Three of these fees were similarly capped in staffs recommendation for the 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule, though all three are now in much closer range to full cost recovery. Unless directed otherwise, staff will continue to seek full cost recovery from these services in future years. The other three fees are set at nearly full cost recovery for the fiscal year. Fees for Planning services are established for the upcoming fiscal year in a range of 50% to 100% cost recovery depending on the services being rendered. While many of the fees being considered are set to reimburse the department for fees incurred in property development (typically expected to approach full cost recovery), some of the services are needed for appropriate development of smaller parcels, and the fees are established at a lower rate of cost recovery. In addition, the fees for condominium permits were restructured last year; these are discussed separately below. Finally, the worksheet shows that many of the services provided by the Police Department are being heavily subsidized by general tax revenues. While some of the fee changes recommended for the upcoming fiscal year reflect a continued push toward full cost recovery (those highlighted are again capped at double the current fee), some of the fees will be kept well below full cost recovery to encourage compliance with permit requirements. It should be noted that for most of the fees listed, the annual volume of these services is extremely low. Condominium Permits Restructured Prior to the 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule, permit fees for condominium projects were provided at two levels only: • 4 units or less • 5 units or more 3 Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2017-18 May 1, 2017 The Cost of Services Study had revealed that the cost of these services was $4,337.48 and $5,769.77, respectively. As this seemed like a relatively large fee for the smaller developments, staff reviewed and restructured these fees (prior to the public hearing in May) to five levels. The first two fee levels were dropped back to a fee that represented no more than twice the then - current fee (per Council direction), and changed to: 10 units or fewer • 11 units to 25 units The additional three levels were structured to achieve nearer cost recovery at the higher levels of development. However, when staff prepared the 2017-18 Proposed Schedule, the first two fees (which had been flagged as being limited to 100% of the then current fee) were brought up to full cost recovery (plus two years of CPI increases), and the remaining three were increased only by this year's CPI. This logic did not take into consideration that the first two levels of condo fees had changed in scope/description. The new fees proposed for condominium permits (issued from the Planning Division) are: 10 units or fewer $ 3,236 11 units to 25 units $ 3,800 • 26-50 units $ 4,461 • 51-100 units $ 5,238 101 units and greater $ 6,150 This structure maintains the consistency of the strategy introduced last year of achieving cost recovery at the higher level of developments. The Planning Division compared these fees to those charged in surrounding cities and found that the recommended rates are still less than what is charged in surrounding cities. Engineering Fees for Hauling Activities At the April 3rd meeting, the City Council questioned the Hauling fee (in Engineering Services on page 22 of the Proposed Master Fee Schedule), noting that this would be a hefty addition to the cost of a small residential project. Discussions with Engineering staff concluded that a hauling permit fee is usually applied to larger development projects that involve the excavation and removal of large amounts of native material (for example) to a location off-site from the development. As such, the fee is rarely applicable to small residential projects. The full cost of this service is $240.41; the fee recommendation for the 2017-18 fiscal year has again been capped at twice the current fee. Parks and Recreation Ball Field Lights Also at the April 3rd meeting, the Council questioned whether the City's plan to switch to Peninsula Clean Energy's ECO100 Plan had been considered in the recommended fees for Iu' Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2017-18 May 1, 2017 lighting at the various fields available to users. Staff had recently estimated that such a change would increase the cost of electricity by 5% over PG&E rates. While the ECO100 Plan was not specifically considered in the recommended fees, staff notes that only a small portion of the fee charged for the lighting is the actual cost of the electricity. The cost is more dependent on the type of lighting utilized at each field, and the overhead costs incurred in making the lights available to the users. Regular increases in CPI should keep up with the higher energy costs while still providing a fee comparable to what is charged at nearby sports fields. Staff will continue to reference the full cost of services per the 2015 user -fee study, adjusted for CPI or other cost increases, when recommending updates to the City's Master Fee Schedule in the future. To the extent that 100% cost recovery is desirable for certain services — those that are discretionary or primarily benefit the user/applicant — fees may be increased higher than the annual CPI. For services that provide some element of public benefit to the community — apart from the benefit of the direct "users" — or for services that for other policy reasons should be offered at less than full cost recovery, fees may not be increased to keep up with the associated costs. This process of measuring the public benefit provided with each service in comparison to the full cost of delivering the service lays the groundwork needed for the development of a values -based and data -driven User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, to be delivered for Council consideration early in the new fiscal year. A public hearing date was established for this May 1s' regular City Council meeting, and notice of the public hearing was duly provided. The revised Master Fee Schedule for 2017-18 was made available for public review and posted to the City's website on Tuesday, April 25th at: https://www.burlingame.org/index.aspx?page=3499. Pursuant to State law, certain fees to be charged by the Community Development Department, as well as the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department, cannot become effective until 60 days after adoption of the adjusted fees as delineated in the attached Master Fee Schedule. FISCAL IMPACT Changes to the City's Master Fee schedule should result in some additional revenue in the new fiscal year. However, the actual amounts are difficult to calculate because the use of some services is voluntary, and the volume/demand of each activity varies. Exhibits: • Resolution • Worksheet of Fees Capped at 2x Current Rate • City of Burlingame Proposed Master Fee Schedule 5 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE 2017-18 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame regularly reviews the fees which the City charges persons or entities for the use of City facilities, or the provision of City services; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the cost of such services and facilities is borne by the users of said services and facilities in a fair and equitable manner, the City periodically adjusts the fees for services and facility use to ensure that the fees charged reflect the actual costs to the City and the City's taxpayers in providing those services and facilities; and WHEREAS, in 2015 the City engaged the services of Wohlford Consulting to conduct an update of the City's Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) and a comprehensive review of the City's schedule of fees to ensure that the fees charged by the City to the users of City services and facilities do not exceed the actual costs of providing the services or facilities; and WHEREAS, these studies have informed the annual review of the City fee schedule, resulting in numerous adjustments to ensure that the City recovers the full cost of providing services and facilities while at the same time not exceeding the cost of providing those services and facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to keep some fees below the level of full cost recovery to make the related services more readily available to citizens; and WHEREAS, notice of the City's proposed fee schedule and of the May 1, 2017 public hearing in connection therewith, has been duly provided pursuant to the provisions of State law; and WHEREAS, certain fees to be charged Community Development Department and the Department and the Engineering Division of I effective until sixty (60) days after adoption of section 66017; and by the Planning and Building Divisions of the development fees to be charged by the Fire ie Public Works Department cannot become :his Resolution, pursuant to Government Code WHEREAS, all other adjusted fees as delineated in the Master Fee Schedule shall become effective July 1, 2017; and WHEREAS, despite every effort to ensure that all City fees for services are contained in the 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule, there may be some existing fees provided for in the Municipal Code, administrative procedures or elsewhere which have been omitted from the Master Fee Schedule and nothing in this resolution or Council action is intended to repeal those fees nor is this resolution or Council action intended to affect in any way any taxes or assessments of any kind. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. All of the facts and assertions recited above, in the staff report and supporting documentation are true and correct and the Council relies upon same in adopting the Master Fee Schedule. 2. The City Council approves the 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule, attached and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 3. The 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule shall become effective on July 1, 2017, except for development related fees pursuant to Government Code section 66017, which cannot become effective until sixty (60) days after adoption of this Resolution. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, Meagan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 1Itday of May, 2017, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meagan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk U 7 V 0 0 � m L6 6 m m N j O j o @ o S m L N m in `v O j t O m E o N 't m E N m m of oD N J O J O @ O S 0p L n u j n 0o E o 0 L O J N E N N 'C ry V .E L N j O j O @ O S m S n u 0 d O j L O N E N N Nh £ N J p@p 3 O o L L L L u J d E o n a L O E O ,C O E ' m a E o @ c E @ J a E Y C Jo E c v O @ V LL W j G n o 0 C L V m N U1 C U O 'Ei 3 J al 0 0 C5 m N � 0 0 N Ill VF � O O O C� N N O c L 2 v `a o c 0 c N c N f t? V O L 2 w c O C O c N r UT L 0 a Y Uu u L E U E m E u 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 o 0 m 0 J > > O O O S L L 0 0 0 o n n n N d O O O N M m m CO W e0 N N N m ml ml m m O O 6 m m ami a � Emil vii. vryi aryiF 0 0 C5 m N � 0 0 N Ill VF � O O O C� N N O c L 2 v `a o c 0 c N c N f t? V O L 2 w c O C O c N r UT L 0 a Y Uu u L E U E m E u w r O LL O m v v J v v d w v X v u p u U 9 O N Y N N G N C 0> J (1 m J m m m m O 3 06 ouU vO1i m m m y O1 v Y ti (y a M n K 0 O u O O N C N m N O m N m N E m L6 O LL O m v v J v v d w v X v u p u U 9 O N Y N N G N C J J (1 J Y O O 3 V ryj y O � y O1 v Y ti (y a M n m 0 O u m o1Oo m ti N W N M VF 4/1 a o O ai ? N w D N O U u O v I = c a m a m 'd 2 [i O p� V w U m N 1J/1 M u N p X J C N w YO a .- p p u Ow w U m J Y N v w v v x v u o u a -p 0 C m c N J a aO Q o o 0 J n Y 3 o O u N N V1 V N Y T m am _ ° y U vN i? O O. Np 0 U 0 n OO tai N d O o o .mV u ri N O H m J } OJ H W N o0 0\' o 0 � v O O n r-� N N t o w m rn r r N K N N LL v N f6 W Q 9 � c p fp U V ri C W V e -I r -I p O � VF N W UT W U � ¢ w N � O um co o m M ri N N O V O W O ui O � ri w -O d O W O 4 N d r O N O W U ° m m u N v v LL N N � C W r Z O O O O O O N l/t N O VT LL U W W LL O O O O O O F O O 0 O r mo6 o6 U W J y v ° O E v W O O Z � 0 to N W C Y U Y U y V U C > s u E E E c C Y V V m m O m W C C fl d d N m m E E u V > o > c 3 =o v C c O C C E E W a u LL u u _ o � o N 4 Ol W r r ai aoi m Ol n � V e e vi m Y K 75 O > v m m U O o o v v v LL N N t0 Q W ✓1 d vl U1 N d co ti c O O C o C� 'i d N O. M 6 U a ti v m y O U W O 0 > >o N O W N o r v v v N W V W v 0 2 U. m W v a o c o c o c uU Q N `oa e n N a V M v .-I v M d N C C C 01 w LL O/ Y cN 0 W W N UI C 0 N W N W 2 W d fl- 9- G c C L6 CWC C O c OC O C ' N O oa NO n MO ¢ N O n N N W tp 01 W V} m C N m C N m 1 C N N LL !>fl J m m Wp c p C p C s e n n a w w Y C O U c y E U N V O O m to O Y v u a > o 3 c G n o m m e e vi m } v ON W N O m O) O dt W m U 0 L U n a b V V l0 tD �O V u z � o N v LL N Q N VI N N N N N W 0 0) 0 0 0 0! 0 b0 00 00 00 00 00 bD 00 W p0 p0 d C d❑ O. C d C O- C O- C d C H O O O O Y O Y O Y O r 0 0 O❑ O C p c O c O O C O C a� C V lfl m 6 an d N d d n d 2 lNyf �. m W C C C C C C C uO U w n m io a o m m J} u_ V m06 M M p > N LLW N Ql m W N m O W O w O � H � W W J W O O H O O O O O Y O Y O Y d N tp 00 p. N d d N d pO a N d N d m m d V 0 N j U00 V} 00 V} pp V} 00 OF b0 4/! b0 N 00 V} 00 LL 0) Y N O N W 01 0 01 0 O! � 0 3 Z O O C d0 00 00 00 bU 0p OD 00 N w p O O C d C d C d C d C d C d C d C L6 2 O O C C C C O O C O C OC O C p c N V ' O N .� d r d ntmD �- mRpl d O p K 73 a m 0 W O 00 00 W d N d p0 d d O d N vi VF 01 N 00 VT 00 m 1/T 000 iA 000 V} m -V} O0 U U! d c v Uc 'gyp O u u o Z 0 .- tn C O Y l N C G O C E i �-- m a City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1, 2017 �� CITY p BURLJNGAME qLu Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule CITY-WIDE FEES SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Returned Check Resolution No. 31-2003 $30.00 No Change Copying of Routine Document Resolution No. 33-2008 $0.25 per page No Change (Copies of sizes other than 8- %" by 11" or 8 - %" by 14" or 11" by 17 or color copies will be charged at cost) To be paid in advance Audio tape copies (except for Police) If blank tape supplied Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 per tape $18.00 per tape if no tape supplied Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 per tape $18.00 per tape plus purchase costs plus purchase costs of tape of tape Page 1 A�� CITY O� BURIJNGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING /ICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Jing inspections outside Resolution No. 27-2011 $220.00 per hour $230.00 per nal business hours (minimum charge of 2 hour (minimum hours) charge of 2 hours) ispection fees (minimum — Resolution No. 27-2011 $220.00 per hour $230.00 per hour) hour •gy Upgrade California Resolution No. 27-2011 c Package $220.00 $230.00 .,�ced Package $438.00 $460.00 aral fire inspections for new Resolution No. 27-2011 Determined by CCFD No Change ling and tenant remodels — pass-through costs ed to building permits of mercial or multi -family lential PLAN REVIEW FEES : Fee— Building Division Resolution No. 104-2002 65% of Building No Change Permit Fee gy Plan Check Fee (where Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of No Change !cable; includes review of Building Permit Fee n Points Checklist) )led Access Plan Check Fee Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 35% of No Change ire applicable) Building Permit Fee Page 4 S� CITY � 4 � BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING RVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE view of Request for Alternate Resolution No. 27-2011 $220.00 per hour $283.00 per aterials and Methods hour view of Unreasonable Resolution No. 27-2011 $220.00 per hour $283.00 per irdship Request hour anning Department Plan Check Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of No Change !e (where applicable) Building Permit Fee inimum fee of $80.00 _ an Revisions for Planning Resolution No. 27-2011 $220.00 per hour $283.00 pe apartment hour an Revisions Subsequent to Resolution No. 27-2011 $220.00 per hour plus $283.00 per armit Issuance cost of any additional hour plus cost of review any additional review ngineering Division Plan Review Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of No Change vhere applicable) Building Permit Fee naging Fee Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 5% of No Change Building Permit Fee with minimum fee of $5.00 ,rborist Review Resolution No. 33-2007 $226.00 $230.00 PLUMBING PERMIT FEES These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water Teter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility omoanies. Page 5 �� CITY OS BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE For issuance of each plumbing Resolution No. 27-2011$42.00 No Change permit "The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee: New Residential Buildin¢ - Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.12 per square foot No Change including all plumbing fixtures, of habitable area connections and gas outlets for new single- and multi -family buildings Fixtures and vents Resolution No. 27-2011 $18.00 No Change For each plumbing fixture or trap (including water and waste piping and backflow prevention) Sewer and interceptors For each building sewer Resolution No 27-2011 $64.00 No Change For each industrial waste Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change pretreatment interceptor (except kitchen -type grease traps) Water Piping and Water Heaters Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change For installation alteration or repair of water piping or water - treatment equipment For each water heater including Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change vent Page 6 S� CITY � A � BURLJNGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Gas Piping Systems For each gas piping system of one Resolution No. 27-2011 $36.00 No Change to five outlets For each additional outlet over Resolution No. 33-2008 $7.00 No Change five Irrigation Systems and Backflow Prevention Devices Irrigation systems including Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change backflow device(s) Other backflow prevention devices: 2 inches (50.8 mm) and Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change smaller Over 2 inches (50.8 mm) Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change Swimming Pools For each swimming pool or spa, all plumbing: Public pool Resolution No. 27-2011 $219.00 No Change Public spa Resolution No. 27-2011 $165.00 No Change Private pool Resolution No. 27-2011 $219.00 No Change Private spa Resolution No. 27-2011 $165.00 No Change Miscellaneous For each appliance or fixture for Resolution No. 27-2011 $36.00 No Change which no fee is listed Page 7 R � BURLJNGAME b.. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Inspections outside normal Resolution No. 27-2011 $220.00 per hour $230.00 per business hours (minimum charge of 2 hour (minimum hours) charge of 2 hours) Re -inspection fees Resolution No. 27-2011 $220.00 per hour $230.00 per (minimum — one hour) hour Inspections for which no fee is Resolution No. 27-2011 $220.00 per hour $230.00 per specifically indicated hour (minimum charge is one-half hour) Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of No Change plumbing permit fee with minimum fee of $5.00 Plan review (where applicable) Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of No Change plumbing permit fee MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES *These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies Page 8 �F, carr n 4 � BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Basic Permit Issuance Fee Resolution No. 27-2011 $42.00 No Change For issuance of each mechanical permit" "The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee: New Residential Building Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.10 per square foot No Change including all mechanical work of habitable area including appliances, exhaust fans, ducts, and flues Furnaces To and including 100 MBTU Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change Over 100 MBTU Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change Boilers, compressors, absorption systems To and including 100 MBTU or Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change 3HP Over 100 MBTU or 3 HP Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change Air Conditioners Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change Air Handlers To 10,000 CFM including ducting Resolution No. 27-2011 $36.00 each No Change Over 10,000 CFM Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 each No Change Page 9 BURLINGAME 4 a^� Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Ventilation and Exhaust Each ventilation fan attached to a Resolution No. 27-2011 $18.00 each No Change single duct Each hood including ducts Resolution No. 27-2011 $28.00 each No Change Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of Resolution No. 27-2011 $28.00 each No Change equipment not specifically listed above Inspections outside normal Resolution No. 27-2011 $ 220.00 per hour $230.00 per business hours (minimum charge of 2 hour (minimum hours) charge of 2 hours) Re -inspection fees Resolution No. 27-2011 $ 220.00 per hour $230.00 per (minimum charge is one hour) hour Inspections for which no fee is Resolution No. 27-2011 $ 220.00 per hour $230.00 per hour specifically indicated (minimum charge is one-half hour) Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of No Change mechanical permit fee with minimum fee of $5.00 Plan review (where applicable) Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of No Change mechanical permit fee Page 10 �� CIT1 0 R � BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES *These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies) **The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee: For issuance of each electrical Resolution No. 27-2011 $42.00 No Change permit" New Residential Building - Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.10 per square foot No Change including all wiring and electrical of habitable area devices in or on each building, including service Page 11 �� CITY Q R � BURLINGAME ro Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE Swimming Pools Public swimming pools and spas Resolution No. 27-2011 $220.00 $230.00 including all wiring and electrical equipment Private pools for single-family Resolution No. 27-2011 $164.00 $174.00 residences Temporary Power Temporary service pole including Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change all attached receptacles Temporary power pole and Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change wiring for construction sites, Christmas tree lots, etc. UNIT FEE SCHEDULE Receptacle, switch and light outlets First 20 units Resolution No. 27-2011 $54.00 No Change Each additional Resolution No. 32-2009 $4.00 No Change Page 12 r� cirr c R � BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Residential Appliances For fixed residential appliances Resolution No. 32-2009 $9.00 each No Change including cook tops, ovens, air conditioning, garbage disposals, and similar devices not exceeding 1 HP in rating (For other types of air conditioners or other motor - driven appliances having larger ratings, see Power Apparatus below) Nonresidential Appliances Self-contained factory -wired Resolution No. 32-2009 $9.00 each No Change non-residential appliances not exceeding 1 HP, KW, or kVA in rating including medical and dental devices; food, beverage and ice cream cabinets; illuminated showcases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; etc. (For other types of devices having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus below) Page 13 S� cirr c A � BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Power Apparatus For motors, generators, air conditioners and heat pumps and commercial cooking devices as follows (ratings in horsepower, kilowatts, kilovolt -amperes, or kilovolt -amperes -reactive): Up to 10 Resolution No 27-2011 $28.00 No Change Over 10 to and including 100 Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 No Change Over 100 Resolution No. 27-2011 $110.00 No Change Notes: For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays, and other related control equipment. Page 14 a�, crcr u A � BURLINGAME l Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Photo voltaic systems Residential systems Permit Resolution No. 32-2009 No Charge No Change Up to 3000 watts Resolution No. 32-2009 No Charge No Change Over 3000 watts Plan Check Resolution No. 32-2009 No Charge No Change Commercial Systems Up to 3000 watts Resolution No. 27-2011 $350.00 No Change Over 3000 watts Plan Check Resolution No. 27-2011 $220.00 per hour $283.00 per hour Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $350.00 No Change Busways For trolleys and plug-in type Resolution No. 27-2011 $28.00 for each No Change busways 100 feet (30,500 mm) or fraction thereof Page 15 R�0 cirr c� BURLINGAME 1 Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees Permits Signs, outline lighting, or Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 each No Change marquees supplied from one circuit For additional branch circuits Resolution No. 32-2009 $18.00 each No Change within the same sign, outline lighting, or marquee Services 600 volts or less and not over 200 Resolution No. 27-2011 $55.00 each No Change amperes in rating 600 volts or less, over 200 amperes to 1,000 Resolution No. 27-2011 $82.00 each No Change amperes Over 600 volts or over 1,000 amperes Resolution No 27-2011 $110.00 each No Change Miscellaneous For apparatus, conduits, and Resolution No. 27-2011 $36.00 No Change conductors for which a permit is required but for which no fee is set forth Inspections outside normal Resolution No. 27-2011 $220.00 per hour $230.00 per hour business hours (minimum charge (minimum charge of 2 hours) of 2 hours) Page 16 �� ciTr c BURLINGAME e.4 Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Re -inspection fees Resolution No. 27-2011 $220.00 per hour $230.00 per hour (minimum charge is one hour) Inspections for which no fee is Resolution No 27-2011 $220.00 per hour $230.00 per hour specifically indicated (minimum charge is one-half hour) Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of No Change electrical permit fee with minimum fee of $5.00 Plan review (where applicable) Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of No Change electrical permit fee GENERAL FEES Building Moving Resolution No. 32-2009 $327.00 No Change (Section 18.07.030) Page 17 Rai CITY O� BURIJNGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule CITY CLERK & ELECTIONS SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENTFEE NEW FEE Video recording of City Council Resolution No. 32-2009 $88.00 per VHS No Change meeting or other proceeding that tape plus photo has been video recorded — to be service charge paid in advance of copying recording Resolution No. 32-2009 $88.00 per DVD No Change plus photo service charge Audiotape of City Council Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 per tape if No Change meeting or other City proceeding tape is supplied by that has been taped — to be paid requestor in advance of copying tape Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 per tape if No Change tape is not supplied plus purchase cost oftape All Certifications Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 each No Change Filing of Nomination Papers Burlingame Municipal $28.00 per No Change Code section 2.20.020 candidate (Ordinance No. 1703 (2003) Page 18 �� CITY p R � BURLINGAME �e .I Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Sewer Lateral Test Resolution No. 32-2009 $395.00 $408.00 Sewer Lateral Replacement (with Resolution No. 32-2009 $395.00 $408.00 Sidewalk Add No. 5) Water Service Connection (with Resolution No. 32-2009 $516.00 $534.00 Sidewalk Add No. 5) Fire System Connection (with Resolution No. 32-2009 $178.00 $184.00 Sidewalk Add No. 5) Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200 S.F. Resolution No. 32-2009 $371.00 plus $.34 $384.00 plus (Includes Curb Drain) Sections for each square $.35 for each 12.10.030/12.08.020/ foot over 200 square foot 12.04.030 over 200 Sidewalk Closure/Pedestrian Resolution No. 32-2009 $370.00 $383.00 Protection Traffic Control Resolution No. 33-2008 $303.00 $313.00 Block Party (includes up to 6 Resolution No. 27-2006 $50.00 plus $5.00 $52.00 plus barricades) for each add'I $5.00 for each barricade over 6 add'I barricade over 6 Page 19 S� CITY 0 4 � BURLINGAME R Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Commercial Areas and Construction Purposes $192.00 plus $199.00 plus $10.00 space per $10.00 space day or meter rates per day or meter rates Moving Only Purposes $31.00 processing $32.00 (Residential Areas) fee plus $10 per processing fee space per day plus $10 per space per day Page 20 t� cirr c 9URLINGAME 10 Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE GENERAL FEES Demolition Permit (in addition to any Building Department -issued Demolition or Construction Permit) Includes sewer, water and Resolution No. 32-2009 $1417.00 $1,465.00 sidewalk replacement Add fire line Resolution No. 32-2009 $75.00 $78.00 Add curb drain Resolution No. 32-2009 $202.00 $209.00 Add sidewalk closure Resolution No. 32-2009 $202.00 $209.00 Add PG&E Resolution No. 32-2009 $202.00 $209.00 Address Change Resolution No. 32-2009 $295.00 $305.00 Single Trip -Transportation Fee Senate Bill SB 372 $16.00 No change (Fixed rate set by Per Caltrans) Leaf Blower Testing Certification Ord. No. 1871 (2012) $31.20 for up to No change Fee 5 leaf blowers $5.00 for certification decal if certified by manufacturer Creek Enclosures Resolution No. 32-2009 $2,748.00 $2,841.00 Page 21 Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Abandonment of Public Utility $4,505.00 $4,658.00 Easement Hauling Permit Section 13.60.080 $72.00 $144.00 application fee application fee plus 1 cent per plus 1 cent per ton per mile ton per mile SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Subsurface Shoring Systems • Per 10'-20' deep tieback $2,000.00 each No change • Per >20' deep tieback $1,000.00 each No change • For permanent space used 50% of appraised No change land value at time of building permit Permanent structures, such as Resolution No. 32-2009 $ 1,236.00 $2,472.00 retaining walls, fences Non -permanent installations, Resolution No. 32-2009 $ 584.00 $1,168.00 such as tables, chairs, planters DEPOSITS OR BONDS FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WORK Openings in Public Right -of -Way Resolution No. 33-2007 $915.00 No change (not in sidewalk or street) Minimum (in easement area) $10/S.F. in sidewalk Page 22 t � BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Openings in Public Right -of -Way Resolution No. 33-2007 $10.00 per No change in sidewalk (not in street) square foot in sidewalk area, $915.00 minimum Street Roadway Opening (AC Resolution No. 33-2007 $10.00 per No change Pavement Restoration) square foot in paved area, $1,500.00 minimum including curb replacement Water Main Modification Resolution No. 33-2007 $5,400.00 per No change (refundable bond) connection Sewer Main & Storm Drain Resolution No. 33-2007 $2,500.00 per No change Modification (refundable bond) connection SUBDIVISION MAPS Lot Line Adjustment Resolution No. 32-2009 $1,454.00 plus $2,494.00 (Section 26.24.090) deposit Lot Combination Resolution No. 32-2009 $2,314.00 plus $2,494.00 (Section 26.24.090) deposit Page 23 SERVICE Subdivision Map Condominium Map BU_ RLINGAME .I Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING REFERENCE Resolution No. 32-2009 (Sections 26.24.090/ 26.16.151) Resolution No. 32-2009 (Sections 26.24.090/ 26.16.151) CURRENT FEE $ 2,908.00 plus deposit, plus $219.00 for each additional lot in excess of 5 lots; plus actual City consultant costs $2,912.00, plus $548.00 for each additional unit over 4 units, plus actual City consultant costs STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ** The fees represent the labor cost to inspect and security deposit Type 1 Project: Single family dwellings with 1s1 or 2"d floor additions on a 10,000 sf lot or smaller Type 2 Project: Multi -family dwellings or commercial additions (excluding tenant improvements) that are on a 10,000 sf lot or smaller $165.00 plus $500.00 security deposit $330.00 plus $500.00 security deposit NEW FEE $3,703.00 plus deposit, plus $226.00 for each additional lot in excess of 5 lots; plus actual City consultant costs $3,011.00, plus $567.00 for each additional unit over 4 units, plus actual City consultant costs $171.00 plus $500.00 security deposit $341.00 plus $1,000.00 security deposit Page 24 �� cirx c BURLINGAME a Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Type 3 Project: Any project 10,000 sf up to an acre lot $660.00 plus $1,500.00 security deposit $682.00 plus $2,000.00 security deposit Type 4 Project: Any project greater than one acre in size $1,320.00 plus $5,000 security deposit $1,365.00 plus $5,000 security deposit PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEWS Single Family Dwelling (Addition) $428.00 $443.00 Single Family Dwelling (New) $856.00 $885.00 Multi -family $1,712.00 $1,770.00 Commercial/Industrial $1,712.00 $1,770.00 Environmental Review $1,379.00 $1,426.00 Traffic and Parking Studies $3,253.00 $3,364.00 GRADING PERMIT 1-100 cubic yards $1,156.00 $1,195.00 101-1,000 cubic yards $1,745.00 $1,804.00 1,001-10,000 cubic yards $2,040.00 $2,109.00 Over 10,000 cubic yards $2,776.00 $2,870.00 Page 25 ��6 CITY O� BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule FINANCE SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Duplicate business license Section 6.04.120 $10.00 No change Application for first business Section 6.04.170 $35.00 No change license Submittal of surety bond for Resolution No. 27- $150.00 for every 15 No change transient occupancy after 2006 days bond is late expiration of bond Special business license for long- Section 6.08.085 5% of gross receipts No change term parking Page 26 �� cirr a S � 6URLINGAME 5„ .I 9bx Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) is governed by the Fire Board, and as such, its fees are enacted via process that is separate from that of the City of Burlingame. These fees are included in the City of Burlingame's Master Fee Schedule as of July 1, 2016, based on an action by the CCFD. The following are current fees as of July 1, 2016: SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE CARE FACILITIES INSPECTION Pre -inspection of licensed community care facility Health & Safety Code § 13235 $160.00 per hour Residential Care Facility for Elderly serving 6 or fewer persons — fire inspection enforcement Health & Safety Code § 1569.84 No Charge Residential Care Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $284.00 Large Family Day Care Resolution No. 33-2008 $150.00 Skilled Nursing Facility Resolution No. 33-2008 $551.00 Hospital/Institution Resolution No. 33-2008 $2,154.00 RE -INSPECTIONS Second re -inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $133.00 per inspection Third and subsequent re -inspections Resolution No. 33-2008 $335.00 per inspection Page 27 S� cirr c t � BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE CONSTRUCTION FEES General Fire & Life Safety 12% of Building Services Permit fees for • Consultation & Research Commercial and • Pre -application meetings Multi -Family & Design Review Residential • Property Survey • General Construction Inspections • Processing, Scheduling, and Record Keeping Building or Planning Plan Check Resolution No. 33-2008 $155.00 per hour Expedite Building or Planning Resolution No. 33-2008 $310 per hour Check Fees (2 hour minimum) Consultation and Planning Resolution No. 33-2008 $181.00 per hour Alternate Means of Protection Resolution No. 33-2008 $176.00 per hour Review Page 28 �� ciTr c R e BURLINGAME M1, Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Fire Alarm Systems Permit for Monitoring System Resolution No. 33-2008 $160.00 Permit for Manual System Resolution No. 33-2008 $160.00 Permit for Automatic System Resolution No. 33-2008 $294.00 Permit for Combination Resolution No. 33-2008 $425.00 System Multi -Residential or $100.00 Commercial Fire Alarm Remodel or Repair (Device relocation/adjustment) Fixed Fire Extinguishing System Resolution No. 33-2008 $227.00 Permit Standpipe System Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $294.00 Storage Tank (above or below Resolution No. 33-2008 $160.00 ground) Permit SPRINKLER SYSTEMS Page 29 S� cirr u R � BURLINGAME eve Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE One or two Family Dwelling Fire Resolution No. 33-2008 $427.00 - flat fee Sprinkler System (NFPA 13D) including 2 inspections (additional inspections will be charged at the hourly rate of the staff who actually perform each inspection) Fire Pump Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $160.00 Multi -Residential or Resolution No. 33-2008 $695.00 flat fee Commercial Fire Sprinkler including 2 System (NFPA 13 or 13R) inspections Permit — Single Story (incl. T.I.) (additional Permit - Multi -story inspections will be charged at the hourly rate of the staff who actually perform each inspection) Multi -Residential or Resolution No. 33-2008 $160.00 Commercial Fire sprinkler Remodel & Repair (Sprinkler Head relocation/adjustment only) Fire Service Line Inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $160.00 Page 30 S� CITY � R Al BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENTFEE NEW FEE MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND PERMITS Labor Rate for Mechanic $90.00 Services Vegetation Management Resolution No. 33-2008 $160.00 plus 50% Inspection of contractor's fee Change of Use Inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $169.00 (usually triggered by new business license) Accounts referred to Collection +47% of original Agencies invoice Photographs from Resolution No. 61-2004 Cost of investigations reproduction Fire Incident Reports (not Resolution No. 33-2008 $10.00 including photographs) Work without a construction Resolution No. 33-2008 Up to 10 times permit the permit fees Emergency Response Costs for Resolution No. 33-2008 Costs according to Driving under the Influence Personnel Schedule Below plus apparatus cost of $1,360.00 per day as set by State Page 31 �� cirr c R n BURLINGAME �o. b.. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE False Alarms Resolution No. 33-2007 $570.00 for 3 to 5 $1,071.00 for 6 or more Hazardous Materials Clean- Resolution No. 33-2008 Costs according to up/Response Personnel Schedule Below plus apparatus costs of $1,360.00 per day as set by State Standby Service Firefighter Resolution No. 33-2008 $123.00 per hour (minimum of 3 Fire Captain Resolution No. 33-2008 hours) Battalion Chief Resolution No. 33-2008 $146.00 per hour (minimum of 3 Engine Company Resolution No. 33-2008 hours) $163.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) $501.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) plus apparatus costs of $1,360.00 per day as set by State Page 32 �� CITY Q 4 � BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE PERSONNEL COSTS Personnel Costs by Job Class Resolution No. 33-2008 $ 54.00 per hour Administration Firefighter Resolution No. 33-2008 $123.00 per hour Fire Captain Resolution No. 33-2008 $146.00 per hour Fire Admin Captain Resolution No. 33-2008 $153.00 per hour Fire Inspector Resolution No. 33-2008 $134.00 per hour Battalion Chief Resolution No. 33-2008 $163.00 per hour Division Chief or Fire Marshal Resolution No. 33-2008 $176.00 per hour Admin Support Officer Resolution No. 33-2008 $ 91.00 per hour Fire Mechanic Resolution No. 33-2008 $143.00 per hour Deputy Fire Chief Resolution No. 33-2008 $154.00 per hour Fire Chief Resolution No. 33-2008 $182.00 per hour GENERAL PERMITS Aerosol Products Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Amusement Buildings Resolution No. 33-2008 $284.00 Apartments, Hotels and Motels Resolution No. 33-2008 $181.00 — 10 or less units Apartments, Hotels and Motels Resolution No. 33-2008 $218.00 — 11 to 25 units Apartments, Hotels and Motels Resolution No. 33-2008 $308.00 — 26 or more units Page 33 ��F, ciTr oe BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Apartments Assigned to Prevention $200.00 Aviation Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $450.00 Battery System Resolution No. 33-2008 $450.00 Carnivals and Fairs Resolution No. 33-2008 $417.00 Christmas Tree Lot Resolution No. 33-2008 $150.00 Combustible Fiber Storage Resolution No. 33-2007 $250.00 Combustible Material Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Compressed Gasses Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Commercial Occupancy Assigned to Prevention $155.00 Commercial Rubbish -Handling Operation Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Cryogens Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Dry Cleaning Plants Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Dust -Producing Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Exhibits & Trade Shows — Display Booth Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Page 34 �� cirr e 6URLINGAME be< Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Exhibits & Trade Shows— With Open Flame Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Exhibits & Trade Shows — Display Fuel Powered Equipment Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Explosives or Blasting Agents Resolution No. 33-2008 $450.00 Fire Hydrants and Water Control Valves Resolution No. 33-2008 $247.00 Fireworks Resolution No. 33-2008 $450.00 Flammable or Combustible Liquids Resolution No. 33-2008 $450.00 Hazardous Materials Resolution No. 33-2008 $450.00 High -Piled Combustible Storage — 20,000 square feet or less Resolution No. 33-2008 $450.00 High -Piled Combustible Storage — more than 20,000 square feet Resolution No. 33-2008 $583.00 Highrise $417.00 Hot -Work Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Liquefied Petroleum Gasses Resolution No. 33-2008 $450.00 Liquid- or gas -fueled Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly Buildings Resolution No. 33-2008 $450.00 Page 35 R t BURLANGAME 4 .I Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Live Audiences Resolution No. 33-2008 $450.00 Lumber Yards storing in excess of 100,00 board Feet Resolution No. 33-2008 $350.00 Magnesium Working Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Motor Vehicle Fuel -Dispensing Stations Resolution No. 33-2008 $211.00 Open Burning Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Organic Coating Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Ovens, Industrial Baking and Drying Resolution No. 33-2008 $211.00 Parade Floats Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Places of Assembly Resolution No. 33-2008 $475.00 Production Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $417.00 Pyrotechnical and Special Effects Material Resolution No. 33-2008 $450.00 Radioactive Materials Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Refrigeration Equipment Resolution No. 33-2008 $350.00 Repair Garage Resolution No. 33-2008 $284.00 Spraying and Dipping Resolution No. 33-2008 $284.00 Tents, Canopies, and Temporary Membrane Structures Resolution No. 33-2008 $380.00 Page 36 aF, cirr c BURI.INGAME � I �m Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Tire Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Wood Products Resolution No. 33-2008 $250.00 Page 37 a� CITr � 4 � BURLANGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 38 �� ciTr c � S BURIJNGAME R.i Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule LIBRARY SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE CITY OF BURLINGAME FEES Photocopies— Black and White $0.15 per page at No change vending machine Photocopies - Color $0.25 per page at No change vending machine Internet /Database copies or Resolution No. 27-2011 First 3 pages free No change printouts — Black and White $0.15 per page Internet /Database copies or Resolution No. 27-2011 First page free No change printouts — Color $0.25 per page Facilities Rental Lane Community Room rental Resolution No. 32-2009 $100.00 No change Use of Audio Visual Equipment Resolution No. 27-2011 $30.00 flat fee No Change Tech Media Lab rental $60.00 first 4 hours No Change Use of Audio Visual Equipment $30.00 flat fee No Change Computer set-up/breakdown $50.00 flat fee No Change Meeting Room rental $40.00 first 4 hours No Change Use of Audio Visual Equipment $30.00 Flat fee No Change Outside System Book Loan Resolution No. 27-2011 $5.00 + additional No change fee from lending library if applicable Photo/filming fee (only for New Fee $50.00/hour shoots requiring staff oversight during closed hours) Page 39 �F, cirr c BURLINGAME bb„ Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule LIBRARY SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENTFEE NEW FEE Passport: Acceptance/US State Set by US State $25.00 No change Department Fee Department Passport Photo Fee $15.00 No change Express Mail Service to Passport New Fee $19.99 or Processing Center current postal rate PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM CONSORTIUM CONTROLLED FEES Overdue Fee for Adult Peninsula Library System $0.25 per item, per No change day Maximum Fee Peninsula Library System $8.00 Adult No change $3.90 Child Lost Book Replacement Fee Peninsula Library System $5.00 per item plus No change costs of replacement of item Replacement of Lost Card Peninsula Library System $1.00 No change Page 40 �� CITr 0 R � BUpLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Group Classifications for Purposes of Parks & Recreation Facilities Usage: Group A: City of Burlingame, Burlingame School District Group A-1: Recognized Burlingame based non-profit youth sports groups (for field use only) Group B: Non-profit groups or organizations with IRS Section 501c(3) tax exempt status Group C: Private parties, commercial, business, and profit-making organizations School District Fees: Fees shall be applied to the district and affiliated organizations (examples: PTA, Boosters, Foundations) as follows: A. San Mateo Union High School District a. Unless otherwise specified in an adopted facility use agreement, indoor and athletic facility fees shall be calculated administratively to be comparable to the SMUHSD fee schedule as it pertains to City use of similar SMUHSD facilities. b. Picnic and special park facility fees, and staffing fees charged to SMUHSD shall be at the rates described in other sections of the fee schedule. B. Burlingame School District a. Unless otherwise specified in an adopted facility use agreement, indoor and athletic facility fees shall be calculated administratively to be comparable to the BSD fee schedule as it pertains to City use of similar BSD facilities. b. Picnic and special park facility fees, and staffing fees charged to BSD shall be at the rates described in other sections of the fee schedule. Pool fees for BSD use shall be charged at the non-profit rate. Page 41 ��E ciTr os BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE INDOOR FACILITIES Recreation Center Auditorium Group A Resolution No. 31- No Charge No Charge 2003 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 33- $145.00 1" hour $148.00 11t hour 2008 $73.00 /add' I hour $75.00 /add' I hour Non -Residents Resolution No. 33- $157.00 11t hour $160.00 1" hour 2008 $79.00/add' I hour $81.00/add' I hour Burlingame Non -Profit Meetings $40.00 per hour $41.00 per hour Non Resident Non -Profit Meetings $44.00 per hour $45.00 per hour Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 33- $249.00 11t hour $254.00 11t hour 2008 $125.00/ add' I hour $128.00/ add' I hour Non -Residents Resolution No. 33- $284.00 151 hour $293.00 1" hour 2008 $142.00/ add' I hour $145.00/ add' I hour Auditorium Deposit $500.00 No change Page 42 f� CITY � R n BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Other Recreation Center Rooms No Charge No Charge Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents $112.00 151 hour $114.00 1st hour $56.00 /add' I hour $57.00 /add' I hour Non -Residents $121.00 15t hour $124.00 1st hour $60.00/add' I hour $61.00/add' I hour Burlingame Non -Profit Meetings $20.00 per hour $22.00 per hour Non Resident Non -Profit Meetings $22.00 per hour $24.00 per hour Group C: Burlingame Residents $145.00 15t hour $148.00 1st hour $73.00/add' I hour $75.00/add' I hour Non -Residents $157.00 15t hour $160.00 1st hour $79.00/add' I hour $80.00/add' I hour Facility Room Deposit $200.00 Per Room No change 50% discount on deposit of lounge if 2nd lounge is rented at the same time 50% discount on No change deposit of kitchen if rented with another room Page 43 R�� CITY O� 6URLJNGAME �p Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Kitchen Group A: No Charge No Charge Group B: Burlingame Residents $17.00 per hour $18.00 per hour Non -Residents $21.00 per hour $22.00 per hour Group C: Burlingame Residents $33.00 per hour $34.00 per hour Non -Residents $39.00 per hour $40.00 per hour Additional Rental Charges: Tables/Chairs-up to 50 Resolution No. 33- $17.00 $18.00 2008 Tables/Charis-51 to 100 Resolution No. 33- $26.00 $27.00 2008 Tables/Chairs-over 100 Resolution No. 33- $41.00 $42.00 2008 Coffee Pots Resolution No. 33- $13.00 per pot $14.00 per pot 2008 Building Attendant" Resolution No. 33- $40.00 per hour No change 2008 Field Attendant Resolution No. 41- $40.00 per hour No change 2008 Weekend Custodian Resolution No. 27- $102.00 per event No change 2006 Building Attendant ori' will be on duty 30 minutes prior to and 30 minutes after duration of activities at Recreation Center. Secur ty fee w 11 be charged f9F all ppivate parties eVeF 150 Persons er serving aleahol c beveFag2s. Page 44 �� cirr c BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Weekday Custodian Resolution No. 31- $31.00 per hour No Change 2003 Extra, Non -Scheduled Hours Resolution No. 27- $255.00 per hour $260.00 per hour 2006 Ser ity Pers .RRPI Reset 33 $121.00 per hour $124.00 peFhew 2ggg Remove fee Wine/beer to be served Resolution No. 31- $31.00 additional $32.00 additional 2003 Page 45 �� cirr on BURLINGAME � 1 �'^ns Fiscal Year 2017-15 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE OUTDOOR FACILITIES Large Special Event Deposit for Athletic Fields: Less than 100 in attendance $250.00 per event No change More than 100 in attendance $500.00 per event No change Group A-1: Field Use per Season Resolution No. 27- $16.00 per Resident No change by Burlingame -based non-profit 2011 $85.00 per Non - youth sports group. Resident plus $3.00 per hour per field for Resident groups, $9.00 per hour per field for groups less than 50% Resident Fields used by Accredited Security Deposit No change Burlingame -based non-profit youth $500.00 sports groups Page 46 �F, cirr o R � BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Burlingame High School Stadium Field Group A and Al N/A SMUHSD CONTRACT No change Group B EXPIRED JULY 1, 2011 Burlingame residents Non-residents THE CITY OF Group C BURLINGAME NO Burlingame residents LONGER RENTS Non-residents BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL FACILITIES Stadium Track (Track only) Group A and Al Group B Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C Burlingame residents Non-residents Stadium Lights Group A and Al Group B Burlingame residents Non-residents Group C Burlingame residents Non-residents Page 47 R � BURLINGAME 4a Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Franklin Field No change Group A and Al Resolution No. 31- FEES ARE SET BY THE BURLINGAME 2003 Group B SCHOOL DISTRICT Burlingame residents Resolution No. 61- 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- 2008 Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- 2008 OsberR Field No change Group A and Al Resolution No. 31- FEES ARE SET BY THE BURLINGAME 2003 Group B SCHOOL DISTRICT Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- 2008 Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- 2008 Page 48 s� cirr c R e BURLINGAME b' Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Bayside Ball Fields #1 and #2 Group A Resolution No. 31- No Charge No Charge 2003 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $20.00 per hour $21.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $30.00 per hour $31.00 per hour 2008 Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31- $30.00 per hour $31.00 per hour 2003 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $50.00 per hour $51.00 per hour 2008 Bayside Field Lights Resolution No. 24- $35.00 per hour No change 2010 Page 49 �� cirr at BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Bayside Ball Fields #3.#4 or #5 for Softball or Baseball Group A Resolution No. 31- No Charge No Charge 2003 Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $15.00 per hour $16.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $25.00 per hour $26.00 per hour 2008 Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $25.00 per hour $26.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $40.00er hour p $41.00 per hour 2008 Bayside Field Lights Resolution No. 24- $35.00 per hour No change 2010 Page 50 Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Bayside Soccer Fields Group A Resolution No. 31- No Charge No Charge 2003 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $20.00 per hour $21.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $30.00 per hour $31.00 per hour 2008 Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $30.00 per hour $31.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $50.00 per hour $51.00 per hour 2008 Bayside Field Lights Resolution No. 24- $35.00 per hour No change 2010 Page 51 �� cirr u R � BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Cuernavaca Park Group A Resolution No. 31- No Charge No Charge 2003 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $20.00 per hour $21.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $30.00 per hour $31.00 per hour 2008 Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31- $30.00 per hour $31.00 per hour 2003 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $50.00 per hour $51.00 per hour 2008 Murray Field Group A Resolution No. 31- No Charge No Charge 2003 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $30.00 per hour $31.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $50.00 per hour $51.00 per hour 2008 Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $50.00 per hour $51.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $70.00 per hour $71.00 per hour 2008 Murray Field Lights Resolution No. 24- $35.00 per hour No change 2010 Page 52 �� ciTr c R � BURLINGAME J Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Ray Park Ball Fields #1 or #2 Group A Resolution No. 31- No Charge No Charge 2003 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $20.00 per hour $21.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $30.00 per hour $31.00 per hour 2008 Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31- $30.00 per hour $31.00 per hour 2003 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $50.00 per hour $51.00 per hour 2008 Washington Park Main Ball Field for Baseball Group A Resolution No. 41- No Charge No Charge 2008 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 41- $30.00 per hour+ $31.00 per hour+ 2008 field attendant field attendant Non-residents Resolution No. 41- $50.00 per hour+ $51.00 per hour+ 2008 field attendant field attendant Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 41- $50.00 per hour+ $51.00 per hour+ 2008 field attendant field attendant Non-residents Resolution No. 41- $70.00 per hour+ $71.00 per hour+ 2008 field attendant field attendant Washington Park Lights Resolution No. 24- $35.00 per hour No change 2010 Page 53 �aE cirr en BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Washington Park Bullpen Group A Resolution No. 31- No Charge No Charge 2003 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $15.00 per hour $16.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 61- $20.00 per hour $21.00 per hour 2006 Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 33- $30.00 per hour $31.00 per hour 2007 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $40.00 per hour $41.00 per hour 2008 Washington Park Main Ball field Outfield for Soccer Group A Resolution No. 31- No Charge No Charge 2003 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $30.00 per hour $31.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $50.00 per hour $51.00 per hour 2008 Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $50.00 per hour $51.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $70.00 per hour $71.00 per hour 2008 Washington Park Lights Resolution No. 24- $35.00 per hour No change 2010 Page 54 BURLINGAME e.I bxc Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Washington Park Small Ball Field Resolution No. 31- No Charge No Charge Group A 2003 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $15.00 per hour $16.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $25.00 per hour $26.00 per hour 2008 Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61- $25.00 per hour $26.00 per hour 2006 Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $40.00 per hour $41.00 per hour 2008 Washington Small Lights Resolution No. 24- $35.00 per hour No change 2010 Page 55 BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Tennis Courts Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31- $32.00 for 4 $33.00 for 4 2003 hours/per court hours/per court Non-residents Resolution No. 61- $52.00 for 4 $53.00 for 4 2006 hours/per court hours/per court For Profit Rental Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 103- $18.00 per hour/per $19.00 per hour/per 2009 court court Non-residents Resolution No. 103- $22.00 per hour/per $23.00 per hour/per 2009 court court AQUATIC CENTER (POOL) As of September 2011, the City of Burlingame contracts with Burlingame Aquatic Club to operate the pool. PICNIC PERMITS West -end of Washington Park Resolution No. 27- $425.00 Permit Fee $432.00 Permit Fee (for Burlingame non-profit groups 2011 No Deposit No Deposit only) Page 56 6URLINGAME 00 Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Electrical Service Hook-up at Resolution No. 32- $75.00 $77.00 West -end of Washington Park 2009 Small Picnic Area Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 33- $100.00 Permit Fee $102.00 Permit Fee 2008 No Deposit No Deposit Non-residents Resolution No. 33- $135.00 Permit Fee $138.00 Permit Fee 2008 No Deposit No Deposit Large Picnic Area Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 24- $200.00 Permit Fee $204.00 Permit Fee 2010 No Deposit No Deposit Non -Residents Resolution No. 24- $250.00 Permit Fee $255.00 Permit Fee 2010 No Deposit No Deposit Non-profit Group Picnic Fees: Resolution No. 103- 2009 $95.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $97.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Cuernavaca & Ray Parks Both Washington Park Picnic Areas $275.00 Permit Fee $280.00 Permit Fee Burlingame Residents No Deposit No Deposit Non -Residents $350.00 Permit Fee $357.00 Permit Fee No Deposit No Deposit Page 57 �� cirr oT BURLINGAME b.. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Washington Park Bocce Ball Courts (reservations) Burlingame Residents Resolution 34-2013 $25.00/hour per No change court No Deposit Non -Residents $30.00/hour per No change court No Deposit Rental of Bocce Ball and Resolution 34-2013 $10.00 Flat Rate + No change Horseshoes $40.00 Refundable deposit Washington Park Horseshoe Pits (reservations) Burlingame Residents Resolution 34-2013 $25.00/hour per No change court No Deposit Non -Residents Resolution 34-2013 $30.00/hour per No change court No Deposit Page 58 �� CITY 4 6URLINGAME 4q gbgs Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Rental of Park Space for Private Classes (Exercise Boot Camps, Stroller Exercise Classes & Other Private Uses) Burlingame residents Resolution No. 103- $16.00 per hour $17.00 per hour 2009 Non-residents Resolution No. 103- $20.00 per hour $21.00 per hour 2009 Village Park Picnic Fee (3 tables) Resolution 24-2010 $100.00 Permit Fee $102.00 Permit Fee Burlingame residents No Deposit No Deposit Non-residents Resolution 24-2010 $135.00 Permit Fee $138.00 Permit Fee No Deposit No Deposit Non -Profit Community Groups Equipment Rental Fees Collapsible Picnic Table Resolution No. 32- New Fee $15.00 per table/per 2009 day Tables $4.00 per table $4.00 per table/per day Chairs $2.00 per chair $2.00 per chair/per day Tents $20.00 per tent $20.00 per tent/per day Risers — without wheels $30.00 per riser $30.00 per riser/per day Risers — with wheels New Fee $50.00 per riser/per day Page 59 �r� CITY C� BURLINGAME b.. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Inflatable Jump House Washington Park Resolution No. 27- $100.00 Permit Fee No change 2011 No Deposit (Must be done in conjunction with a picnic permit) Recreation Center Patio Resolution No. 27- $100.00 Permit Fee No change 2011 No Deposit (Must be in conjunction with rental of Lounge II) Wedding Ceremony Washington Park Rose Garden Resolution No. 27- $100.00 residents $102.00 residents 2011 $150.00 non- $153.00 non- residents residents With Recreation Center Rental Resolution No. 27- $50.00 residents $51.00 residents 2011 $100.00 non- $102.00 non- residents residents Page 60 �� CITT 4 BUF2LJNGAME 4c�9b.. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Photo Shoots in Parks Application Fee Resolution No. 27- $50.00 non- $51.00 non - 2011 refundable fee refundable fee Rental Fee Per Day Resolution No. 27- $125.00 per day $128.00 per day 2011 Student Photo Shoot No Charge or No Change application fee Film Shoot in Parks Application Fee $250.00 non- $300.00 non- refundable fee refundable fee Commercial or Corporate $400.00 per day $408.00 per day Feature Film/Documentary $600.00 per day $612.00 per day Page 61 FACILITY/SERVICE Brochure Ads 1/8 page 1/4 page 1/2 page Full page Full Page Inside Front Cover Full Page Inside Back Cover Full Page Back Cover Layout Discount for Non -Profits Class Fees �� cirr G R t BURLINGAME h� Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION REFERENCE Resolution No. 27 2011 CLASSES Resolution No. 31-2003 CURRENT FEE 1 issue/3 issues (1 year) $69.00/$173.00 $127.00/317.00 $230.00/$575.00 $443.00/$1,108.00 $500.00/$1,200.00 $547.00/$1,368.00 $633.00/$1,583.00 $75.00 per hour NEW FEE 1 issue/4 issues (1 year - 20%Dis) $71.00/$227.00 $142.00/$454.00 $284.00/$909.00 $568.00/$1,818.00 $765.00/$2,448.00 $714.00/$2,285.00 $850.00/$2,720.00 No Change 25% resident groups I No Change 0% non-resident groups To be set based on class provider and materials/facilitie s provided No Change No change Page 62 �F, cirr o R � BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Registration Fees Resolution No. 24-2010 $12.00 No change Non-resident Fee on Classes Resolution No. 31-2003 Add 20% to class No change fee rounded to nearest dollar Senior discount — Burlingame Resolution No. 103-2009 25% off class fee No change residents age 65 and over on classes held at Recreation Center Senior discount — non-residents Resolution No. 31-2003 Waive non- No change age 65 and over resident fee Registration cancellation charge Resolution No. 33-2008 $8.00 per class or No change event TREE AND PARKS FEES Memorial tree plantings Resolution No. 33-2008 $200.00 No change Memorial Bench —Washington Resolution No. 27-2011 $2,000.00 No change Park Memorial Bench — Bayside Park $2,200.00 No change Additional street tree plantings Resolution No. 32-2009 $95.00/$200.00 No change 15 gallon/24 box size Page 63 BURLINOAME a Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Protected Tree Removal Application Fee Resolution No. 33-2008 $75.00 No change Arborist's plan review for Resolution No. 33-2008 $226.00 $230.00 landscaping requirements on planning applications (See also planning fee schedule) Arborist check of construction Resolution No. 33-2008 $226.00 $230.00 plans and inspection of landscape requirements on building permit submittals Appeal to City Council from Resolution No. 33-2008 $170.00 $455.00 (Reflects Beautification Commission actual cost and decision (does not include noticing aligns with Planning costs) appeals) Noticing, City Council Appeal Resolution No. 33-2008 $85.00 $96.00 Street Banner Hanger Resolution No. 24-2010 $100.00 No change Private Tree Emergency Work $72.00 per hour $78.00 per hour Business Hours (M -F; 7-3:30) After Hours (Weekends & $91.50 per hour $99.00 per hour Holidays) Page 64 t S BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE PRE -APPLICATIONS Preliminary Plan Check, New Construction" Resolution No. 27-2011 $606.00 $800.00 Preliminary Plan Check, Remodel* Resolution No. 27-2011 $354.00 $403.00 Zoning Verification/Property Profile Letter $50.00 No change APPLICATIONS Ambiguity/Determination Hearing before Resolution No. 33-2008 $973.00 $1,006.00 Planning Commission (applies to Planning, Fire, and Building requests) Amendment/Extension of Permits Resolution No. 27-2011 $715.00 $739.00 Appeal to Planning Commission of Resolution No. 33-2008 $440.00 $455.00 administratively approved permits/appeal to City Council of Planning Commission decisions Noticing to be charged separately Legal Review -Substantive work by City Resolution No. 48-2015 $165.00/hour $171.00/hour Attorney for development projects requiring discretionary review before the Planning Commission under Title 25 Fifty percent (50%) of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete application. Page 65 BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,758.00 $1,818.00 Condominium Permit, 4-10 Units or Fewer (4- has been deleted) Resolution No. 33-2008 $2,958.00 $^,moo 3,236.00 Condominium Permit, 11 Units to 25 Units Resolution No. 33-2008 $3,474.00 $6,150.gg 3 800.00 Condominium Permit, 26 Units to 50 Units $4,078.00 $^,moo 4461.00 Condominium Permit, 51 Units to 100 Units $4,788.00 $4,95000 5 238.00 Condominium Permit, 101 Units and Greater $5,621.00 $5,4, 81 6150.00 Design Review, Addition Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,127.00 $1,165.00 Design Review, Amendment Resolution No. 27-2011 $973.00 $1,006.00 Design Review Deposit' Resolution No. 27-2006 $1,320.00 No change Design Review — Handling Fee Resolution No. 33-2008 $494.00 $511.00 Minor Amendment to Approved Project $375.00 $388.00 As -Built Variation from Approved Project 1 $1,380.00 $1,427.00 Design Review, New Construction Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,127.00 $1,165.00 Fence Exception Resolution No. 27-2011 $989.00 $1,023.00 %{ Minimum deposit. Formula for ultimate calculation is design review consultant fee times hours spent. Project not set for hearing until actual time paid. Page 66 S� <ITY Q 4 S BURLINGAME ePo�^na Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Minor Modification Resolution No. 27-2011 $836.00 $1,303.00 Hillside Area Construction Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $836.00 $1,558.00 Secondary Dwelling Unit Resolution No. 27-2011 $640.00 $662.00 Reasonable Accommodation Resolution No. 27-2011 $418.00 No change Re -zoning Resolution No. 27-2011 $5,494.00 $6,928.00 Second Unit Amnesty Permit, Building Official Inspection Deposit Resolution No. 27-2011 $440.00 $455.00 Special Use Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $2,800.00 $2,895.00 Variance Resolution No 27-2011 $3,516.00 $4,032.00 Wireless Communications Administrative Use Permit Municipal Code Chapter 25.77 $836.00 $1,672.00 Plan Recheck Fee More than two revisions to plans Major redesign of project plans Resolution No. 32- 2009 Resolution No. 32- 2009 $440.00 $785.00 $675.00 $812.00 ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental, Categorical Exemption Resolution No. 27-2011 $109.00 $113.00 Environmental, Negative Declaration (R-1 and R-2) Resolution No. 27-2011 $5,054.00 $5,852.00 Environmental, Mitigated Declaration Resolution No. 27-2011 Pass-through No change Page 67 �� ciTr on BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE and/or with a Responsible Agency of actual contractor cost Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. 31-2003 20% of No change contract, deposit to be determined by Director of Community Development Environmental Posting Fee, Negative Resolution No. 27-2011 $572.00 $600.00 Declaration and EIR Fish & Game Fee for Negative Declaration, Fish & Game Code § $2,210.25 $2,216.00 whether mitigated or not (pass-through 711.4 fee) Fish & Game Fee for Environmental Impact Fish & Game Code § $3,070.00 $3,078.00 Report (pass-through fee) 711.4 County Clerk Processing Fee for Fish & Fish & Game Code § $50.00 No change Game (pass-through fee) 711.4 PARKS Arborist Review (when required) Resolution No. 33-2008 $226.00 $234.00 NOTICING Noticing, R-1 and R-2 Resolution No. 27-2011 $310.00 $320.00 Page 68 t�' cirr c t � BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Noticing, All Other Districts Resolution No. 27-2011 $310.00 $320.00 Noticing, R-1 Design Review, Residential Resolution No. 27-2011 $430.00 $445.00 Noticing, R-1 Design Study, Residential Resolution No. 27-2011 $430.00 $445.00 Noticing, Design Review, all other districts Resolution No. 27-2011 $430.00 $445.00 Noticing, Minor Modifications, Hillside Area Construction Permits Resolution No. 27-2011 $360.00 $372.00 Noticing, General Plan Amendment — Re -zoning Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,240.00 $1,282.00 Noticing, Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,240.00 $1,282.00 Noticing, City Council Appeal Resolution No. 33-2008 $93.00 $96.00 Noticing, Second Unit Amnesty Resolution No. 61-2004 $60.00 $62.00 Noticing — Wireless Communications Municipal Code Chapter 25.77.120 $545.00 $564.00 SIGNS 50 square feet or less Resolution No 27-2011 $100.00 $160.00 Over 50 SF and less than 200 square feet Resolution No. 27-2011 $198.00 $228.00 Over 200 square feet Resolution No. 27-2011 $255.00 $264.00 Sign Variance Resolution No. 27-2011 $2,820.00 $2,916.00 Page 69 �S� CITY Q� BURLJNGAME e Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Removal of Illegal Sign Resolution No. 33-2008 $113.00 $117.00 PUBLICATIONS Zoning Map Resolution No. 32-2009 $5.00 No change Page 70 �� CITY 4 BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) The Bayfront Development Fee is charged to all new construction/development within the Bayfront Specific Plan Area on the east side of US 101. One-half of the fee is payable before issuance of a building permit and the balance is payable when certificate of occupancy is requested. Ordinance No. 1739 (2004), as amended, provides for annual adjustment based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1 of each year. These fees will be included in the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule as of July 1, 2017 based on any change in the construction cost index. SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Bayfront Development Fee Ord. No. 1739 (2004) $2,601.00/TSF Available on July 1, 2017 Office Restaurant $10,473.00/TS F Hotel $852.00/room Hotel, Extended Stay $829.00/room Office, Warehouse, $3,943.00/TSF Manufacturing Retail — Commercial $9,574.00/TSF Car Rental $60,761.00/acre Commercial Recreation $18,857.00/acre All Other $2,095.00 per p.m. peak hour trip as detailed by traffic study Page 71 �� cirx c R � BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) North Burlingame & Rollins Road Development Fees are charged to all new construction and development within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area. One-half of the fee is payable before issuance of a building permit and the balance is payable when certificate of occupancy is requested. Ordinance No. 1751 (2005) provides for annual adjustment beginning in 2006, based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1 of each year. These fees will be included in the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule as of July 1, 2017 based on any change in the construction cost index. SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE North Burlingame & Rollins Available on July 1, Road Development Fee 2017 Rollins Road Area of Benefit Ord. No. 1751 (2005) $0.56 per square foot of building EI Camino North Area of Benefit Multiple family dwelling or Ord. No. 1751 (2005) $0.73 per square foot duplex of building Any use other than multiple Ord. No. 1751 (2005) $0.56 per square foot family of building dwelling or duplex Page 72 f� cirr e R T BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) The Public Facilities Impact Fee is a general category of fees based on the uses, number of dwelling units and/or amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of a development project. The fees are committed to public improvement, public services, and community amenities affected by new development (Resolution 76-2008). The purpose of the fee is established upon approval of a permit for construction or reconstruction, and is intended for improvements in one or more of the following categories: • General Facilities & Equipment • Streets & Traffic • Libraries • Fire • Police • Storm Drainage • Parks & Recreation Page 73 Single Family Multifamily Commercial Office Industrial Fee per Dwelling Unit Fee per Dwelling Unit Fee per 1,000 sq.ft. of Building Fee per 1,000 sq.ft. of Building Fee per 1,000 sq.ft. of Building General $ 2,756 $ 1,636 $ 640 $ 930 $ 305 Library $ 2,383 $ 1,415 $ 478 $ 695 $ 228 Police $ 437 $ 259 $ 102 $ 147 $ 48 Parks $ 590 $ 350 $ 118 $ 172 $ 56 Traffic/Streets $ 1,573 $ 1,105 $ 1,810 $ 7,285 $ 1,146 Fire $ 642 $ 381 $ 248 $ 360 $ 118 Storm Drainage $ 781 $ 391 $ 442 $ 717 $ 628 Total Impact Fee: $ 9,162 $ 5,537 $3,838 $10,306 $2,529 Page 73 �� ciTr c 9URLINGAME kp. 4„ Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) Burlingame Avenue Parking in Lieu Fees are applicable only to commercial properties within Downtown Burlingame and are collected in those instances where a land -use requires additional parking, but the site cannot physically accommodate additional spaces. The fee is based upon a per - space, or portion thereof that is not being provided on the property. The funds are to remain in the City's Parking fund to help defray the cost of building a City -owned and operated parking structure. SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Burlingame Avenue Parking in Lieu Resolution 48-2000 $51,183.23 $52,923.00 Fees Page 74 �� ciTr BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Vehicle Release Resolution No.32-2009 $140.00 No Change Police Reports Report Copies Resolution No.32-2009 $2.00 per page up to $23.50 maximum No Change Fingerprint Rolling Fee Live scan Fee Set by State of California Department of Justice $35.00 plus appropriate State and or Federal processing fee No Change A o l n�A� ;!QPo connpeF p -o delete Vjdee 9t22pe&Ir^nron4� o i .iGH N9.32 2n09 $99.00 peF a to e"(;D/rnm delete 49tagFap4s el tier Ple.32 2909 $90.00per-Fe.11 delete CD's/DVD's Containing Digital Files Resolution No.32-2009 $90.00 per CD/DVD Clearance Letter Resolution No. 32-2009 $25.00 $26.00 Repossessed Vehicle Gov't Code § 41612 $15.00 No Change Bicycle License Resolution No. 31-2003 No Charge No Change Page 75 �� cirr e BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENTFEE NEW FEE Preferential Parking Permits (Residential Permit Parking Program) Issuance (up to 2 permits for Resolution No. 22-2008 $53.00 No Change same address) (Section 13.36.070) Annual renewal (up to 2 permits Resolution No. 22-2008 $53.00 No Change for same address) (Section 13.36.070) Charge for replacement of lost Resolution No. 22-2008 $53.00 No Change permit (Section 13.36.070) Driving Under Influence (DUI) Resolution No. 32-2009 $208.00 per hour $216.00 per Fees hour Resolution No. 33-2007 $130.00 per blood No Change test Resolution No. 33-2007 $48.00 per breath No Change or urine test Resolution No. 33-2007 $130.00 per refused No Change blood test Booking Fees San Mateo County As set by County No Change Security Service (Outside Detail) Resolution No. 33-2008 $135.00 per hour No Change (minimum charge of four hours) Page 76 F BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Alarm Permits (Annual Renewal) Resolution No. 116-2003 $32.00 per year No Change (Section 10.10.110) False Alarm Charge 1 to 2 false alarms No Charge No Change 3 to 5 false alarms Resolution No. 116-2003 $50.00 each No Change (Section 10.10.090) 6 or more false alarms Resolution No. 116-2003 $100.00 each No Change Any false alarm for which no (Section 10.10.090) $50.00 (includes $50.00 (includes alarm permit has been Resolution No. 28-2006 cost of alarm cost of alarm issued permit) permit plus $18.00 initial application fee) A„�Live Entertainment Resolution No. 32-2009 $204.00 $408.00 Permit (Sections 6.16.090) Peddlers and Solicitors Resolution No. 41-2008 $596.00 for No Change (Section 6.24.030) investigation plus fingerprinting fees Curb Painting Resolution No. 33-2007 $55.00 for No Change investigation Page 77 �� CITY 0 BURLJNGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Tanning Salon Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $324.00 plus $592.00 plus (Section 6.42.060) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Sale or Transfer Resolution No. 41-2008 $216.00 plus $432.00 plus (Section 6.42.120) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 $162.00 plus $324.00 plus (Section 6.42.160) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Massage Operator Application Resolution No. 32-2009 $741.00 plus $766.00 plus (Section 6.40.060) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Sale or Transfer Resolution No. 32-2009 $658.00 plus $766.00 plus (Section 6.40.120) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 32-2009 $400.00 plus $479.00 plus (Section 6.40.160) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Massage Practitioner Application Resolution No. 32-2009 $200.00 plus No Change (Section 6.40.060) fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 32-2009 (Section 6.40.160) $100.00 plus No Change fingerprinting fees Page 78 Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Model/Escort Service Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $324.00 plus $648.00 plus (Section 6.41.040) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Sale or Transfer Resolution No. 41-2008 $216.00 plus $432.00 plus (Section 6.41.100) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 $162.00 plus $324.00 plus (Section 6.41.130) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Private Patrol Company Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $324.00 plus $335.00 plus (Section 6.44.050) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 $162.00 plus $168.00 plus (Section 6.44.080) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Taxi Operator Application Section 6.36.050 Business license fee No Change plus fingerprinting fees Renewal Section 6.36.190 Business license fee No Change plus fingerprinting fees Page 79 ��F, cirr on BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Taxi Driver Application Section 6.36.050 $66.00 plus $68.00 plus fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Renewal Section 6.36.190 $60.00 plus $62.00 plus fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Taxicab Annual Inspection Section 6.36.120 $74.00 per vehicle $77.00 per vehicle Valet Parking Resolution No. 41-2008 $324.00 plus $335.00 plus (Section 6.30.040) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Concealed Weapon Resolution No. 32-2009 $452.00 for $904.00 for investigation investigation Fortune Teller Resolution No. 41-2008 $324.00 plus $335.00 plus (Set by Section 6.38.060) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Unruly Gathering Section 10.70.070 Cost of Hours of No Change Officer Response Page 80 tb ciTr c 4 S BURLINGAME %o Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Special Events & Street Closing Resolution No. 32-2009 No longer charged; No Change Permit fees restructured Application and Permit $100.00 No Change Sidewalk Closure $100.00 per No Change Road Closure parcel/per day $200.00 per No Change parcel/per day Verification of non-resident Resolution No. 90-2009 No Charge No Change "proof -of -correction" citations Page 81 SERVICE Single-family and Duplex Multi -family Commercial/Retail Office Warehouse R � 9URLINOAME 4 Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule SEWER REFERENCE SEWER CONNECTION FEES Section 15.08.020 Section 15.08.020 Section 15.08.020 Section 15.08.020 Section 15.08.020 CURRENTFEE $245.00/unit Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI as of 1/1/16 $187.00/unit Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI as of 1/1/16 $391.00/thousand square feet (TSF) Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI as of 1/1/16 $85.00/TSF Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI as of 1/1/16 $109.00/TSF Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI as of 1/1/16 NEW FEE $255.00/unit Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI as of 1/1/17 $195.00/unit Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI as of 1/1/17 $407.00/thousand square feet (TSF) Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI as of 1/1/17 $88.00/TSF Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI as of 1/1/17 $114.00/TSF Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI as of 1/1/17 Page 82 :� cirr c t � BUWJNGAME ate Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule SEWER SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Restaurant Section 15.08.020 $967.00/TSF $1,006.001TSF Fee updated based on Fee updated based Engineering News Record on Engineering CPI as of 1/1/16 News Record CPI as of 1/1/17 Hotel with Restaurant Section 15.08.020 $617.00/room $642.00/room Fee updated based on Fee updated based Engineering News Record on Engineering CPI as of 1/1/16 News Record CPI as of 1/1/17 Hotel without Restaurant Section 15.08.020 $381.00/room $397.00/room Fee updated based on Fee updated based Engineering News Record on Engineering CPI as of 1/1/16 News Record CPI as of 1/1/17 INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE FEES The fee covers two (2) samples; additional samples charged according to the Analytical Processing Fee Schedule below. Light Discharger, Annual Ord. No. 1786 $606.00 No Change (2006) Moderate Discharger, Annual Ord. No. 1786 $1,660.00 No Change (2006) Heavy Discharger, Annual Ord. No. 1786 $2,318.00 No Change (2006) Page 83 �� CITY C BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule SEWER SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Non -Conventional Discharger, Ord. No. 1786 $1,239.00 No Change Annual (2006) Groundwater Discharger Ord. No. 1786 Non -conventional Fee No Change (2006) plus $6.98 per 1000 gallons discharged Application Processing Fee Ord. No. 1786 $160.00 No Change (2006) ANALYTICAL FEES In-house Testing Ord. No. 1786 Cost No Change (2006) Contract Lab Testing Ord. No. 1786 Cost plus 15% No Change (2006) BIMONTHLY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES Single-family or duplex Ord. No. 1844-2010 $12.25 per thousand No change Section 15.08.070 gallons; if less than (Effective 1/1/2012) thousand gallons, then $18.86 Multi -family residential Ord. No. 1844-2010 $11.45 per thousand No change Section 15.08.070 gallons (Effective 1/1/2012) Restaurant, other commercial Ord. No. 1844-2010 $32.59 per thousand No change food -related uses Section 15.08.070 gallons (Effective 1/1/2012) Page 84 �� CITY Q A � 6URLINGAME I Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule SEWER SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Heavy strength commercial Ord. No. 1844-2010 $21.97 per thousand No change Section 15.08.070 gallons (Effective 1/1/2012) Light strength commercial Ord. No. 1844-2010 $13.53 per thousand No change Section 15.08.070 gallons (Effective 1/1/2012) Institutional Ord. No. 1844-2010 $4.80 per thousand No change Section 15.08.070 gallons (Effective 1/1/2012) NEW CUSTOMERS IN SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEX CLASSIFICATION Number of Residents No change 1 Section 15.08.072 $47.63 2 (Effective 1/1/2012) $59.26 3 $72.52 4 $85.78 5 $97.94 6 $101.44 7 $110.30 g $128.46 9 or more $150.60 Page 85 Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule WATER Water fees are set via a three year rate -setting cycle with an effective date of January 1. The following rates are effective January 1, 2017. SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE MONTHLY CHARGE FOR METERS 5/8" and 3/4" meter Ord. No. 1880 (20!2 $41.80 $36.36 2017) 1" meter Ord. No. 1880 (;�Ql2 $71.08 $60.60 2017) 1-Y2" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2012- $138.00 $121.20 2017) 2" meter Ord. No. 1880 (29-3-2 $221.62 $193.92 2017) 3" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2912 $418.17 $363.60 2017) 4" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2912 $698.34 $606.00 2017) 6" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2912 $1,392.49 $1,212.00 2017) 8" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2412 $2,228.84 $1,939.20 2017) WATER CONSUMPTION Page 86 �� CITY A BURUINGAME 4, Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule WATER %VithiR All Locations Ord. No. 1880 (Qn4 2017) $9.09 per thousand gallons $9.92 per thousand gallons Outside City n .J Ne. 9440 (20124 $10.13 pe rm�'o `mvnv^'1-6^vilon5 Delete SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Water Service Turn -On Ord. No. 1880 (2012) 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday No Charge No change thru Friday 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., $20.00 No Change Monday thru Friday 3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., $60.00 No Change Monday thru Friday Saturday/Sunday/Holiday $60.00 No Change Penalty Fee (Past Due) Not paid within 30 days of Ord. No. 1880 (2012) 1.5% penalty No change billing Page 87 BURLANGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule WATER SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Service Renewal 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $35.00 No change thru Friday 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., $45.00 No Change Monday thru Friday 3:31 p.m. to 4:50 p.m., $60.00 No Change Monday thru Friday Maintenance of Water in Fire Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $1.00 per month per No change Protection System inch of pipe diameter, with $2.00 minimum charge Flow Test 5/8" through 1" Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $50.00 No change 1-Y2" and 2" $80.00 No Change Over 2" $100.00 minimum (if No Change over $100.00, cost of testing plus 15%) Temporary Water Service Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $750.00 deposit No change Meter charges (does not $43.00 per month for include water consumption) 1 -inch meter $85.00 per month for three-inch meters Page 88 r� cirr c t � 6URLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule WATER SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Water Service Turn -on Deposit Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $50.00 or 2 months No Change if Delinquent on City Water estimated Account in Previous 12 months consumption, whichever is greater Work on City Water System Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $60.00 permit No Change $1,500.00 bond or deposit Fire Flow Test Section 15.04.030 $242.00 per hydrant No Change Page 89 �a� CITY OS BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule WATER SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Water Line Installation 5/8" bypass meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $350.00 No change 3/4" service with meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $4,100.00 No Change 1" service with meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $4,135.00 No Change 1-Y2 " service with meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $5,280.00 No Change 2" service with meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $5,420.00 No Change If larger than 2" or a length of Ord. No. 1805 (2006) Cost plus 15% No Change more than 60 feet Meter Upgrade No change To 3/4" meter or 1" meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $254.00 (meter only) Page 90 aE, carr e R � BURLANGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL The City's agreement with San Mateo County requires that animal control fees reflect the fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors or that the difference in fees be paid by the City if the City's fees are less (S.M.0 Ordinance No. 04628, approved July 24, 2012). These fees are included in the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule, subject to changes based on any future action by the County of San Mateo. The following are current fees as of July 1, 2017: (No changes for County Fees) Page 91 �� cirr on BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL Unaltered dog: 1 -year license $ 50.00 (which includes a $1.00 surcharge on all licenses for the Animal Population Trust Fund) 3 -year license $145.00 1 -year license with senior discount (over 60 yrs) $ 18.00 3 -year license with senior discount (over 60 yrs) $ 54.00 Altered doe and Wolf-Hvbrid: 1 -year license $ 20.00 3 -year license $ 55.00 1 -year license with senior discount (over 60 yrs) $ 9.00 3 -year license with senior discount (over 60 yrs) $ 23.00 Miscellaneous Fees (Dog/Wolf-Hybrid): Late Penalty $ 20.00 Duplicate tag $ 8.00 Unaltered Cat: 1 -year license $ 15.00 3 -year license $ 45.00 1 -year license with senior discount (over 60 yrs) $ 7.00 3 -year license with senior discount (over 60 yrs) $ 21.00 Altered Cat: 1 -year license $ 7.00 3 -year license $ 17.50 1 -year license with senior discount (over 60 yrs) $ 5.00 3 -year license with senior discount (over 60 yrs) $ 11.25 Page 92 S� ciTr R BURLINGAME 'ko Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL Miscellaneous Fees (Cats): Late Penalty $ 7.00 Duplicate tag $ 5.00 Redemption Charges: Type A& B (large or medium animals— horses, cows, hogs, sheep, etc.) Impound Cost $ 125.00 Board Cost per Day $ 25.00 Transportation Cost (per animal) $ 70.00 Trailering Cost (per use) $ 70.00 Type C (dogs, wolf hybrids, cats) - Altered Impound Cost: First Offense, licensed & wearing tag $ 40.00 First Offense, unlicensed & no tag $ 50.00 Second Offense $ 90.00 Third Offense $ 135.00 Fourth Offense $ 180.00 Fifth Offense $ 225.00 Type C (dogs, wolf hybrids, cats) -Unaltered Impound Cost: First Offense, licensed & wearing tag $ 60.00 First Offense, unlicensed & no tag $ 80.00 Second Offense $ 120.00 Third Offense $ 150.00 Fourth Offense $ 210.00 Fifth Offense $ 255.00 Page 93 �� crcr at BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL Board Charges (Per Dav): Dogs/wolf hybrids Altered Dogs/wolf hybrids Unaltered Cats Altered Cats Unaltered Type D (small -sized animals -birds, hamsters. etc.) Impound Cost Board Cost per Day Surrender. Euthanasia and Dead on Arrival Disposal Fees: Dog/Cat Rabbit/Small Animal Litter of three or more Bird/Fowl All Exotic Animals Farm Animal Quarantine Fee Dangerous Animal Permit (DAP) Fee DAP Inspection Fee DAP Signage Field Return Fee Breeding Permit Fee Fancier Permit Fee (and/or exotic pet fee) Return Check Fee Records Request Fee *The Division of Animal Control may establish license discounts for recognized animal rescue organizations and adoption discounts for senior citizens. $ 20.00 $ 25.00 $ 16.00 $ 19.00 $ 40.00 $ 13.00 Surrender Euthanasia DOA Disposal $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00 $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00 $ 50.00 $ 40.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 15.00 $ 22.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 60.00 $ 100.00 -$-I-00.00 $ 50.00 $ 260.00 $ 100.00 $ 10.00 $ 35.00 $ 50.00 $ 100.00 $ 25.00 $ 0.20 per page Page 94 R t BURLINGAME Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL Page 95 a AGENDA NO: 10a STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 1, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 1, 2017 From: Nil Blackburn, Assistant to the City Manager — (650) 558-7229 Lisa Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Subject: Adoption of the Revisions to the Priorities Identified During the FY 2017 - 2018 Goal-Settinq Session RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the modified priorities (sustainability, transportation, housing, and infrastructure) discussed during the March 20, 2017 City Council meeting and initially raised during the FY 2017-2018 Goal -Setting Session on January 28, 2017. BACKGROUND The City Council held its annual Goal -Setting Session on Saturday, January 28, 2017. During this brainstorming session, the City Council, City staff, and members of the community tackled a single question presented by Mayor Ortiz: `How do we make Burlingame a better place to live and work". DISCUSSION The ideas raised during the Goal -Setting Session were summarized in a chart titled, "Outcome of the 2017-2018 Goal Setting Session" and presented by staff to Council for adoption during the March 20, 2017 City Council meeting. During that meeting, the City Council and staff discussed changes to the chart and discussed how the priorities would be used and implemented during FY 2017-2018, which begins July 1, 2017. Two key points discussed during the meeting are summarized below. 1. Four Council Priorities for FY 2017-2018 Sustainability City of Burlingame Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Priorities Transportation Housing Exceed carbon reduction Improve roadwaysafety Address affordabilitycrisis targets and develop and reduce congestion for and retain socioeconomic strategies to address all modes of diversity of our changing environmental transportation(cars, community. realities. pedestrians, and cyclists). Infrastructure Develop near-term, fiscally responsible funding strategies to renovate City facilities. Next Steps on Goal Setting for FY 2017-2018 May 1, 2017 The City Council agreed that instead of making "quality of life" one of the City's priorities for FY 2017-2018, this term can more aptly be described as a common theme that underpins the four Council priorities. Like quality of life, the City Council, staff, and the community identified and discussed other common themes during the Goal -Setting Session. These themes, which run concurrent to the four priorities identified, include: safety; engagement of the all segments of the community, including seniors and millennials; financial considerations; and improved communications and outreach to the community. 2. Application and Use of Priorities The four priorities are meant to serve as the guiding principles that will aid the Council and staff in prioritizing and planning future initiatives, policies, projects, and strategies. In fact, going forward, staff reports will include a section identifying which of the four priorities, if any, the staff recommendation will promote. As a next step in the goal -setting process, staff would like the City Council to review and approve the four revised priorities. FISCAL IMPACT In conducting its review of future initiatives against the four priorities identified, the City Council should consider budget implications as well as staff availability in the context of their existing day- to-day operational responsibility and projects. In the event the City Council seeks to add staff resources, project initiatives, or consulting services, funding will need to be allocated away from existing projects or from unassigned fund balance. 2 M027-18 Draft General Fund Capital Improvement Program 3/15/2017 Projects Description Project Costs On thousands) Existing Funds/Grants FY -1748 CIP Requests lin thousands) Draft Recommendations 0n ttvmandsl A Building Facilities Improvements 1 City Hall - HVAC and Plumbing Improvements and Asbestos Abatement 5,200 5,200 2 Parks Corporation Yard Renovation 1,750 1,750 3 Cartage House Improvements 1,300 1,300 4 FSg35HVAC, Roof Replacement and Uving Quarters Improvements 1,2001 450 750 750 5 Energy Efficiency Improvements 1,000 300 300 Recreation Center Roof Replacement, Fire Sprinklers and Emergency 6 Generator Improvements 900 900 7 Fire stations emergency generators upgrade project IRS 34, 35 and 36) 700 150 150 8 Donnelly Parking Garage Deck Coating 575 70 505 9 FS 436 Foundation Rehabilitation 350 350 10 FS 434 Roof Replacement and HVAC upgrades 300 300 11 PW Corporation Yard Roof Repairs 210 210 12 Fuel Pump Station lmpravements at Corp Yard 200 200 100 13 Ubrary Basement Flood Protection Improvements 200 200 14 Easton Library HVAC Improvements 115 115 15 Building Facilities ADA Improvements 100 100 100 Building Facilities Improvements Total 14,100 520 12,330 1,400,: B Bicycle. Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Improvements ICalifornia Drive Class l Bike/Ped Track Project (Long Term Solution) 10,000 2California Drive Class 11 Bike Lane Project (Near Term Solution) 500 500 500 3 Broadway Grade Separation Project(Pil Phase) 4,350 4,350 4 Sidewalk Repairs Program and ADA Improvements 1,000 1,000 5 Hoover School Sidewalk Improvements Qocal match for federal gra nt) 900 700 200 200 6 Broadway Pedestrian Llghml(local matching funds for federal grant) 900 720 180 180 7 Residential Traffic Calming Program 100 100 100 8 Bike Boulevards Implementation Feasibility Study 70 70 70 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Improvements Total 17,820 6,770 1,050 1,050 C Parks & Recreation Improvements 1 Murray Synthetic Turf lnstallatlon Project 2,200 450 1,750 1,750 2 Burlingame High School Aquatic Center Pool Deck Replacement Project 1,200 1,200 90 3 Ray Park Playground Upgrade 000 372 428 428 4 Burlingame Square Improvements 600 140 460 5 Paloma Park Playground- Fire Damage Replacement 325 325 325 6 City Parks Master Pla n2]5 275 275 7 Washington Park Restroom Replacement 250 250 250 B Bay Trail Fitness Equipment Upgrade. 150 150 9 Playground Repairs and Trees Planting 60 60 60 10 Playground Resilient Surfacing Repairs 50 50 50 Parks &, RecreatloRlrp rovernents Total :51910 962 4,948 3,226 D Finance 1 New Financial System 200 2Go zoo �., Finance _ E Police 200 - _ zoo 200, 1 Digital portable radio replacement 2 Police Dispatch Furniture Upgrades 80 80 - 80 80 80 80 + Police F Ci 1 Electronic Records Management System 160 250 - 160 250 160 250 City Clerk 250 _ .250 .,250 total Mdois g1292I (8,938 B,ia;B X rh N �ni (TQ rF N G rF S C mo Q O 439 r• z 0 0 LA , z D D :S D M OQ xx� -v D A 3 e4 o 0O 3 0 0 H r rt w T C) ii "S Cm 3 M m-%c� -% to fD C HCL - o O O -a + z ° c 'A o o + 3 (TQ 3 ti o oCU a D n (D Ln LU \ Do 0 ti No �- N O N CL + Q Lo 3 fD N w 0 m n n n ro �. 3 O GHQ (D W D rb N Q rt a n Q rb 0 A • 0 ml A O n N f�D N rA OP ;u cnm 7v C [D cn (D O n -h rD rD O X rD tl. % =3 !:2 UQ 3 n O O v r+ (D rD rD Ln fD 0- 0 T. m N . • • D rD LnC N -0 rD =3n X e + rD U; IL r N :. --h Naq C: p -h rD O (D O rD r+ V' n O Q- rD co O N r+ O rD rn 3 n Q .a r* a O 1-2 N C C O O O O (D (D In I� N O rr � rD 3 r+ � a O � � n � n ro O i� e e u u u �r # o Q (D O 1 M 1 (D rN s D S) D% a% Sv } n o' O O v, v = _ r— > v Q mn O T CL N T C C fD 7 7 C 7 SZ rD _ DJ X co ° a rD < N I 1 •Ln •1 V O �! O m p 0 D a c' r+ rD LnL N r D N N l0 l0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 f� rp CD G� m rh Eel Ln O D 0 n 0 A r+ 0 N 0 3 MO N r_+ 0' Q FaN O m 0 CL 0 cn N l 1I N t N Q) O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O a < O. O• A G r p Cq O O m 3 r !AD r+�, N 3' G �• O fD �• m N .••r m C O rr vi r+ S GN Gq "` 3• -h — m. O. O p �• Cr 0. = 3 N� 0 Cr •O 70 m � • D a '* o a� �• 3 0 m N aq A� FDO K 7 O r•1• A_ � fD• al N -a. r••F -h N KII 0 O f+ S • 39 rD 3 M O > Al A CD• sw 0 K m r+ n 0 A• 9 CD fD r+ so aq m n O UO (D 9 C � rt O Tr/�7�f `V • 39 rD 3 M O > Al A CD• sw 0 K m r+ n 0 A• 9 CD fD r+ so aq m n O UO (D L- 0 fD r— FDa M , l V� N n �o LaCDrt . O tz > N n r� •.� a ow rt N Agenda Item Ba Meeting Date: 5/1/17 �a�, ciTr oa. BURLINGAME 9 bRnrzo au BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on April 17, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Burlingame resident Robert Bierman. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. 5. UPCOMINGEVENTS Mayor Ortiz reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 1 Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Brownrigg pulled item 8a. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to approve 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, and 8f; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote; 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 3, 2017 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes of April 3, 2017. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he had no corrections to the minutes. He requested that on page 7, the discussion of Planning Commission candidates, after the first round of voting, be removed as it involved personal remarks. He noted that they remain on the record in the video. Councilmember Beach stated that because she recused herself from voting on the Planning Commission appointments at the April 3, 2017 meeting, she would not be offering an opinion on this matter. Councilmember Colson stated that if the discussion was removed, then Council needed to be consistent and in the future candidate discussion for all commission appointments should not be included in the meeting minutes. Councilmember Keighran asked the City Attorney if this could be done. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative stating that the record remains preserved in the video. Mayor Ortiz stated he wasn't sure he was comfortable with the discussion of candidates being removed. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt the meeting minutes as amended; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed by voice vote: 3-1-1. (Councilmember Beach abstained and Mayor Ortiz voted against). b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO O'GRADY PAVING INC FOR THE FY 2016-17 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM, CITY PROJECT NO. 84470 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 21-2017. Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: S/1/17 c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ORDERING AND CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 7 2017 AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE SAN MATEO COUNT CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION AS AN ALL -MAILED BALLOT ELECTION City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Numbers 22-2017 and 23-2017. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION INCREASING THE APPROPRIATION FOR ELECTION -RELATED COSTS BY $26,000 IN THE 2016-17 FISCAL YEAR City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 24-2017. e. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the Beautification Commission. f. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill two vacancies on the Library Board of Trustees. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 746 LINDEN AVENUE CDD Meeker stated that on March 20, 2017, the City Council considered an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of requests related to construction of a new single-family residence with an attached garage at 746 Linden Avenue. At the hearing, the Council ultimately granted the appeal and approved the project. CDD Meeker explained that following the public hearing, staff was informed that public notice of the appeal hearing was not mailed to all owners of property lying within 300 -feet of the project site, as is the normal procedure. In light of this oversight, on March 24, 2017, a Notice of City Council Action was mailed to owners within 3000 -feet, giving them 10 calendar days to challenge the Council's action. Prior to the deadline, Susanne McLaughlan, at 748 Linden Avenue, requested that the matter be brought back before the Council at a properly noticed hearing. Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Susanne McLaughlan asked how the appeals process worked, as she wasn't aware that a Planning Commission decision could be overturned by the Council. Mayor Ortiz explained that all Planning Commission decision can be appealed to the City Council for final decision. He stated that the Yarema's (property owners of 746 Linden Avenue) properly appealed the Planning Commission's decision in a letter. Ms. McLaughlan stated that she was not in favor of the project because single-family homes in the neighborhood didn't have attached garages. As well, she explained that the applicants didn't provide an explanation for why an exception should be made allowing them an attached garage. Brandy and Peter Yarema spoke about their appeal of the Planning Commission decision. Ms. Yarema discussed the neighborhood support that they received for the project. She talked about the work that they were doing to ensure neighbors' privacy and the changes they were making in consideration of the Council's concerns. Some of the changes that she discussed were softening up the attached garage side and lowering the pitch of the roof. Ms. Yarema noted that the attached garage was being built on the side of their property where their home was within 5 feet of their neighbor. She stated that Ms. McLaughlan lived on the other side of their property and that their homes were more than 20 feet apart. Councilmember Colson asked if a homeowner could choose to put their garage on either side of the back of their lot. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked if in this project, the homeowner could have decided to put the garage in the back closer to Ms. McLaughlan's property. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked Ms. McLaughlan what her design concerns were for 746 Linden Avenue. Ms. McLaughlan stated that the garage would create a large mass, taking up too much property, and obstructing her view. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if Ms. McLaughlan understood that the garage could have been built in the back of the property closer to her home. Ms. McLaughlan replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson stated her support for the project. She explained that there were attached garages in the neighborhood and that the applicants' designed their home to ensure their neighbor's privacy. Vice Mayor Brownrigg, Councilmember Beach and Mayor Ortiz echoed their support for the project. Councilmember Keighran stated that she didn't believe that the design followed the theme of the neighborhood. Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 Councilmember Colson made a motion to overturn the Planning Commission's decision and approve the application by adopting Resolution Number 25-2017; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. Councilmember Beach apologized on behalf of the City for the failure to properly notice the hearing. The motion passed by voice vote; 4-1 (Councilmember Keighran voted against). b. PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADJUSTING THE STORM DRAINAGE FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 BY 2.0% BASED ON THE CPI FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO -OAKLAND -SAN JOSE CA AREA AS PUBLISHED MARCH 15.2017 DPW Murtuza presented the staff report requesting Council's adoption of Resolution Number 26-2017, DPW Murtuza stated that in 2009, voters approved the storm drain bond measure. He explained that the storm drain measure included the ability to adjust the annual storm drainage fee by an amount equal to the change in the CPI, but not to exceed a maximum increase of 2% per year. He stated that the CPI increase this year was 3.4%. Therefore, DPW Murtuza stated that staff is requesting Council increase the storm drainage fee 2%. He stated that the 2% increase would raise the rate charged per square foot of impervious area from 4.792 cents to 4.888 cents effective July 1, 2017. The increase is estimated to produce an additional $55,400 for estimated revenue of $2,825, 200 in FY 2017-18. He explained that this year the average annual fee for a typical residential parcel is $172.51 and with the 2% increase it would become $175.96. Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 26-2017; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REQUEST FOR THE CITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COST TO RE -TURF FRANKLIN AND OSBERG FIELDS City Manager Goldman presented the staff report requesting direction from the Council regarding the Burlingame School District's ("BSD") request for the City to contribute to the cost to re -turf Franklin and Osberg fields. City Manager Goldman explained that on February 27, 2017, the City Council and BSD had a liaison committee meeting. At the meeting, BSD representatives told City representatives that they wanted to re -turf Franklin and Osberg fields this summer and requested that the City contribute $1.45 million, which was one - Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 half of the total cost of $2.9 million. As well, BSD representatives requested the City's assistance in determining what lines should be painted on the field in order to accommodate various field users. She explained that the City representatives were surprised by the request given that the City had its own list of over $100 million in unfunded needs. City Manager Goldman stated that at the meeting, the City did offer the assistance of Recreation Supervisor Barry who is well -versed in the subject of painting lines on turf fields. City Manager Goldman explained that the liaison committee decided to meet again on April 6, 2017 to continue this discussion. She stated that at this meeting, City representatives were informed that the cost to re -turf the fields was less than the original quoted amount of $2.9 million. However, BSD representatives did not state what it would cost. The City representatives asked BSD to send the City a written request for the Council's consideration, along with any relevant background information. She explained that BSD's request was attached to the staff report as a presentation. City Manager Goldman stated that BSD has estimated a project cost of $2,091,955.80 to resurface Franklin and Osberg fields this summer. She stated that BSD has modified what it is requesting from the City to either $400,977.90 this year or $581,217.46 if re -turfing is delayed until 2019. She explained that BSD's funding request to the City was created by splitting the cost of re -turfing the fields 50150 ($1,045.977.90 each) and subtracting fees paid by the City to the District under the Joint Use Agreement. City Manager Goldman stated that BSD would also like the City to consider establishing a fund to begin preparing for the cost of replacing the fields in 2027 or 2029. The cost is estimated at $3.4 to $3.7 million. City Manager Goldman explained that in February, 2009, BSD voted to install turf at Franklin and Osberg fields using funding from Measure A, a 2007 bond measure. The fields were installed in late 2009 and early 2010, with use of the fields commencing April 24, 2010. City Manager Goldman discussed the City and BSD's long history of collaboration dating back to an agreement in 1942 between the two agencies. She explained that BSD and the City are currently under a Joint Use Agreement that was established on July 1, 2015 and expires July 2017. She stated that under the agreement, the City is responsible for scheduling the use of the fields by BSD, City, nonprofit organizations and other users during all non -school hours. She explained that the two fields are not lit, so non -school hours include after school but before dark, on weekends, and during school vacation periods. City Manager Goldman reviewed the elaborate process the Parks and Recreation Department goes through to designate "Validated Youth User Organizations" ("VYUO") such as AYSO, Burlingame Soccer Club, Burlingame Girls Softball, and Burlingame Youth Baseball Association. VYUOs pay for the use of BSD's two fields and the City's 14 fields according to a fee schedule established by the City that looks at both the total number of players (non-residents pay a higher rate than residents do) and the hours of use. Additionally, she discussed the amount of time staff spends reviewing the fees, assigning field time and working with the different VYUOs. Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 City Manager Goldman explained that the VYUOs are community based non-profit groups that serve BSD students as well as students from Our Lady of Angels, St. Catherine of Siena, Mercy High School and other local schools. Neither the City nor BSD sponsor these organizations. She explained that because the City is responsible for scheduling all of the fields, the City collects the fees from the VYUOs. She stated that each year the first $50,000 is retained by the City, and the remaining revenue is split 50150 between the City and BSD. She stated that in FY 2015-16, VYUOs used the City's fields for 5,610 hours and BSD's fields for 3,100 hours. She explained that these numbers have run pretty consistently over the past couple of years. City Manager Goldman stated that in total, BSD's share of the VYUO fees was $259,945. As well, she explained that non-VYUOs can rent the fields. When non-VYUOs rent the fields, the City receives 10% of the fees and BSD receives 90%. In total, BSD has received $37,143 from their share of the non-VYOUs' rental fees. Next, City Manager Goldman discussed turfed fields. She explained that turf fields can last ten or more years if they are properly maintained. She gave the example of BHS' field which was installed in 2001 and replaced in 2011. She stated that Franklin and Osberg fields were opened in April 2010. However, due to high use and insufficient maintenance they were nearing the end of their useful life. As well, City Manager Goldman discussed the City's plans to turf Murray field during the next fiscal year. She stated that staff estimated the cost to be $1.75 million. Funding for this purpose was included in the City's proposed CIP budget for FY 2017-18. She explained that because Murray has lights, the City will gain hours of usage. BSD Assistant Superintendent Gabby Hellier gave a presentation on the school district's request. She stated that the purpose of the presentation is to discuss the possibility of the City and BSD sharing in the cost of resurfacing Franklin and Osberg fields that service the Burlingame community. She explained that part of the reason that turf was installed on these two fields is because natural grass fields have an expected life use of 600 annual hours while turf fields can have an expected life use of 3000 annual hours. Therefore, the turf fields were installed in response to input from community groups for extended hours of use. Asst. Superintendent Hellier stated that when the turfs were installed, the project cost $2,516,061.29. As well, she explained that there was an 8 year warranty on the fields and that next week the fields would be entering their 8 1 year. She stated that the field life can be extended two years by enrolling in service agreements for maintenance. Next, Asst. Superintendent Hellier discussed the history of the Joint Use Agreement between the City and BSD. She explained that the City contributed to the partnership in many ways including: 1) not collecting water fees for BIS and Franklin; 2) performing maintenance of grass play fields at Roosevelt and McKinley; 3) in lieu of storm drain fees BSD Property exchange; and 4) performing garbage collection on weekends when used by non -school district community and commercial users. Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 Asst. Superintendent Heller discussed BSD's contributions to the partnership including: 1) use of gyms, blacktops, and facilities for Park and Recreation Community Programs; 2) granting the City exclusive programming of school enrichment; 3) granting the City priority use and scheduling of the fields; 4) creating office and storage space for Park and Recreation programs at BIS; and 5) loaning equipment for City holiday events. Asst. Superintendent Hellier discussed the fees paid to BSD. She explained that for field use, the City collects all rental fees from community users for City and BSD fields. The City keeps the first $50,000, and splits the remaining balance of the revenues 50/50. Ms. Hellier stated that on average this results in annual revenue for BSD of approximately $60,000. Additionally, she explained that the City collects all rental fees from commercial users for BSD fields and gyms. She stated that BSD gets 90% of these fees, averaging approximately $8,000 a year. Lastly, for enrichment programs the City pays the district 10% of the revenue and this averages approximately $40,000 a year. Asst. Superintendent Hellier stated that since the turfed fields were installed in 2010, BSD has received approximately $645,000 in fees from the City. She stated that BSD is estimating that resurfacing the two fields during the summer of 2017 will cost approximately $2.1 million. If fields are resurfaced during the summer of 2019, BSD estimates the cost at $2.5 million. r Asst. Superintendent Hellier explained the City's 50% in 2017 would be $1,045,977.90. However, she stated that BSD would credit the $645,000 that the school district received from fees against the $1,045,997.90. Therefore, BSD was looking for a contribution of $400,977.90. Similarly, if the two agencies waited until 2019, the fees that BSD received up until that date would be credited against the 50%. Lastly, Asst. Superintendent Hellier explained that BSD is also asking the City to consider establishing a fund to save towards 50% of the future replacement of the fields in 2027-2029. She stated that the estimated cost would be between $3.4 and $3.7 million Councilmember Keighran stated that previously the City was informed that the cost of re -turfing the fields was $2.9 million. She asked how this number had decreased to $2.1 million. Asst. Superintendent Hellier stated that the $2.9 million included the cost of turfing two additional BSD fields. Councilmember Keighran stated that in the November, 2016 election, BSD's bond measure (Measure M) included language that one of the purposes of the bond was to re -turf the fields. She asked why BSD wasn't using Measure M funds to re -turf the fields. Asst. Superintendent Hellier stated that BSD would like the City to share in the cost to free up Measure M funds for other projects. Councilmember Keighran stated that it was her understanding that turfed fields were good for 10 years and therefore wondered what the company that had turfed Franklin and Osberg fields had told BSD. Asst. Superintendent Hellier stated that the warrant was for 8 years. Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 Councilmember Keighran asked about the portion of the presentation that stated "in lieu of stone drain fees BSD Property exchange". Asst. Superintendent Hellier stated that it had to do with the piece of property by Franklin. City Manager Goldman stated that a few years ago a discussion of what this meant came up at a liaison committee meeting. She stated that the belief was that this referred to an exchange of water meters for the Franklin Pump Station property. However, she noted there was no clear consensus on the matter. Councilmember Keighran stated that the City also gave $285,148 to BSD to pay BSD's stone drainage fees. Councilmember Keighran stated that BSD's presentation discussed that the City doesn't pay for the use of the facilities at BSD. However, she noted that the City does give 10% of the revenues they receive from the enrichment program to BSD. Recreation Supervisor Acquisti replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked who the enrichment program was designed for. Recreation Supervisor Acquisti replied that the program was designed for BSD students. Councilmember Colson asked how the first $50,000 that comes in from fees is used by the City. Recreation Supervisor Barry replied that the $50,000 is used for garbage collection, staff and meeting time. Councilmember Colson asked if the Recreation Department had just purchased scheduling software for $7,000. Recreation Supervisor Barry replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked if the Civic Act prevented the City from making a profit on its fields. City Attorney Kane replied that the Education Code doesn't directly bind the City, it binds BSD. However, because the City is acting as a scheduling agent for BSD the City is effectively bound. She explained that the purpose of the act is to ensure that the fees for field usage are only to cover operational costs. Councilmember Colson asked if the afterschool programs at BSD encompassed the private schools in the City. Recreation Supervisor Acquisti replied in the negative. Councilmember Colson asked about the user groups for the fields. Recreation Supervisor Barry stated that the three main user groups are AYSO, BCS, and lacrosse. Councilmember Beach stated that in the BSD meeting minutes, Facilities Director Tim Ryan explained that 80% of the field usage on Franklin and Osberg is by people other than BSD students. She asked if this was an accurate statement. Asst. Superintendent Hellier stated that she couldn't speak for Mr. Ryan's comment. Councilmember Beach asked if it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of the wear and tear on the fields is during school hours or after. Asst. Superintendent Hellier stated that the majority of the wear and tear on the fields was after school hours. She discussed that the user groups are on the fields for long periods of time during the weekends and summers while BSD uses the fields for P.E. classes and recess. Mayor Ortiz asked how BSD had come up with the 50/50 split for re -turfing the fields. Asst. Superintendent Hellier stated she believed it was a strict sharing of the costs. 9 Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 l Mayor Ortiz asked if field allocation gives preference to user groups that have local residents as their users. Recreation Supervisor Barry replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz asked if the majority of the people that use Franklin and Osberg fields are Burlingame residents. Recreation Supervisor Barry replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz asked how much time the Recreation Department spent in the last year with the various community groups allocating field usage. Recreation Supervisor Barry replied: "a lot". Councilmember Colson asked BSD what they currently do with the fees that they collect from the fields. Asst. Superintendent Hellier replied that the fees go into BSD's general fund. Councilmember Colson asked what the fees pay for. Asst. Superintendent Hellier replied that they are used for whatever the district needs. Mayor Ortiz stated that he heard that BSD and the City had agreed that the fees the City pays BSD would be set aside for maintenance and re -turfing. Asst. Superintendent Hellier stated it wasn't in the Joint Use Agreement. BSD trustee member Mark Intrieri stated that he didn't recall this agreement. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. ` AYSO representative Robert Bierman discussed how critical the fields at Franklin and Osberg are to the community. He discussed AYSO's dedication to ensuring that the fields are replaced this summer. As well, he asked that the key user groups be included in the discussion of re -turfing and that the user groups may be able to assist in the cost. Additionally, he discussed the need for maintenance on the two fields. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if turfing Murray field would alleviate AYSO's need for Franklin and Osberg to be re -turfed. Mr. Bierman replied in the negative. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if there were enough fields in the City for all user groups. Mr. Bierman stated absolutely not. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that it is clear that the City's user group fees do not cover operational costs. He asked how much more AYSO could pay a year. Mr. Bierman stated that prior to the economic crisis the City was planning to turf Bayside. He explained that AYSO had an agreement with the City to pay $10,000 a year to help turf Bayside. Mr. Bierman stated that AYSO is open to assisting in funding turfing and re - turfing of fields in Burlingame. Councilmember Colson asked about the National Soccer Organization decision to reassess field size. Mr. Bierman explained that NSO's decision would make it so that U12 would be playing on Osberg field and U10 games would be run sideways at Franklin field. Councilmember Colson and Mr. Bierman discussed how NSO's decision impacted the fields and the need to re -line the fields. 10 Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 Councilmember Beach asked if Mr. Bierman was stating that AYSO could potentially contribute $10,000 annually to turf fields in Burlingame. Mr. Bierman replied in the affirmative and added that AYSO was open to making a one-time lump sum contribution to assist in re -turfing Franklin and Osberg fields. Councilmember Keighran asked if impact testing was done on the two fields. Asst. Superintendent Hellier stated that when BSD groomed the fields, an impact test was done and the fields passed. Councilmember Keighran asked if the impact test portrays how much longer the fields can last. Asst. Superintendent Hellier said that she didn't believe so. Burlingame resident Mike Brunicardi, representing Burlingame Youth Baseball Association (`BYBA"), suggested that the City shouldn't pay to re -turf the two fields if BSD wasn't properly maintaining them. Additionally, he stated that the fields' main user groups weren't stepping up to financially support the cost and maintenance of the fields. He explained that BYBA was locally funded and maintained their fields. Councilmember Colson asked Mr. Brunicardi to estimate how much money BYBA has put into the fields they use. Mr. Brunicardi reviewed a laundry list of purchases BYBA has made including; new batting cages, bullpens and scoreboards at Washington Park and a storage shed and batting cages at Bayside Park. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked Mr. Brunicardi if he was suggesting that the City shouldn't assist in paying for the re -turfing of the two fields. Mr. Brunicardi stated that the City should focus on funding City fields. BSD trustee member Mark Intrieri thanked the City for considering BSD's request. He stated that when BSD initially put the turf fields in, it wasn't because the district needed them; it was for the community. He stated he believed it was reasonable to request funding from the City because of the amount of usage the fields get after school hours. He acknowledged that BSD could have done abetter job maintaining the fields. However, he stated that the wear and tear came outside of school hours. Mr. Intrieri continued by stating that BSD and the City should have ironed out the details of re -turfing the fields in the Joint Use Agreement. Councilmember Colson agreed with Mr. Intrieri that the relationship between the City and BSD should be laid out better in the future. She stated that BSD had stepped up and filled a need in the community. Additionally, she explained that she was concerned that the maintenance of the fields was not outlined in the Joint Use Agreement. Councilmember Colson discussed her time on BSD's Bond Oversight Committee. She stated that while on the committee, she had asked over and over again how the fields were going to get turfed in the future. She stated that the response she received was that that BSD would issue another bond. Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated everyone's input and felt that everyone could agree that we wanted safe and serviceable fields for the community. She stated that the community is counting on both 11 Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 agencies to work this out so that no one is unduly burdened. She discussed the Joint Use Agreement between the City and BSD and stated that it needed to be fair and responsibilities needed to be spelled out. Councilmember Beach discussed how Franklin and Osberg fields served the community as gathering and recreational space. She stated that unfortunately the fees don't cover the cost of re -turfing the fields, but that this was okay because the full cost of recovery could be prohibitive to some. Councilmember Beach stated that a tremendous amount of use is happening outside of school hours and they are happening for community benefit. She stated that that is the business of the Recreation Department. Accordingly, she stated that she didn't feel that BSD had the sole responsibility of funding the re -turfing of the fields. She stated that while the City might not know the right amount to give yet, the City should assist. Councilmember Beach discussed talking with other cities and school districts about this project. She stated that there was precedent of cities assisting in funding major capital improvements projects for the school districts. Therefore, she explained that from a policy point of view she felt the City needed to assist. Councilmember Colson discussed the bonds that BSD had passed for capital improvement projects. She explained that the community and councihnembers have continuously supported the BSD's bonds. In contrast, Councilmember Colson explained that the City had not gone out for bonds and had a higher standard to pass bonds (2/3rds approval). She stated that the City had to save and set aside funds for capital investment projects like turfing Murray field. She added that the City had a $100 million in capital needs that needed to be prioritized. Councilmember Colson stated that prior to assisting in the funding of re -turfing Franklin and Osberg fields she wanted to understand where the money would come from in the City's budget. She suggested holding off on re -turfing Franklin and Osberg fields for two years. She explained that in the meantime, maintenance should be done on those fields and their use should be reduced. And during those two years, the City could work with BSD on redoing their Joint Use Agreement so that specifics are defined and the City could budget for assisting in the cost of re -turfing. Councilmember Keighran stated that she agreed with Councilmember Colson. As well, she explained that she was on the liaison committee when the splitting of the fees was discussed. She stated that while it wasn't written down, it was discussed that BSD would save their portion of the fees to re -turf the two fields. Councilmember Keighran discussed the fact that the City saved funds to turf Murray field and therefore it was next in line. Additionally, she stated she appreciated user groups coming forward and offering to assist in funding the re -turfing of the fields. Councilmember Keighran stated that she wasn't sure she was in favor of the City assisting in funding the re - turfing because of the way Measure M was marketed. However, she explained that she did want to discuss the City's assistance in turfing the fields in 2027-29. She added that this should be discussed in the near future so that the City and BSD could begin planning for that expense. 12 Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the turfing of Murray field and the 2700 annual hours of use it would generate for the community. He stated that Franklin and Osberg fields generate about 3100 annual hours of use for the community. He explained that to him, Franklin and Osberg fields were community fields. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he didn't believe a 50/50 split was appropriate because the fields were an asset of BSD. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed BSD got the idea for the 50/50 split from the BAC agreement. He explained that the pool agreement was different as the high school district had shut down the pool and it was the City that had approached the district asking for it to be reopened and enlarged. Vice Mayor Brownrigg explained that he would like to see BSD and the City work together on redrafting their Joint Use Agreement so that the terms and conditions are properly spelled out. He asked that the agreement have the City shoulder the responsibility of maintenance for the turfed fields. Mayor Ortiz agreed with Vice Mayor Brownrigg's discussion on redrafting the Joint Use Agreement. As well, he discussed the City's list of $100 million of unfunded capital improvement projects. He explained that the consequence of BSD's request for funds is that a project from that list is set aside. Mayor Ortiz stated he agreed with Councilmember Keighran that the City and BSD should work together now to create a fund for the re -turfing of the fields in 2027-2029. Mayor Ortiz stated that Council needed to decide how much the City should give BSD to assist in re -turfing. Councilmember Keighran asked if Mayor Ortiz wanted to see the fields re -turfed this summer. She explained that like Councilmember Colson, she was concerned that the community could potentially have three fields offline at the same time (Murray, Franklin and Osberg). Mayor Ortiz asked when Murray field is being turfed. Recreation Supervisor Barry stated that the hope is to turf the field in the winter of 2017. He explained that turfing the field in the winter would cause the least impact to the user groups. City Manager Goldman stated that the field would open in March 2018. Mayor Ortiz asked if BSD had an estimate of how long it would take to re -turf the fields. Asst. Superintendent Hellier stated that the fields would be ready for use by the beginning of the school year 2017. Mayor Ortiz stated that the likelihood of the two projects overlapping is very small. Recreation Supervisor Barry replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson stated that she wouldn't support re -turfing Franklin and Osberg fields this summer. She explained that it was too quick and she wasn't sure what in the City budget would be cut to assist in re - turfing BSD's fields. 13 Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 Councilmember Beach stated she would support coming up with a number to assist BSD in re -turfing Franklin and Osberg fields now. She added that the City needed to make sure that the fields were properly maintained and cared for so that they reached their maximum potential life. Councilmember Beach discussed Mr. Bierman's offer of giving a one-time lump sum contribution to assist in re -turfing Franklin and Osberg fields. Additionally, she stated that she read in BSD's meeting minutes that the district is potentially partnering with Peninsula Healthcare District to help fund the re -turfing. She explained that it would be beneficial to understand how much private groups would be contributing prior to the City making a determination of their assistance. Vice Mayor Brownrigg suggested setting summer of 2018 as the refurbishment year for the two fields. He stated that in the meantime, the agencies should work together on revising their Joint Use Agreement and determining an appropriate contribution from the City for re -turfing the fields. Councilmember Colson stated that the City had discussions with AYSO about contributing to the turfing of Murray field. Accordingly, she stated she was concerned that if AYSO contributed to BSD, they wouldn't be able to contribute to the turfing of Murray field. Mr. Bierman stated that he believed both were possible as they do have reserves in excess of $200,000. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked that the Recreation Department staff determine how many all -season fields the City needs. He explained that there is a limit to how many the fields the City can afford to turf and re -turf every ten years. Mr. Intrieri stated as a result of financial prudence, BSD is able to re -turf the fields this summer rather than postponing it for two years. Mr. Intrieri stated that if BSD ends up paying 100% of the cost using its bond dollars, it is better for BSD to tackle this project sooner so that they save money. He explained that if the City does decide to assist in funding, the City wouldn't need to pay their share upfront. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked why two years from now and not 2018. Mr. Intrieri stated it could be done next year but that two years is the max that the field can go without being re -turfed. Councilmember Beach stated that she was leery of talking about limited use on the fields as they are a community asset. She explained that the City's programing has contributed to the state of the fields. Additionally, Councilmember Beach explained that the fields are conveniently located and more accessible to the public than Murray field. The Council discussed what decision they wanted to come to tonight including if they should settle on a financial contribution. Councilmember Keighran stated she didn't know if the City should decide on what their contribution should be without understanding what would be cut from the budget. Councilmember Colson stated that she agreed with Councilmember Keighran. 14 Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 The Council all agreed that the Joint Use Agreement needed to be revised. It was specified that details of how fees are used and maintenance of the fields needed to be included. City Manager Goldman stated that staff would need to bring Council a short term extension to the current Joint Use Agreement as it ends July 2017. She explained that staff would request a 6 month extension on the current agreement with a potential additional 6 months. She added that the only change to the agreement would be the time period. She explained that this extension would give the liaison committee time to negotiate a new agreement that would spell out the Council's concerns. Councilmember Beach stated that for a while the two agencies had been at an impasse on the agreement. She suggested taking advantage of the City's contract with PCRC and bringing multiple stakeholders to the table to discuss and mediate issues. As well, she stated that the City should have an annual joint meeting with BSD. Councilmember Keighran stated that negotiations with BSD had gone smoothly. She explained that this situation was a little different because all the details hadn't been written down in the past. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Councilmember Keighran. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he didn't believe Measure M should pay for the re -turfing of the fields as it was a community project. He explained that the City should assist, but that he wasn't comfortable with a 50150 split. Councilmember Beach made a motion that the City commit to spending no more than $400,000 to contribute to the re -turfing of Franklin and Osberg fields. She stated that the funds might not be made available to BSD until after the City had reviewed its budget. Mayor Ortiz asked if Councilmember Beach would be willing to amend her motion by lowering the dollar amount to $350,000. Councilmember Beach stated that she felt confident that the user groups and BSD would come to an agreement so that the number came in lower than $400,000. Vice Mayor Brownrigg thought the Council should take a step back and have the liaison committee meet and discuss the Joint Use Agreement and funding for the re -turfing of the two fields. He didn't believe the Council should come up with a cap for the funding. Councilmember Colson agreed with Vice Mayor Brownrigg. City Attorney Kane stated that it didn't sound like there was a majority that could coalesce tonight on the matter. She stated that the question becomes what the next step should be and whether the Council can 15 Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 5/1/17 provide direction. She explained that BSD came to the Council and asked for feedback on their schedule, and the Council has the right to get feedback and review the budget on its schedule. Councilmember Keighran stated it sounded like there was a majority in assessing the situation and determining a figure for next year. She stated that she agreed the liaison committee should work on this matter. However, she stated that BSD and the City should have a joint meeting prior so that the liaison committee hears all the concerns. Mayor Ortiz agreed with Councilmember Keighran. Councilmember Colson made a motion that the City work on extending the current Joint Use Agreement for six months; that the City Manager reach out to the Superintendent and coordinate a joint meeting; that the City include in the future Joint Use Agreement how to fund and maintain fields; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilmember Keighran suggested that the user groups be invited to the joint meeting. Councilmember Colson asked the user groups to think about how the City should prioritize turfing. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked for the Council to agendize a discussion of amending Measure T. He stated he was concerned that Measure T inhibits the City's ability to regulate Airbnb and potentially inhibits the City's ability to adopt below market rate housing policies. Mayor Ortiz seconded the Vice Mayor's request. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. MARCH. 2017 PERMIT ACTIVITY 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at10:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 16 Burlingame City Council April 17, 2017 Unapproved Minutes STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 8b a MEETING DATE: May 1, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 1, 2017 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of Resolution Approving the Final Parcel Map (PM 16-02), Lot Subdivision at 300 Airport Boulevard RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Final Parcel Map (PM16-02) for a three lot subdivision, more particularly described as being a merger and subdivision of a portion of the lands described in a grant deed filed for records in document number 2006-024032 on February 17, 2006, also being a portion of parcel 1 of that certain parcel map filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Mateo County on October 1, 1969 in Book 8 of parcel maps, at page 33, San Mateo County records, subject to the following conditions: 1. Final parcel map for lot subdivision must be filed by the applicant within the time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance; 2. All property corners shall be set and shown on the final parcel map; 3. The final map shall show the widths of the new right-of-way for the realigned Airport Boulevard, including the centerline of right-of-way, bearings and distances of centerlines, and locations of new monuments in the roadway in accordance with City standards and conditions of approval; and 4. The dedication of a public sanitary sewer easement on the property for purposes of a sanitary sewer pump station. 5. Comply with the Development Agreement and all Conditions of Approval dated June 18, 2012 (Ordinance No. 1877-2012); including all public improvements such as roadway, curb, gutter, sidewalks, landscaping improvements, shoreline trails, storm drains, street lights, sanitary sewer, water mains, fire hydrants, public parking lot, pump station, and all appurtenances in compliance with the City of Burlingame standards and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. BACKGROUND On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the tentative parcel map that will allow the project developer to construct a new office/life science campus at 300 Airport Boulevard (formerly a drive-in theater site), and realign Airport Boulevard as part of the project development. 1 Resolution Approving the Final Parcel Map (PM16-02) - 300 Airport Blvd May 1, 2017 The campus will consists of four office/life science buildings, an amenities building with fitness/childcare, and a five -story parking structure, in addition to surface parking. The developer will construct the realigned Airport Boulevard as shown on the parcel map, which will be dedicated to the City upon construction. Additionally, the developer will construct and dedicate to the City a new sanitary sewer pump station and necessary sewer easement as shown on the map per City standards and conditions of approval. The existing Airport Boulevard around the site will be vacated and incorporated into the project for use as open space as part of the proposed Bay Trail improvements. Staff has reviewed the parcel map and recommends approval of the Final Parcel Map subject to the above conditions. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: • Resolution • Final Parcel Map 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE FINAL PARCEL MAP (PM 16-02), LOT SUBDIVISION AT 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD The City Council of the City of Burlingame, California does resolve as follows: WHEREAS, on June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the tentative parcel map for 300 Airport Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the final parcel map will allow the developer to construct a new office/life science campus at 300 Airport Boulevard (formerly a drive-in theater), and realign Airport Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the final parcel map for the lot subdivision must be filed by the applicant within the time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, all property corners shall be set and shown on the final parcel map; and WHEREAS, the final map shall show the widths of the proposed right-of-way for the realigned Airport Boulevard, including the centerline of right-of-way, bearings and distances of centerlines, and locations of new monuments in the roadway; WHEREAS, the final parcel map shall dedicate to the City of Burlingame the right-of-way of the realigned Airport Boulevard; WHEREAS, the final parcel map shall dedicate to the city a public sanitary sewer easement on the private property for purposes of a sanitary sewer pump station; and WHEREAS, the project approved as part of the parcel map shall design and construct all public improvements as stated in the conditions of approval including but not limited to roadway, curb, gutter, sidewalks, landscaping improvements, shoreline trails, storm drains, street lights, sanitary sewer, water mains, fire hydrants, public parking lot, pump station, and all appurtenances in compliance with the City of Burlingame standards and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, the project applicant shall provide the City of Burlingame with labor, material and performance bonds, in an amount equal to the estimated cost of all public improvements in accordance with the conditions of approval of the project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED BY THE COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS: Directs staff to verify that all conditions of approval are met and arrange for the recording with the County of San Mateo for the final parcel map. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1 s' day of May, 2017, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk