HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2017.04.03F ct'y
Monday, April 3, 2017
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Council
7:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A
a. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers
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 Neqotiators
Property' Burlingame Golf Center, 250 Anza Blvd Burlingame Ca 94010
Agency Negotiators Lisa Goldman Kathleen Kane Carol Augustine Syed Murtuza
Margaret Glomstad William Meeker
Negotiating Parties' Topgolf International 8750 N Central Expressway Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75231
Under Negotiation: price and terms
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.
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 313012017
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 3, 2017
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 March 15, 2017
Attachments: Meeting Minutes
b. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes March 20, 2017
Attachments: Meetinq Minutes
C. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes March 21 2017
Attachments: Meeting Minutes
d. Adoption of a Resolution of Intent to Amend the City of Burlingame Master Fee
Schedule Effective July 1 2017; and Set the Public Hearing for Such Amendment for
May 1, 2017
Attachments: Staff Report
Resolution
Master Fee Schedule
CPI Feb 2017
e. Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Lew Broadway Avenue Business Improvement
District Assessments for Fiscal Year 2017-18 and Setting a Public Hearing for May 1,
2017: and Approving the District's Annual Report for 2016-17
Attachments: Staff Report
Annual Report
Resolution
Notice of Public Hearing
f. Approval of Parks and Recreation Director's Out -of -State Travel
Attachments: Staff Report
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 3/30/2017
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 3, 2017
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
a. Consideration of Appointments to the Planning Commission
Attachments: Staff Report
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The agendas, packets and meeting minutes for
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks
Trustees are available online at: www.budingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety
and Recreation Commission and Llbrary Board of
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.burlingame.org.
Agendas and
minutes are available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting - Monday, _, 2014
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 3 Printed on 3/30/2017
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
��� cirr om
BURLINGAME
prC nay fib, ow
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
2016-17 Mid -Year Budget Session March 15, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed 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 Finance Director Carol Augustine.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA
There were no public comments.
5. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FY 2016-17 OPERATING AND
CAPITAL BUDGETS TO REFLECT THE RECOMMENDED MID -YEAR ADJUSTMENTS
AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION FURTHER FUNDING THE RENEWAL AND
REPLACEMENT RESERVE IN THE CITY'S CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
City Manager Goldman introduced the mid -year budget session by thanking staff, Finance Director
Augustine and DPW Murtuza for their hardwork and preparation of both the mid -year adjustments and
projected CIP for FY 2017-18.
City Manager Goldman discussed how staff is conducting outreach within the community to discuss budget
priorities and understand what projects residents view as important. She stated that if any organization is
interested in having staff come and discuss budget priorities they should reach out to the City Manager's
Office.
Burlingame City Council March 15, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Finance Director Augustine began by reviewing projected revenues from all General Fund sources. She
stated that not all the revenue sources are growing at the same rates. As well, she explained that one of the
biggest factors in the mid -year budget adjustment is having the prior year's numbers available. She stated
that by having these numbers, staff had concrete data to assist in projecting revenues. Finance Director
Augustine stated that the main take away from projected revenues is that revenues as a whole are predicted
to come in 2.5% higher than anticipated in the adopted budget.
She next discussed the three revenue sources that make up over 85% of the City's General Fund: 1) property
taxes; 2) sales tax; and 3) TOT. In reference to property taxes, Burlingame saw a 7.85% growth in assessed
value last year. She stated that most of this was anticipated in the FY 2016-17 adopted budgeted. She
explained that staff is recommending an $825,000 adjustment because the County's Educational Revenue
Augmentation Fund ("ERAF") refund came in again this year. Finance Director Augustine noted that while
ERAF has long been a part of the City's property tax revenue stream, the refunding to cities is projected to
diminish considerably, perhaps even come to an end if the State's uses of ERAF are intensified.
In regards to sales tax, she pointed out that Burlingame continues to have a high sales tax base.
Approximately one-third of the $12.1 million in sales tax comes from auto and transportation sales.
Finance Director Augustine stated that TOT remains Burlingame's largest general revenue fund source. She
explained that TOT comprises approximately 39% of the General Fund revenue. She stated that for this
fiscal year, TOT is expected to be $216,000 or .8% better than budgeted.
Next, Finance Director Augustine explained that departments were asked to examine their year-to-date
budget to actual reports for the mid -year analysis. This was done to ensure that funding existed to carry out
each department's work plan for the remainder of the fiscal year. She stated that departments mostly made
small expenditure adjustments.
Finance Director Augustine discussed proposed transfers to capital project funds. She stated that staff is
proposing a $500,000 transfer for the Broadway Grade Separation project matching funds. As well, she
reviewed proposed transfers to assist in the CalTrain Electrification Project, Paloma Park Renovation and
Village Park Renovation.
Councilmember Keigbran asked if the Paloma Park Renovation was where the fire occurred. Finance
Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked what the insurance coverage was for Paloma Park. City Attorney Kane
stated that the City is still in discussions with the insurance company on their coverage.
Finance Director Augustine discussed budgetary savings. She explained that last year the City saw savings
of a million dollars in personnel costs and that she anticipates a similar amount this year. She stated that
originally staff predicted revenues to exceed expenditures by $3.1 million. However, with the mid -year
adjustments, the newly projected surplus fund balance is $4.1 million.
2
Burlingame City Council March 15, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Finance Director Augustine next discussed interest earnings. She stated that actual income earnings are
allocated out to other City funds based on average cash balance throughout the fiscal year. As cash balances
vary from year-to-year within the different funds, interest earnings by fund are difficult to project. Of the
total interest earnings now projected for the FY 2016-17, $630,000 is projected to be General Fund interest
revenue. Staff has proposed adjustments to the interest revenue budgets in all funds that will be credited
with any material interest earnings in FY 2016-17. These mid -year adjustments will provide a more accurate
projection of interest earnings to the various funds for future budgets. As well, she stated that the water and
sewer funds were not adjusted after a thorough review of consumption trends. Small adjustments were made
to the enterprise funds and internal service funds.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the unfunded needs of the City referencing the building facilities
report that was previously presented to the Council. As well, she discussed infrastructure projects such as
Broadway Grade Separation and the Storm Drainage System.
Councilmember Keighran stated that the Broadway Grade Separation project requires a local match of $15-
20 million. She asked if the City could lose its ranking in line if they don't have the matching funds
available. DPW Murtuza stated that it is critical for the City to have matching funds available at the time the
City applies for the grant.
Councilmember Beach asked Finance Director Augustine to explain how sales tax is changing. Finance
Director Augustine stated that sales tax is generally considered a declining source of revenue. She explained
that there have been large changes in consumer habits including: people purchasing services over goods, and
shopping online. She stated that the City captures some of the sales tax from online purchases via the
County pool. The County pool allocates sales tax received via online purchases based on the brick and
mortar locations.
Councilmember Beach stated that the City is fortunate that Burlingame Ave and the automobile industry in
the City are thriving.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked what San Bruno's matching requirement was for their grade separation project.
DPW Murtuza stated that the San Bruno project did not require matching funds. He explained that San
Bruno was able to utilize San Mateo County's Measure A and Prop B1 funds to bankroll the project.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City should work with the County to obtain matching funds for the
Broadway Grade Separation project.
Councilmember Colson asked about the conditional payments the City obtains through enterprise
agreements. Finance Director Augustine stated that they are General Fund revenues, unless they are impact
fees in which case they are fiduciary funds.
Councilmember Colson asked if there was an estimated range of what funds would come in for conditional
payments. Finance Director Augustine stated it is hard to budget for this category.
Burlingame City Council March 15, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Councilmember Beach discussed San Mateo's recent grade separation and asked what their local match was.
DPW Murtuza stated it was in the $10 million range.
Councihnember Keighran asked if the funds the City obtains from long term parking would decrease over
time. She discussed her conversations with hotel managers about the decrease in tourists utilizing car rentals
and instead opting for rideshare programs. Finance Director Augustine stated that long term parking is
included in the special business license tax line, and it is not expected to become a major source of funds.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg thanked staff for the well written staff report. He stated that in respect to the solid
waste reserve fund, the City has done a good job using the reserves to almost eliminate rate rises. However,
he stated that in the future, the City might want to consider a future gradual rate rise in order to avoid the
depletion of the solid waste reserve fund.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Broadway Grade Separation project is dependent on Caltrain
electrification. DPW Murtuza replied in the negative stating that Broadway Grade Separation has been
needed since 1960.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City has a General Fund that equates to about $2,200 a person while
Millbrae's general fund equates to about $1,400 a person. He explained that this is almost entirely because
of TOT. However, he added that even with this revenue stream, the City can't keep up with CIP projects and
the City's pension plan.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Colson stated that the economic analysis was well done. She explained that it is important
for the public to understand that the operating budget funds the day-to-day operations of the City and that
there is a whole other budgeting process for long term project needs. As well, she stated that she appreciated
that the City continues to aggressively put money into reserve accounts.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve Resolution Number 16-2017 (amending the FY 2016-17
operating and capital budgets to reflect the recommended mid -year adjustments) and Resolution Number 17-
2107 (further funding the renewal and replacement reserve in the City's capital projects fund); seconded by
Councilmember Beach. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Next, Finance Director Augustine discussed the five-year budget. She began by reviewing the economic
indicators, stating that the indicators came from Beacon Economics, a leading consulting firm. She stated
that US real GDP growth is forecasted to increase by 2.7% in 2017-18.
In the five-year forecast, Finance Director Augustine stated that property tax revenues are assumed to grow
at a rate higher than inflation but not as quickly as in recent years. She explained that although growth in
Burlingame's assessed value in FY 2015-16 was 6.8%, and current year property tax revenue was based on a
roll 7.85% higher, growth in the roll so far for FY 2017-18 indicates that an increase of approximately 5% in
property taxes can be anticipated.
4
Burlingame City Council March 15, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
She stated that major developments may have a significant impact over time but that staff typically doesn't
forecast for them. She stated that a slight increase in property taxes for FY 2019-20 was included because of
the acknowledgement that the Burlingame Point project should be finished before then. However, she stated
that most large developments are accompanied by a growth in expenditures as there is an increase in city
services that are required.
Next, she reviewed median home prices. She stated home prices in the area are some of the highest in the
state. She explained that while prices in the Bay Area are up sales are down.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed sales tax assumptions. She stated that it is forecasted that there will be
a 2.7% growth in sales tax in FY 2017-18 across all sales tax categories. As well, she noted that as a result
of Prop 30 expiring, sales tax in Burlingame went from 9% to 8.75% on January 1, 2017.
Next, she reviewed TOT assumptions. She stated that new hotel construction in Silicon Valley has softened
the growth but that the demand for hotels in Burlingame is still strong. As well, she explained that an
adjustment is made in FY 2019-20 for the SFO hotel which will be opening with 350 rooms. She added that
staff will continue to monitor receipts and will revise forecast if needed.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the five-year General Fund revenue forecast. The chart she displayed
highlighted year-to-year revenue changes in the different categories. She stated that revenues are now
expected to come in 2.5% higher than predicted for the FY 2016-17.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about the I% of sales tax the City receives. Finance Director Augustine stated
that the City receives a little over I% from what is called the Bradley Burns allocations from the State Board
of Equalization. She stated that the City pays the County .5% of the I% for administration the distribution of
these funds. It was explained that this 1% came from the transactions that occur in Burlingame.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the General Fund expenditures forecast assumptions. She explained
that expenditure assumptions are applied to each major category. She stated that staff expected an annual
3% increase for non -personnel costs. In reviewing debt services the City was assuming no new general
obligation debt issuances or refinancing. She stated that this is unlikely given the City's unfunded needs.
Next, she reviewed the forecast of Ca1PERS rates. She displayed a chart that discussed estimated Ca1PERS
rates and had two main columns: normal cost and UAL Payment. She explained that normal cost is the
smaller piece of the total rate as it is the cost of funding the accrual of benefits in the current fiscal year for
active members. She stated that the normal cost is expected to stay level. UAL Payment is the unfunded
accrued liability payment. She explained that the UAL payment is a dollar amount that must be paid either
at the beginning of the year or throughout the year with an interest component. The chart combined the
normal cost and the UAL payment over the next five -years to show the predicted increases.
Finance Director Augustine stated that in December 2016, the Ca1PERS board decided it was necessary to
reduce the assumed rate of investment it believes it will receive in the future from the current 7.5% down to
Burlingame City Council March 15, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
7%. She reviewed two graphs that showed the effect of the reduced assumed rate of investment and how
much the City would need to fund CalPERS.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked what the percentages referred to on the estimated CalPERS rate chart. Finance
Director Augustine explained that the percentages referred to the amount of salary that the City would need
to contribute to CalPERS each year. For example in 2016-17 for every dollar that the City pays in salary for
miscellaneous rate employees, the City would need to put approximately 23 cents into CalPERS to fund the
pension. She stated that a large portion of that payment is accrued liabilities.
Finance Director Augustine discussed funding options for CalPERS. She stated that the City could increase
its pension funding to CalPERS either through ad-hoc payments or "fresh start" payments. Other options she
stated included: 1) setting up an IRS Section 115 Trust; 2) establishing an internal service fund; or 3)
dedicating employee contribution of employer rate to the unfunded liability and/or Section 115 Pension
Trust.
Mayor Ortiz asked about the Section 115 Pension Trust. Finance Director Augustine stated the City would
take additional funds out of the General Fund to create this trust. City Manager Goldman stated that the
Section 115 Pension Trust is like creating a reserve, but that it would be managed outside the City with
potential higher interest rates.
Councilmember Beach asked if the City would be sending the funds from a Section 115 Pension Trust to
CalPERS to lower the unfunded liability. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Councihnember Colson discussed that when returns were good in CalPERS funds, governments were given
contribution vacations. She stated that this shouldn't have happened as the cost should have been slowly
amortized over a length of time. She stated that what CalPERS is now doing is slowly decreasing the rate
over three years to give local agencies time to handle the adjustment. She discussed the possibility that once
the pension obligation bonds are paid off in FY 2018-19, the City could continue to set those funds aside to
decrease the UAL.
Mayor Ortiz thought that the Council should have a study session on this matter.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was having a hard time understanding the dollar impact of the
CalPERS decreased rate. He stated he understood the contribution rate increases but wanted to know what
that means in terms of a yearly budgeted expense. Finance Director Augustine stated that it is rolled into the
benefits line item on the five-year forecast. She stated that she didn't have the dollar amount in front of her.
Councihnember Colson stated that at a previous Council meeting, it was discussed that if CalPERS had
decreased the rate by 1%, the City would be on the hook for an additional $20 million.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked more specifically about what the effect would be on the budget in a few years.
He asked if the benefit line is also growing because of agreed upon salary increases. Finance Director
Augustine stated that the benefit line is increasing mostly because of the CalPERS rate decrease.
6
Burlingame City Council March 15, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that from FY 2016-17 to FY 2019-20, the benefits line of the budget is
increased by $2.5 million. He stated that this is a significant increase.
A discussion was had about benchmarking Burlingame's Ca1PERS payments against neighboring cities.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg suggested that benchmarking is a helpful tool in all areas and that he would like to
see staff take this approach more often. Finance Director Augustine stated that benchmarking is difficult
with pensions as most of the City's payment is UAL.
Finance Director Augustine continued her presentation by stating that classic employees are contributing to
the employer share. She also reviewed employee contributions to health care and that the retiree medical
program was closed to new employees in November 2011.
Lastly, she reviewed the General Fund expenditure forecast stating that there were no changes made to the
revenues and expenditure assumptions regarding changes in federal policy (immigration, trade, healthcare,
etc). She stated that these factors were uncertain as a result of there being a new administration.
Councilmember Beach thanked colleagues and staff for the detailed conversation on Ca1PERS rates.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the fact that the five-year forecast assumes a 17% increase in salaries
which while not unreasonable leads to a 40% increase in benefits. City Manager Goldman stated that the
City is locked in on its MOUS until about mid -2018.
Mayor Ortiz stated that he had concerns with the five-year forecast's predictions for TOT. He discussed the
fact that many hotels are being built in the region including the SFO hotel which could lead to a decreased
occupancy rate for Burlingame. City Manager Goldman agreed that this was a concern and explained that
finance had the TOT number decreasing in a few years for this reason.
As well, City Manager Goldman stated that staff is recommending that the City go to ECO100. She
explained that it wasn't a huge swing and that staff will be recommending it for all municipal accounts. As
well, she stated that staff and council will be talking about unfunded needs over the next few months.
Mayor Ortiz thanked staff for their hardwork.
b. REVIEW OF DRAFT FY2017-18 GENERAL FUND, GAS TAX, MEASURE A, MEASURE M
AND FEDERALLY FUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
DPW Murtuza presented the staff report reviewing the proposed FY 2017-18 General Fund, Gas Tax,
Measure A, Measure M and federally funded Capital Improvement Program ("CIP").
Burlingame City Council March 15, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
DPW Murtuza explained that the City has over $100 million of unmet infrastructure needs such as the
WWII -era Recreation Center, a parking structure, and other public facilities identified in the City's
Unfunded Needs analysis.
He stated that the improvements that were identified for FY 2017-18 are essentially safety and "bread and
butter" infrastructure projects that do not include the $100 million unfunded capital improvement projects.
He explained that for FY 2017-18 staff was recommending ongoing maintenance projects that are needed in
order to allow the infrastructure to meet the daily needs of the community.
DPW Murtuza stated that as part of the preparation for the FY 2017-18 CIP list, staff conducted a needs
assessment of various infrastructure owned by the City, and identified a total of $38.4 million of General
Fund projects. After further review and analysis of these needs, and taking into consideration the existing
available funds, staff refined the CIP requests to a total of approximately $18.9 million.
DPW Murtuza stated that about $8.2 million is available through grants and existing fund balances. As well,
based on risk management, safety needs and staff's capacity and resources to work on projects,
approximately $6.3 million is reconunended for FY 2017-18 from the General Fund.
Next, DPW Murtuza reviewed the projects that staff is recommending funding for in FY 2017-18.
For building facilities projects, he explained that there is an identified list of $14.1 million in project needs
and $520,000 in existing funds and grants. He stated that staff is recommending Council approve $1.4
million in CII' projects. He reviewed how the funds would be spent including: 1) Fire Station #35 — HVAC
upgrade, roof replacement and remodel; 2) energy efficiency improvements such as upgrading of lights at
sports fields; 3) fire stations emergency generators upgrade; 4) fuel pump station improvements at Corp
Yard; and 5) ADA improvements at various facilities.
For bicycle, pedestrian and traffic safety improvements, he explained that there is an identified list of $17.82
million in project needs and $6.77 million in existing funds and grants. He stated that staff is recommending
Council approve $1.05 million in CIP projects. He reviewed how the funds would be spent including: 1)
California Drive class Il bike lane project; 2) Broadway Grade Separation project; 3) Sidewalk repairs
program and ADA improvements; 4) Hoover School sidewalk improvements; 5) Broadway Corridor
pedestrian lighting improvements; 6) residential traffic calming program; and 7) bike boulevards
implementation feasibility study.
For Parks and Recreation projects, he explained that there is an identified list of $5.91 million in project
needs and $962,000 in existing funds and grants. He stated that staff is recommending $3.228 million in CIP
projects. He reviewed how the funds would be spent including: 1) Murray Field synthetic turf installation
project; 2) Burlingame Aquatic Club pool deck replacement; 3) Ray Park playground upgrade; 4) Paloma
Park playground — fire damage replacement; 5) City Parks Master Plan; 6) Washington Park restroom
replacement; 7) playground repairs and trees planting; and 8) playground resilient surfacing repairs.
8
Burlingame City Council March 15, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item Ba
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
In reviewing the requests from Finance, Police and the City Clerk, staff is recommending $770,000 in CIP
projects. He reviewed how the funds would be spent including: 1) new financial software system; 2) digital
portable radio replacement; 3) dispatch furniture upgrades; and 4) electronic records management system.
Next, DPW Murtuza reviewed the gas tax and federal -aid fund projects. He stated that next year staff is
recommending $4.2 million for street resurfacing projects of which $546,000 is from federal -aid grants and
the remaining $3.654 million is from gas tax and Measures A & M funding. He stated that the resurfacing
projects for FY 2017-18 will be:
1. Broadway between El Camino Real and California Drive
2. Cadillac Way between Rollins Road and Carolan Avenue
3. California Drive between Peninsula Avenue and Burlingame Avenue
4. Trousdale Drive between California Drive and Marco Polo Way
5. California Drive between Burlingame Avenue
6. Oak Grove Avenue and Humboldt Drive between Peninsula Avenue and Rollins Road
Lastly, DPW Murtuza discussed the information the City received from last year's resident survey. He
stated that 97% of the residents said they want infrastructure addressed in a fiscally responsible manner,
before Burlingame's streets, roads, and sidewalks become more costly to fix in the future. 95% of residents
surveyed said maintaining this infrastructure is extremely or very important. 90% of residents surveyed said
well-maintained streets, sidewalks, and parks are important to maintaining Burlingame's quality of life and
property values. Lastly, 75% of residents surveyed said that maintaining recreation programs and the
facilities that house them is extremely or very important.
DPW Murtuza stated that in reviewing the list of unfunded CIP projects, the City can't rely on grant
opportunities and General Fund revenue to adequately address the City's infrastructure needs.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked why $6.3 million. DPW Murtuza stated that the list of projects that were
identified is approximately $34 million. However, DPW Murtuza explained that staff reviewed operational
and capacity constraints.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if therefore the limiting factor was man power and not financially driven. City
Manager Goldman stated that it is both but that it is more capacity driven.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he found it hard to react to the list of projects as the list doesn't show
things that were on it before. He gave the example of the gateway feature for Burlingame (a proposed
entrance sign to Burlingame). He stated that while this is a nice -to -have project, it is not currently on the list.
Vie Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would like to see creek -monitoring and preventive work within reason
for future storms added to the list of CIP projects for FY 2017-18. DPW Murtuza stated that staff had
identified a number of improvements in this area based on Council feedback. He explained that staff would
be bringing these recommendations to Council in May under the storm drain, and water and sewer programs.
Burlingame City Council March 15, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the funding request for turfing Murray Field and asked if potential
partnerships with the Burlingame Dragons affected the requested dollar amount. City Manager Goldman
stated that the City is in discussion with potential partners but that the proposed funding requested is what
the entire project would cost. Accordingly, she explained that if the City is able to partner with organizations
to pay for turfing Murray Field, the City will come in under budget.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about the Broadway Interchange. He explained that he didn't understand how
bicyclists were supposed to get safely from Broadway to the bicycle bridge. DPW Murtuza stated that the
Broadway Interchange project will not allow access to the pedestrian bridge from Broadway. Instead,
cyclists will be using Carolan and Cadillac to reach the bridge and cross the highway.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked in light of recent storms and water damage, should the City be putting more
money into the roads. DPW Murtuza discussed limitations based on staff capacity.
Councilmember Beach thanked DPW Murtuza for the presentation. She discussed that from the Goal Setting
Session, a few key priorities arose. Accordingly, she explained that she was hoping that these priorities and
how to push them forward would be addressed in the budget meetings.
Councilmember Beach stated she was excited to see energy efficiency improvements and asked if there was
an idea of when the City would be recovering those costs. DPW Murtuza stated that costs would be
recovered in approximately 8-9 years.
Councilmember Beach wanted to clarify that the City is using $1 million in existing funds for ADA
improvements. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach talked about the funding for Bicycle II lanes. She thanked DPW Murtuza for
explaining why the cost is $500,000 including the catch basins and structural needs on that road.
Councilmember Colson stated that one of the largest items is the turfing of Murray Field. She stated that
Murray Field is closed for 4 months of the year, but by turfing it, the City will increase the capacity of the
field by 50%.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she agreed with Councilmember Colson's statements about Murray
Field. As well, she stated that the City should look at potential partnerships for turfing Murray Field with
whichever applicant takes over the lease at the Golf Center Site.
Councilmember Keighran asked about the $80,000 funding for dispatch furniture at the Police Department.
Police Chief Wollman stated that he was looking to install furniture that will allow the dispatchers, who
work for 12 hours a day, to be able to stand and work. He stated that this furniture will require new wiring.
Councilmember Keighran asked about the residential traffic calming program and if staff had areas already
in mind. DPW Murtuza stated there were known projects but that the funding allows staff to address issues
as they arise.
10
Burlingame City Council March 15, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item Ba
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Mayor Ortiz asked about funding for Mills Canyon. P&R Director Glomstad stated that it's in the operating
budget.
Councilmember Beach asked if the turfing of Murray Field would be completed in the next fiscal year. P&R
Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz asked in reference to the electronic records management system, how the City currently stores
and maintains its records. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that there is no city-wide plan for how and where
to store records.
Mayor Ortiz asked if the cost of an electronic records management system would be recovered in a short
amount of time considering the man hours currently required to answer a public records request. City
Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Ross Webber discussed his concerns for Mills Canyon and the need for repairs in order
to ensure the public's enjoyment of that area.
Councilmember Beach stated that she believed the approximately $6 million in recommended CIP projects is
a good investment. She stated that there are other grants and funds that the City will be utilizing to improve
infrastructure this next year.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 8:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
11
Burlingame City Council March 15, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8h
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
��� CITY Ot
BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on March 20, 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 CCFD Deputy Chief Flinders.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney stated that direction was given but no reportable action was taken.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
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 March 20, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ortiz asked the Councihnembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent
Calendar. No items were removed.
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember
Beach. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote; 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 6.2017
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2017.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENLAL 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
Mayor Ortiz asked Council to share any ex -parte contacts they had on the above titled matter.
Councilmember Colson stated that she talked with some of the appellants' associates and friends.
Councilmember Beach stated that she visited the home on two separate occasions and listened to the two
Planning Commission hearings on the topic. Councilmember Keighran, Councilmember Colson, Vice
Mayor Brownrigg and Mayor Ortiz all stated that they did site visits.
CDD Meeker presented the staff report stating that Council is considering an appeal of the Planning
Commission's denial of the appellants' application for design review and special permit request for an
attached garage.
CDD Meeker stated that Brandy and Peter Yarema ("appellants') propose to demolish an existing one-story
house and detached garage to build a new two-story single-family dwelling with an attached garage. The
property in question is zoned R-2 and contains 5500 square feet of lot area. The proposed house will contain
four bedrooms with a total floor area of 2,796 square feet, where 2,865 square feet is the maximum
permitted. As well, the appellants' design includes a covered parking space in the attached garage, and an
uncovered parking space in the driveway. CDD Meeker stated a special permit is needed because the
appellants' application includes construction of an attached garage.
CDD Meeker stated that the Planning Commission considered this item at their February 13, 2017 meeting
and effectively denied the appellants' request via a split vote of 3-3-1, as Commissioner Terrones was
absent.
CDD Meeker explained that the Commissioners' concerns related primarily to the proposal for an attached
garage. He stated that Commissioners perceived that the normal neighborhood pattern for properties
Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
containing single-family dwellings was to have a detached garage. Concern was also expressed regarding
the height of the structure. CDD Meeker added that by the time of the February 13, 2017 hearing, the
appellants had lowered the height of the roof to comply with the law.
CDD Meeker explained that as a result of the Planning Commission's denial, the appellants, submitted a
timely appeal and later sent a letter to the Council explaining their reasons for filing an appeal.
Mayor Ortiz asked the appellants to speak on the project.
Ms. Yarema began by distributing a letter to the Council with the signatures of 20 of their neighbors who
were in favor of the appellants' proposed project. She explained that she didn't believe that the proposed
project was fairly compared with the homes in their neighborhood. She explained that that their lot is an
abnormal size and shape. Therefore, if the City required them to have a detached garage, they would be left
with a long driveway on a very narrow lot with a tight home and awkward layout. Additionally, she stated
that the detached garage requirement would result in them losing a bedroom and bathroom from their design.
Ms. Yarema discussed the idea that currently there is no consistency in their neighborhood. She explained
that there are 8 attached garages on their block and a variety of housing styles including duplexes, tri-plexes,
bungalows and two-story homes. She ended by stating that the design would allow them to stay in
Burlingame.
Mayor Ortiz asked if the appellants counted the amount of detached garages on their street. Mr. Yarema
stated that there were 8 with attached garages.
Mayor Ortiz asked if the appellants knew how many homes were on the street. Mr. Yarema replied in the
negative.
Councihnember Keighran asked how many of the attached garages were at the front of their lots in the
appellants' neighborhood. Ms. Yarema stated that on Linden Ave there are two and on Park Ave there are
two.
Mayor Ortiz asked if the lots for the duplexes and triplexes were larger than the appellants. Mr. Yarema
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the frontage on the appellants' property was 50 feet. CDD Meeker
replied in the affirmative. He added that if you measured perpendicularly to the side property line the
measurement is just over 46 feet.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the side setbacks were each four feet on this house. CDD Meeker replied in
the affirmative.
Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Councilmember Beach asked what the distance was between the proposed house and 748 Linden Ave. CDD
Meeker stated that the proposed house has a four foot setback from the property line and that the neighbor's
house has a 22 foot setback from the property line.
Councilmember Beach asked if there was a larger distance between the neighbors on the left than the
neighbors on the right. Ms. Yarema replied in the affirmative and stated that with the proposed redesign they
would have more distance with the neighbors on the right.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the height of the proposed design and roof pitch with Natalie Hyland, the
designer of the project. Specifically, he asked if she was required to return to the original pitched roof of 8
and 12, could she keep the proposed house within the 30 foot height limitation. Ms. Hyland replied that she
believed this was possible.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the plate heights were 10 feet on the first floor and 9 feet on the second
floor. Ms. Hyland replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked if the Planning Commission brought down the plate heights. CDD Meeker
replied in the negative and explained that it was the pitch of the roof that was reduced.
Councilmember Beach asked if the Planning Commission had asked for the plate heights to be decreased.
City Attorney Kane stated that the Planning Commission does often ask for lower plate heights but in this
case the project does fall within the overall height limit.
Councilmember Keighran asked what the usual plate heights are for Burlingame homes. CDD Meeker stated
that it is usually 9 feet on the first floor and 8 feet on the second floor.
Councilmember Colson discussed that the appellants' neighbor to the left, had expressed a concern about the
proposed attached garage diminishing their daylight. She explained that from reviewing the landscape plan
for the proposed house there was a poured concrete walkway on the left side of the house. She asked for the
width of the walkway. Ms. Hyland stated that it was four feet.
Councilmember Colson suggested installing a screening hedge along the walkway to soften up the view.
Mayor Ortiz asked why the plate height was 10 feet on the first floor. Ms. Hyland responded that the
appellants wanted to do a box -beam ceiling.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that it seems the Planning Commission wrestled with two separate issues when
hearing the appellants' case. One was the attached garage and the other was the height of the building. He
stated as a former Planning Commissioner he doesn't like to be in a position to rule against their decision.
However, he noted that in this particular situation the Planning Commission was deadlocked. He stated that
with respect to the garage, the appellants make a compelling argument for attaching the garage. He
reminded the Planning Commission that the City doesn't ban attached garages rather it hies to discourage
attached garages. He explained that the reason the City discourages attached garages is that they don't want
4
Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
the first thing pedestrians see to be a garage door and also they want to create daylight between houses. Vice
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he wished the Planning Commission had spent more time reviewing the design
of the attached garage versus whether the appellants should have one.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg explained that the problem with the appellants dropping the pitch of their roof is that
the appellants are creating a larger roof. He asked the appellants to go back to the 8 and 12 pitch but stay
within the 30 foot height limitation.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the proposed design would be a good addition to the neighborhood.
Councilmember Keighran stated that when she did her site visit she looked at the other homes on the block.
She stated that in her opinion most of the garages are detached and if they are attached, they are in the back
of the lot. She explained that she was on the Planning Commission when they came up with the design
review guidelines and the decision to discourage attached garages. She stated that it was to make
neighborhoods more pedestrian friendly. She explained that she believed if the garage was going to be
attached it should be setback further.
Councilmember Keighran stated that the 10 and 9 foot plate heights are not normal in Burlingame. She
stated that if the appellants wanted to have 10 foot plate heights on the first floor she wanted to see the plate
heights shrunk on the second floor so that it was within the City average.
Councilmember Beach stated that the street that the appellants' house is on has great variation. She
discussed the design guidelines and stated that she put a lot of stock in the Planning Commission process.
She explained that the appellants' property was unique with a lot of strange angles and was smaller than
other lots. She discussed giving deference to how architects design on abnormal lots, of this nature, to make
the design work within the community.
Councilmember Beach stated that the proposed design makes sense to her and that the side setbacks give the
neighbors room. As well, she stated that she believes the proposed house will benefit the neighborhood.
Councilmember Beach stated that her only complaint is that the attached garages don't allow for as much
neighbor interaction.
Councilmember Colson stated that she supported the garage in the front of the lot because of the eclectic
nature of the neighborhood. She stated that she would like great attention paid to the quality of the garage
door and would like the left side of the lot to include some landscaping to soften the neighbors' view.
Mayor Ortiz stated that the width of the lot is a compelling reason to let this project go through. He stated he
is comfortable with the location but agreed with the Vice Mayor on the pitch of the roof.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he appreciated Councilmember Keighran's concerns about front facing
garages. He stated he wished that the Planning Commission had spent more time reviewing the actual design
of the attached garage versus whether an attached garage should be allowed.
Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve the appellants' plan with the provision that the height of
the house be under 30 feet with the roof having an 8 and 12 pitch; seconded by Councilmember Colson.
The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Councilmember Keighran voted against).
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. ADOPTION OF THE PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED DURING THE FY 2017-2018 GOAL -
Assistant to the City Manager ("ACM") Blackburn presented the staff report on the adoption of the priorities
identified during the FY 2017-2018 Goal Setting Session. She stated that staff is recommending that the
Council adopt the five priorities that were identified during the City's Goal Setting Session. As well, she
stated that they are asking for Council's input on the implementation of the task force methodology for
advancing the five priorities.
ACM Blackburn gave a brief review of the Goal Setting Session. She stated that the session occurred on
January 28, 2017 and that the City Department Heads gave updates of significant achievements during the
fust half of FY 2016-17 and foreseeable challenges they faced going forward.
ACM Blackburn explained that in a departure from previous years, the Goal Setting Session focused on a
single question developed by Mayor Ortiz: "How do we make Burlingame a better place to live and work."
She explained that after public comment periods and input from staff and Council, dozens of ideas, thoughts,
recommendations and insights emerged. She stated that from this, five key priorities emerged.
ACM Blackburn summarized the five key priorities:
1. Sustainability - use the City's climate action plan to measure and evaluate policy decisions related to
transportation, infrastructure, and housing so that Burlingame can exceed its carbon reduction targets.
2. Transportation — improve roadway safety and reduce congestion for all modes of transportation (cars,
pedestrians, and cyclists).
3. Quality of Life — pursue initiatives and events that promote a sense of intergenerational engagement,
community, safety, and wellbeing.
4. Housing — establish policies that provide home ownership opportunities for below median income
levels, so that Burlingame's neighborhoods retain socioeconomic diversity and stability.
5. Infrastructure — create a near term, fiscally responsible funding strategy to renovate City facilities in
order to improve service for Burlingame's residents.
Next, she reviewed a chart that she had created based on the Goal Setting Session. (The Council's
discussion for much of the remainder of this staff report focused on this chart so it has been attached at the
back of the meeting minutes for reference.)
Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
ACM Blackburn stated that at the close of the meeting the Council and City Manager discussed the need to
identify task forces or groups of stakeholders that will advance each of the five priorities. She explained that
recommendations were made as to the stakeholders of three of the priorities.
1. Sustainability would be led by the City's Sustainability Coordinator, with input from Burlingame's
Citizens' Environmental Council.
2. Transportation would be led by the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, with input from the
Council and staff.
3. Quality of Life would be led by staff with input from the Council and members of the community.
ACM Blackburn stated that the priority of Housing warranted further discussion. She explained that the
April 15, 2017 joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission would focus on this topic.
As well, ACM Blackburn noted that the composition of a working group or stakeholders for the priority of
Infrastructure needed Council direction.
Lastly, ACM Blackburn stated that staff was looking for Council to review and approve the FY 2017-2018
priorities and recommend the composition of the groups that will be working on each of the five priorities.
Mayor Ortiz thanked City Manager Goldman and ACM Blackburn for their hardwork
Councihnember Colson discussed on the chart the "ideas raised" section under the Housing priority and
asked that it include rental opportunities for below median income levels as to create the socio-economic
diversity. ACM Blackburn replied in the affirmative.
Councihnember Colson expressed her support of the City's approach to the Housing priority, by first having
a joint meeting between the Council and Planning Commission. She explained that she believed this meeting
would create goals, working groups, stakeholders and help the City map out a plan to tackle housing issues.
Councilmember Keighran stated that on the chart the "ideas raised" section under the Housing priority
should include commercial impact fees. ACM Blackburn replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked what staff needed from the Council on this report. ACM Blackburn explained
that staff was looking for approval of the five priorities and for Council direction on how to structure
implementation of each priority. City Manager Goldman added that staff is trying to not overburden Council
and instead create stakeholders from staff, the community and commissions to assist in these priorities.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he agreed with the five priorities. He recommended combining in the "ideas
raised" section under the Quality of Life priority: "increased engagement", "more volunteer opportunities"
and "more open, community events" as " more public city engagement."
Vice Mayor Brownrigg added that the Bayside Park was missing from "ideas raised" under the Quality of
Life priority. City Manager Goldman stated that the Bayfront, in general, was listed under the Infrastructure
Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
priority. She stated that staff could change the phrasing from "develop plan for Bayfront" to "develop plan
for Bayfront including state lands parcel". Vice Mayor Brownrigg agreed.
ACM Blackburn stated that the "ideas raised" section was staff s attempt at capturing ideas, thoughts and
action items that arose from the Goal Setting Session. She explained that "ideas raised" weren't definite but
rather examples of actions for each priority.
Councilmember Keighran stated that the City is already working on some of the topics like "develop plan for
Bayfront" and therefore she asked why these were included on the chart in the "ideas raised" section. She
stated that she found the priorities and the "ideas raised" section to be too broad.
City Manager Goldman explained that what ACM Blackburn did was capture ideas that were raised during
the meeting and created the chart that expressed that information.
Councilmember Keigbran stated that her concern was that Council was being asked to assign working groups
or commissions these projects and a lot of the projects are already being addressed.
Mayor Ortiz asked if Councilmember Keighran agreed with the five priorities.
Councilmember Keighran stated that they were fine. However, she stated that she believed the Quality of
Life priority, wasn't necessarily a priority, but rather an umbrella over the other four priorities. She
explained that each of the remaining four priorities were concerned with Quality of Life.
Councilmember Colson agreed with Councilmember Keighran.
Councilmember Beach stated that Quality of Life could be a "common theme" in the middle of the chart.
She stated that Sustainability was such a critical topic that it could either be its own priority or it could be a
"common theme".
Councilmember Beach stated that the important question is how to put into action what is on the chart and
what has been identified as the City's priorities. She explained that she believed the City needed to be
"laser -focused" with what work the Council commits to undertake each year for these priorities. She voiced
her concern that the City could get bogged down with too many ideas under each priority instead of focusing
on a few. As well, she expressed that the Council should take these priorities into the budget study session to
determine what projects move the City's goals forward.
Mayor Ortiz asked his colleagues if they were comfortable with stating that there are four priorities:
Sustainability, Transportation, Housing and Infrastructure.
Councilmember Colson suggested having only Transportation, Housing and Infrastructure as the priorities
with Quality of Life above as an umbrella and Sustainability as a "common theme".
Councilmember Beach agreed with Councilmember Colson.
Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the one area that was unique to Quality of Life was safety. He explained
that he believed that the community has become increasingly nervous about that issue. City Manager
Goldman stated that safety was also listed as a "common theme".
Mayor Ortiz stated that there seemed to be consensus to limit it to four priorities: Sustainability,
Transportation, Housing, and Infrastructure. Mayor Ortiz then asked the Council to tum their attention to
each individual priority starting with Sustainability.
Councihnember Keighran expressed her concern about the "ideas raised" section of the Sustainability
priority. She explained that the City is already working on the Climate Action Plan.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought Council should focus more on what the process should be for
each priority instead of the "ideas raised". City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. She stated the
question that staff is asking Council is how they want to make progress on the priorities.
Mayor Ortiz stated that the way to look at "ideas raised" is to think of them as examples of potential projects
under the priorities. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed staff s recommendation that the Sustainability priority be led
by the Sustainability Coordinator with input from CEC was right. Council agreed with this statement.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed Transportation was a little more difficult. He explained that
the staff recommendation was that TSP Commission would lead this priority with input from staff.
However, he expressed concern that the Transportation priority was a lot broader than the focus of TSP.
City Manager Goldman stated that an option would be form a subcommittee formed with two members of
TSP, two councilmembers and staff.
Councilmember Keighran suggested that Council wait until projects or matters arose that needed a working
group before creating a subcommittee. She explained that she felt that these discussions were premature.
Mayor Ortiz stated that the idea is that Council has identified what the priorities are and then the
subcommittees should come up with ideas to move forward the priority.
City Manager Goldman agreed, explaining that these subcommittees would be places where community
members or staff could go to voice opinions and suggestions. She stated that the Goal Setting Session
created a lot of good energy around improving Burlingame but that staff and Council now needed to figure
out a way to harness that energy.
Mayor Ortiz asked the Council if they could agree that the priority of Transportation should be led by the
TSP Commission.
Councihnember Beach stated that this was an opportunity to engage with citizens who are interested and
educated in policy making for these priorities. She explained it will allow the community to work together to
Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
improve Burlingame. She stressed that there needed to be a cross-section of the community involved in
these groups including commission members, councihnembers, staff and members of the community.
Mayor Ortiz asked if there should be a separate body to deal with the priority of Transportation when the
TSP Commission already exists.
Councilmember Beach stated that she agreed that TSP Commission was the lead for the Transportation
priority but that this priority also needed input from councilmembers and staff.
Councilmember Keighran voiced their concern that by creating these separate committees they would be
reinventing the wheel when a commission already existed for the priority of Transportation.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed what ACM Blackburn was trying to assist the Council with is
how do you go from words to action. He discussed the idea of accountability with these priorities. He stated
that the best idea might be for the accountability to rest with staff and have staff ping Council as projects and
ideas arise. He stated that if the selected staff member believed that a project required an ad hoc committee
or Council direction, then a working group could be created. He stated that this is how he sees the priority of
Sustainability working with the Sustainability Coordinator holding the accountability. However, he
discussed that Transportation being led by the TSP Commission might not work because they only meet
once a month. He suggested that Transportation be headed by a staff member from Public Works who would
work both with the Council and TSP Commission on projects.
DPW Murtuza stated that staff regularly brings projects to Council for direction. He added that he agreed
with the Vice Mayor that the accountability is on staff to deliver on what the Council establishes as the
City's priorities.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg explained that he appreciated that and stated that the Council should figure out which
staffinember(s) to task with the other two priorities. He added that he would like to see regular updates made
to the Council on projects that affected the key priorities. He gave the example of the shuttle service in
Burlingame, stating he didn't believe he knew enough about it and if expansion was possible.
ACM Blackburn discussed the work load on staff and the operational constraints that the City faces. She
stated that this needed to be taken into consideration when reviewing how to move the City's priorities
forward. She explained that the Council should think of the priorities as the guiding principles that they use
to review the budget and future projects. As well, she explained that the working groups would be a cross
section of the community that gets together and figures out how to move that priority ahead.
Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated ACM Blackburn's summary and she agreed that Council
needed to start looking at the priorities even if projects take years to accomplish.
Councilmember Colson suggested that two councilmembers help form a subcommittee on each priority. She
suggested they set up monthly meetings with the staff liaison.
10
Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Mayor Ortiz agreed with Councilmember Colson's suggestion and stated that updates could be given during
the Council committee and reports.
City Manager Goldman stated that these would be standing committees.
Councihnember Keighran stated that all members of Council are already on multiple subcommittees.
Accordingly, she felt that Council might be giving themselves more work than is necessary. As well, she
stated that they needed to consider the budget and see what they are able to realistically achieve.
Mayor Ortiz stated that he believes that even quarterly meetings would be good.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that Sustainability, Transportation and Quality of Life are already in good
hands. However, he explained that Housing is a large issue and he thought this was an issue that all five of
the councihnembers should be involved in. He stated that he felt the same about hifrastructure.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if Council should set up a working group on Housing now because of its
importance in the community. CDD Meeker suggested waiting until after the April 15f joint meeting with
Planning Commission.
Council agreed with CDD Meeker's suggestion.
Mayor Ortiz asked for Council to send ACM Blackburn ideas on how to move the priorities of
Sustainability, Transportation and Infrastructure forward.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about BPAC. DPW Murtuza stated that BPAC has not officially formed any
group but that staff is trying to work with those that are interested.
City Attorney noted that public comment had not been opened on this item because no members of the
public were present during the staff report's presentation.
Mayor Ortiz wrapped up the item by asking staff to formulate a plan for how the City benchmarks the
projects and presents updates to Council so that the public is aware of progress.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RENEW
THE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH DATASAFE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
SOLUTIONS FOR RECORDS STORAGE AND MANAGEMENT
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer presented the staff report requesting that the Council authorize the City Manager
to renew the service agreement with Datasafe Information Management Solutions for records storage and
management.
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that since 2001, the City has had a service agreement with Datasafe. She
explained that Datasafe is an off-site storage facility that maintains approximately 1600 boxes of the City's
11
Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
records. She stated that the service agreement with Datasafe has been renewed twice, and that staff is
looking to renew the agreement a third time.
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that the City is currently planning on purchasing an electronic content
management system and that the City's retention schedule is being reviewed.
Mayor Ortiz stated that the reason he wanted to discuss this item was to ask if the reason an RFP had been
issued for the storage of City records was because the City is in the middle of purchasing an electronic
content management system. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up to the public. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 18-2017; seconded by Councilmember
Keighran. The motion passed 5-0.
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
Mayor Ortiz asked for a presentation on the shuttles, how they are being utilized and how to get more
ridership.
13.
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.or.
14.
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
12
Burlingame City Council March 20, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
c
O
N
by
c
G1
N
M
O
Q
00
l�
O
N
h
O
N
4-
O
v
E
O
V
3
■M o 0
m
E Y
C
OD w U d OD m J
c .01O o m c c o
O in C W E w I in
m v�
M:03
'p N
N� E w m v d
CC m J
a O m n 2 w s U
00 O 00 00
\
y N L VI
m T V
c J T E
v m E
o v v m m Em v E m
v w u `o `o o °: m� E m
iz �, o s u emu n
°.00 000 0 00
S31iiUOIUd S3W3H1 NOWWOJ
C
O C �
Q > m
m y m c n
y o c m
M
3 2o y
O j T 0 W j
d G1 m O U L
D a a v o m-
O O O O
a3SIVU SV3d1
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Rai CITY O�
BURLJNGAME
a Q,I
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Special Meeting on March 21, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed special 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 Don Pope.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
City of San Mateo Councilmember Goethals thanked the Council for their collaboration with the City of San
Mateo. He stated that he looked forward to future partnerships for the Peninsula Interchange and the
Broadway Grade Separation.
Burlingame resident Connie Curry voiced her support for an ice rink.
5. GOLF CENTER SITE STUDY SESSION
a. STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE GOLF CENTER SITE
City Manager Goldman presented the staff report regarding the management of the Golf Center Site. She
stated that the purpose of the Council's study session was to review the additional information submitted by
Topgolf and the US Badminton Center Group in response to the City Council's questions about the
proposals. As well staff was asking for Council to provide direction to begin negotiations with one of the
two applicants.
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 6c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
City Manager Goldman reviewed the background of the Golf Center Site RFP process. She explained that
on June 20, 2016, Council requested that staff issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the lease management
of the Golf Center Site for the operation of golf or other recreational or entertainment activities that would be
open to the public. The RFP was issued on October 12, 2016 and the City received three responses from US
Badminton Center Group (USBC), Mid -Peninsula Ice Rink Foundation (MIRF) and Topgolf International.
City Manager Goldman stated that USBC's original proposal included building a facility that would contain
20-50 badminton courts, a 10,000 — 20,000 square foot Wellness Center, an outdoor training facility, a food
court, a pro shop and supporting spaces. USBC would retain 20-25 of the Golf Center bays. As well the
facility would be built on the existing parking lot and the short game and driving range area. The facility
would offer memberships and drop-in options for all ages and provide yoga, senior fitness, personal training,
massage therapy, sports leagues, tournaments and youth camps.
City Manager Goldman stated that she wouldn't be discussing MIRF's ice rink proposal because MIRF
withdrew their proposal as a result of the ice rink reopening in San Mateo.
City Manager Goldman stated that Topgolf s proposal included building a 65,000 square foot LEED Silver
certified facility with 120 hitting bays, 3,000 square feet of event space, a full-service restaurant and bar, a
rooftop terrace, pool tables, shuffle board, and supporting areas. The facility, which would be built on the
existing Golf Center Site, would offer general entertainment, food and music, golf lessons for all ages,
summer camps, tournaments, and leagues.
She explained that a committee comprised of Councilmember Colson, P&R Commissioner Dito, City
Manager Goldman, Finance Director Augustine, DPW Murtuza and P&R Director Glomstad reviewed the
proposals. Then at the January 17, 2017 meeting, staff made their recommendation advising Council to
begin negotiations with Topgolf. She explained that Council determined that they needed additional
information from each of the applicants before making a decision.
City Manager Goldman stated that staff assembled the questions that Council wanted addressed and asked
the three proposals to answer all questions by March 16, 2017. MIRF withdrew on Friday, March 10, 2017.
She stated that staff received answers from Topgolf. However, she explained that from USBC, staff received
an email, which noted that they can match or do better than Topgolf on rent subject to having the whole site.
As well, the email stated that USBC was willing to offer community amenities that would be open to the
public. She stated that a new drawing of the USBC site was submitted at 4:30 p.m. (2 hours before the study
session), however the rendering doesn't provide a lot of detail.
City Manager Goldman stated that Topgolf amended their offer by increasing their annual rent from
$500,000 to $550,000. As well, Topgolf stated that they will contribute $250,000 to the City to use for
Murray Field.
City Manager Goldman stated that staff looked at whether they could combine one or more facilities on the
site. However, she stated that staff didn't believe this was feasible, due to the unique requirements of each
proposal and the corresponding parking requirements.
2
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item Bc
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
City Manager Goldman stated that at the January 17, 2017 meeting, staff received questions about the impact
of Topgolf upon local municipalities. She stated that BPD contacted Roseville, CA, Gilbert, AZ and
Midvale, UT which all have Topgolf facilities. All three police departments reported that they do not
consider the Topgolf facility a problem. As well, the respective police departments stated that the calls for
service are not above the norm for an establishment of that nature and size. Moreover, she stated that the
police departments reported that Topgolf was receptive and cooperative in working with the local police
departments.
Mayor Ortiz asked if any of his colleagues had questions.
Councilmember Keighran explained that she was no longer recused from this matter. She stated that because
MIRF had withdrawn their proposal, County funding was no longer involved, and therefore she was now
able to discuss the matter.
Councilmember Keighran asked when it comes to monitoring state regulations dealing with the clay caps
who will be responsible for that. DPW Murtuza stated that technically it will be the City. However, he
explained that from an agreement point of view, the City will be working with the selected applicant on how
to monitor the clay caps.
Mayor Ortiz asked if any representatives from USBC were present. There were none.
Mayor Ortiz asked Topgolf to make their presentation.
Topgolf representative Devin Charon presented two videos showcasing Topgolf s mission and their work
within the community. Mr. Charon discussed the design of Topgolf s facility including event space, lower
lounge, rooftop terrace and outfield. He discussed the light pollution that comes from their facility and that it
is very minimal. He reviewed how the hitting bays are designed to feel like you are in your living room with
tvs, food service and the creation of an intimate atmosphere for your group. As well, he discussed Topgolf s
high retention rate of employees, stating that they offer their employees competitive wages and 401k's.
Lastly, Mr. Charon discussed Topgolf s work with charitable organizations including Make -A -Wish, Heroes
Discount, Bunkers for Baghdad and Grow the Game.
Councilmember Beach thanked Mr. Charon for his presentation. She asked how Topgolf proposed to ensure
that they had enough parking at the Golf Center Site. Mr. Charon stated that Topgolf currently targets
having 450-500 parking spaces per site. He stated that the site in Burlingame will have 799 parking spots.
Councilmember Beach stated that if Murray Field has 225 spaces, then Topgolf will more than triple the
amount of parking spaces. Mr. Charon replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach stated that she traveled to the Roseville facility and went on a late Saturday afternoon
because she wanted to see a Topgolf facility during peak hours. She stated she was amazed that the parking
lot seemed to be full. Therefore, she asked if there was an overflow issue how would Topgolf propose to
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
mitigate parking problems. Mr. Charon stated that in the past they have worked with surrounding hotels,
office buildings, and off-site locations to lease parking space.
Councilmember Beach asked what Topgolf s typical capacity is. Mr. Charon stated about 1000.
Councilmember Beach asked if Topgolf typically hits capacity during peak hours. Mr. Charon replied in the
affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz asked how many parking spots they have in Roseville. Mr. Charon replied he didn't know.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he visited Topgolf and had asked about how many balls leave the facility.
He explained that at first he was told that Topgolf doesn't lose balls but that later an employee let him know
that it happens occasionally. He stated his concern was that Topgolf would be next to Murray Field and he
didn't want the kids playing on the field to be hit by balls. Accordingly, he asked what the tallest net pole
Topgolf had previously installed was. Mr. Charon stated that the company standard is for 170 foot tall net
poles. He explained that this was based off of ball flight studies and Topgolf s work with Titleist to keep all
balls in the facility. As well, he discussed their zero lost ball policy and their rules regarding individuals who
purposefully try to hit over the nets.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked how much latitude the City had in landscaping on top of the clay caps and
specifically could trees be planted. DPW Murtuza stated that this was tricky because the tree roots could
separate the clay caps.
Councilmember Keighran asked if Topgolf would be open to developing a shuttle service with the hotels so
that individuals weren't driving to Topgolf. Mr. Charon stated absolutely as it benefits all.
Councilmember Keighran asked if they had a shuttle service at any other site. Mr. Charon stated that in Las
Vegas they are tied to the MGM so they have a dedicated shuttle that goes from MGM to Topgolf.
Councilmember Colson stated that she was a member of the task force during the RFP for the Golf Center
Site so her questions had been answered.
Councilmember Beach discussed her trip to the Roseville site. She stated that the guest experience was very
impressive and that she didn't feel pressured to have her table turned out from under her. She stated that
there was an hour and 40 minute wait for hitting bays, but was told if she got there at 5 pin there would be a
4 hour wait. She stated what struck her was that there wasn't a lot to do while you waited. She asked if they
had discussed allowing reservations. Mr. Charon stated that Topgolf s IT department is looking at
implementing a reservation system.
Councilmember Beach stated that she spent $184 at Topgolf for her and her two children. She asked if it
was typical to spend more money on food and beverages than golf. Mr. Charon replied in the affirmative.
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item Sc
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Councilmember Beach asked if the food and beverage pricing changes based on markets. Mr. Charon
replied no.
Councilmember Beach asked about the transition to the evening. She stated that she had talked to Topgolf
staff and they had stated that there was a big transition around 6:30-7:00 p.m. Mr. Charon discussed the day
progression from avid golfers at 9 a.m. to business people at lunch time, then students and in the later hours
it is a more social crowd into date night. He stated that there are four pillars of their business: 1. Millennial -
social seekers; 2. Avid golfers; 3. Families; and 4. Corporate events.
Councilmember Beach asked if the Thursday -Saturday night crowd was the Millennial -social seeker crowd.
Mr. Charon replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach stated that around 8 p.m, a DJ starts playing, and it becomes more of a high energy
atmosphere. She asked if Topgolf received any noise complaints at Roseville or their other sites. Mr.
Charon stated that they had but that they are very proactive and worked with the community and the local
police departments to alleviate any noise concerns.
Councilmember Beach asked if they had private security at all their venues. Mr. Charon replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Beach stated that the Roseville site had uniformed officers posted at Topgolf on Friday and
Saturday nights. Mr. Charon stated that they actively work with the police department to see what measures
the community would like to see Topgolf put in place to ensure everyone's safety.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was concerned about drinking and driving. Mr. Charon stated that all
the employees were fully trained to alleviate this possibility. As well, he explained that lyft is a corporate
partner and that they align themselves with other groups to ensure that their guests get home safe.
Councilmember Beach asked if Police Chief Wellman had talked to different municipalities' police
departments about Topgolf in their communities. Police Chief Wollman replied in the affirmative.
Police Captain Matteucci stated that he spoke with the Police Lieutenant in Roseville and that he was
informed that the uniformed officers on Fridays and Saturdays were just a precaution. He stated that BPD
talked to police departments in five locations that had Topgolf facilities: Gilbert, Arizona, Roseville,
California, Midvale, Utah, Hillsboro, Oregon, and Alpharetta, Georgia. He explained that all were in
suburbs outside of large cities.
Police Captain Matteucci stated that the five police departments explained that there were initial growing
pains with lighting, noise and traffic. However, he stated that all of the police departments stated that
Topgolf was great to work with in mitigating the issues and that the calls for service were within reason for a
venue of that nature.
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Police Chief Wollman stated that he talked to the Atlanta, Georgia police department about the Midtown
facility. He stated that this site was in downtown Atlanta and that it was busy. He explained that the police
department stated that this location had traffic congestion and some fights. However, he added that this
location was not similar to Burlingame and the Atlanta PD suggested he talk to the Alpharetta PD. In
speaking with the Alpharetta PD, he explained that it was clear that the police work closely with staff to
handle any issues.
Councilmember Beach thanked the police department for their due diligence. She stated that it seems that
any calls the police departments receive from Topgolf are not above the norm for a venue of its size. Police
Chief Wollman replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Don Pope stated his support for Topgolf,
Burlingame resident Cynthia Cornell stated that she would like the revenue from whichever applicant was
chosen to go towards affordable housing.
Burlingame resident JoAnneh Nagler stated that an important issue in the community is how to create
affordable workforce housing and how to fund this project. She talked about how the revenue from the
applicant could start to chip away at this problem.
Former Councilmember Root asked the Council to address concerns such as parking upfront with Topgolf
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Councilmember Beach asked if it was accurate that Topgolf would hire 500 employees for its potential
facility in Burlingame. Mr. Charon replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked if it accurate that 30 of the 500 employees would be salaried. Mr. Charon
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked what the average salary of a full-time salaried employee would be. Mr. Charon
stated that it was about $55,000 on a non -regional adjusted basis.
Councilmember Beach stated that these employees would be needing housing.
Councilmember Beach asked how late programing goes on Thursdays and Friday nights at Murray Field.
P&R Director Glomstad stated that it goes until 9-930 p.m. She added that Saturdays end at about 8 p.m.
Councilmember Beach asked if once Murray Field is turfed would it be used year round. P&R Director
Glomstad replied in the affirmative.
6
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Mayor Ortiz stated that Council had just received an email from USBC stating they wouldn't have a
representative at the meeting.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the Topgolf sites have cameras in the parking lot. Mr. Charon stated he
would have to look into that.
Councilmember Keighran stated that because of previous issues at the Bayfront, especially in hotel parking
lots, she would like to see cameras installed if Topgolf s proposal was chosen.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the property tax would be assessed on the constructed value of
improvements. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if it the build cost is $15 million, would that be the number the County uses to
assess property taxes. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if Caltrans was concerned about the impact of the project. DPW Murtuza
stated that 101 is already a major source of congestion and that Caltrans and the Transportation Authority are
currently looking into a project that would add lanes to 101.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if Topgolf s impact on congestion would be minimal or if it would cause
issues. DPW Murtuza stated that it would be minimal.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he saw a lot of benefits for the hotel and commercial developments
communities. He stated that from a community point of view he saw something good for 20-30 year olds
when there isn't a lot for that age group in area. However, he explained that it doesn't sit well with him that
public land is being conceded to a for profit entity. He explained that he would rather see the land used for
community purposes but the Council wasn't presented with a pure recreation community use.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he is concerned that Topgolf could detract from the downtown areas and
negatively impact local businesses. He discussed the idea that hotel guests wouldn't venture past the
Bayfront area.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the priority for him was that the City must get the best terms possible for
the Golf Center Site. He asked staff to look into the terms El Segundo had negotiated with Topgolf over the
lease of public land. As well, he stated that he didn't believe this project was recreational and was instead
entertainment. Therefore, because it was taking away from recreational uses, he stated he would like to see
some of the revenue funds directed towards recreational use.
Councilmember Keighran stated that it was unfortunate that USBC wasn't there to make a presentation or
answer Council's questions. She stated to her this showed a lack of commitment. She explained that in
terms of Topgolf it depended on how you defined recreation. She stated she looked up the definition of
recreation and it was activity that one does when one isn't working for pleasure, leisure, etc. And therefore,
to her Topgolf fits this definition.
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Councilmember Keighran stated that there were a lot of recreational activities available to the youth
including the library, sports leagues and Parks and Recreation programming. She went on to explain that
during the General Plan update meetings, a common complaint is that there isn't a lot for 20-30 year olds to
do in the area. She stated that Topgolf would give this age range an option in the County.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she didn't believe that Topgolf would affect the downtown businesses
as it is a unique activity. Additionally she stated that the City depends on TOT revenues and that with $100
million unfunded CIP projects, Topgolf could help the City.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she believed Topgolf would be beneficial to the City and that the
concerns that came up would need to be addressed during the negotiations.
Councilmember Beach stated that she had been struggling with determining what the best use is for the Golf
Center Site. She stated that she thought about what the highest calling for municipal land is and what it
should do for the community. She explained that she came to the conclusion that municipal land should
serve as a community gathering space where people are interacting. She gave the example of the library and
the meetings that occur there. She stated that there is less and less land available for those pursuits,
particularly if they don't generate revenue. Accordingly, she thought the Council has a responsibility when
investing in public lands that it be used as a community gathering space.
Councilmember Beach stated that she believed Topgolf to be a great company that has high morale and takes
care of its staff. She explained that she has every reason to believe that Topgolf would be a good partner in
the community. She discussed how she had talked with the Roseville Mayor and an Atlanta councilmember
about Topgolf in their communities. She stated that in those locations, public land wasn't utilized.
Councilmember Beach stated that the activity that occurs on public land is more important than the revenue
that can be generated. She stated that she believes the primary activity of Topgolf is entertainment and
hospitality and for her that doesn't fit with the vision of how public land should be utilized.
Councilmember Beach stated that she has lingering concerns about the quality of life with regards to how
Topgolf could negatively impact traffic, noise and light. Lastly, she stated that she wasn't sure the City had
found the right partner yet for this site and thought that the Council should be patient as the decision could
last 20-40 years.
Councilmember Colson talked about going to Topgolf in Las Vegas and how family oriented the experience
is. She stated that when making this decision the Council has to think about what serves the greatest number
of people. As well, she stated that she wasn't worried about local businesses because she agreed with
Councilmember Keighran that Topgolf would be a unique activity that wouldn't negatively impact the local
restaurant industry.
Councilmember Colson stated that the City has a history of working with for-profit companies on public land
projects. She gave the example of the development on Lots F and N.
8
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Councilmember Colson stated that she believed Topgolf would be a good partner and explained that a
portion of the revenues should go towards affordable housing for the community.
Councilmember Colson stated that she supported Topgolfs proposal. As well, she thanked the staff for their
time spent reviewing this project.
Mayor Ortiz stated that the Golf Center Site was a unique situation as it was built above a landfill.
Accordingly, there was a lot that can't be done on this site. He explained that the staff had looked into using
the site to build additional fields for youth sports but that the cost was exorbitant. As well, he explained that
he didn't feel that USBC was committed to this project as they didn't show up to the meeting or answer
Council's questions.
Mayor Ortiz talked about visiting Topgolf in Roseville and its family environment.
Mayor Ortiz stated he was in favor of Topgolf.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to enter into negotiations with Topgolf; seconded by Councitmember
Keighran.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he was disappointed that there wasn't competition for this site. He stated he
would like to make sure that the City preserves air rights over the site.
Councilmember Beach asked if she should provide her list of concerns that she would like discussed during
negotiations to staff. City Attorney Kane stated that what they didn't have yet was the structure of the
negotiations and who would be involved. She recommended a closed session once it was determined if the
City was moving forward with Topgolf to discuss who would be involved in the negotiations.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked Councilmember Colson to amend the motion to add the language that a
significant portion of the revenue would be for recreational development. City Manager Goldman stated this
merited a separate discussion once terms and revenue were determined. The motion was not amended.
The motion was approved 4-1 by roll call. (Councilmember Beach voted against).
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 8:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
�a� CITY O�
BURLINGAME
a�Nuim uuu[�,0o0
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
AMENDED Unapproved Minutes
Special Meeting on March 21, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed special 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 Don Pope.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
City of San Mateo Councilmember Goethals thanked the Council for their collaboration with the City of San
Mateo. He stated that he looked forward to future partnerships for the Peninsula Interchange and the
Broadway Grade Separation.
Burlingame resident Connie Curry voiced her support for an ice rink.
5. GOLF CENTER SITE STUDY SESSION
a. STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE GOLF CENTER SITE
City Manager Goldman presented the staff report regarding the management of the Golf Center Site. She
stated that the purpose of the Council's study session was to review the additional information submitted by
Topgolf and the US Badminton Center Group in response to the City Council's questions about the
proposals. As well staff was asking for Council to provide direction to begin negotiations with one of the
two applicants.
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
City Manager Goldman reviewed the background of the Golf Center Site RFP process. She explained that
on June 20, 2016, Council requested that staff issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the lease management
of the Golf Center Site for the operation of golf or other recreational or entertainment activities that would be
open to the public. The RFP was issued on October 12, 2016 and the City received three responses from US
Badminton Center Group (USBC), Mid -Peninsula Ice Rink Foundation (MIRF) and Topgolf Intemational.
City Manager Goldman stated that USBC's original proposal included building a facility that would contain
20-50 badminton courts, a 10,000 — 20,000 square foot Wellness Center, an outdoor training facility, a food
court, a pro shop and supporting spaces. USBC would retain 20-25 of the Golf Center bays. As well the
facility would be built on the existing parking lot and the short game and driving range area. The facility
would offer memberships and drop-in options for all ages and provide yoga, senior fitness, personal training,
massage therapy, sports leagues, tournaments and youth camps.
City Manager Goldman stated that she wouldn't be discussing MIRF's ice rink proposal because MIRF
withdrew their proposal as a result of the ice rink reopening in San Mateo.
City Manager Goldman stated that Topgolf s proposal included building a 65,000 square foot LEED Silver
certified facility with 120 hitting bays, 3,000 square feet of event space, a full-service restaurant and bar, a
rooftop terrace, pool tables, shuffle board, and supporting areas. The facility, which would be built on the
existing Golf Center Site, would offer general entertainment, food and music, golf lessons for all ages,
summer camps, tournaments, and leagues.
She explained that a committee comprised of Councilmember Colson, P&R Commissioner Dito, City
Manager Goldman, Finance Director Augustine, DPW Murtuza and P&R Director Glomstad reviewed the
proposals. Then at the January 17, 2017 meeting, staff made their recommendation advising Council to
begin negotiations with Topgolf. She explained that Council determined that they needed additional
information from each of the applicants before making a decision.
City Manager Goldman stated that staff assembled the questions that Council wanted addressed and asked
the three proposals to answer all questions by March 16, 2017. MIRF withdrew on Friday, March 10, 2017.
She stated that staff received answers from Topgolf. However, she explained that from USBC, staff received
an email, which noted that they can match or do better than Topgolf on rent subject to having the whole site.
As well, the email stated that USBC was willing to offer community amenities that would be open to the
public. She stated that a new drawing of the USBC site was submitted at 4:30 p.m. (2 hours before the study
session), however the rendering doesn't provide a lot of detail.
City Manager Goldman stated that Topgolf amended their offer by increasing their annual rent from
$500,000 to $550,000. As well, Topgolf stated that they will contribute $250,000 to the City to use for
Murray Field.
City Manager Goldman stated that staff looked at whether they could combine one or more facilities on the
site. However, she stated that staff didn't believe this was feasible, due to the unique requirements of each
proposal and the corresponding parking requirements.
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
City Manager Goldman stated that at the January 17, 2017 meeting, staff received questions about the impact
of Topgolf upon local municipalities. She stated that BPD contacted Roseville, CA, Gilbert, AZ and
Midvale, UT which all have Topgolf facilities. All three police departments reported that they do not
consider the Topgolf facility a problem. As well, the respective police departments stated that the calls for
service are not above the norm for an establishment of that nature and size. Moreover, she stated that the
police departments reported that Topgolf was receptive and cooperative in working with the local police
departments.
Mayor Ortiz asked if any of his colleagues had questions.
Councilmember Keigbran explained that she was no longer recused from this matter. She stated that because
MIRF had withdrawn their proposal, County funding was no longer involved, and therefore she was now
able to discuss the matter.
Councilmember Keighran asked when it comes to monitoring state regulations dealing with the clay caps
who will be responsible for that. DPW Murtuza stated that technically it will be the City. However, he
explained that from an agreement point of view, the City will be working with the selected applicant on how
to monitor the clay caps.
Mayor Ortiz asked if any representatives from USBC were present. There were none.
Mayor Ortiz asked Topgolf to make their presentation.
Topgolf representative Devin Charon presented two videos showcasing Topgolf s mission and their work
within the community. Mr. Charon discussed the design of Topgolf's facility including event space, lower
lounge, rooftop terrace and outfield. He discussed the light pollution that comes from their facility and that it
is very minimal. He reviewed how the hitting bays are designed to feel like you are in your living room with
tvs, food service and the creation of an intimate atmosphere for your group. As well, he discussed Topgolf s
high retention rate of employees, stating that they offer their employees competitive wages and 401k's.
Lastly, Mr. Charon discussed Topgolfs work with charitable organizations including Make -A -Wish, Heroes
Discount, Bunkers for Baghdad and Grow the Game.
Councilmember Beach thanked Mr. Charon for his presentation. She asked how Topgolf proposed to ensure
that they had enough parking at the Golf Center Site receive the anticipated 500,0(10 visitors a year. Mr.
Charon stated that Topgolf currently targets having 450-500 parking spaces per site. He stated that the site in
Burlingame will have 799 parking spots.
Councilmember Beach stated that if Murray Field has 225 spaces, then Topgolf will more than triple the
amount of parking spaces. Mr. Charon replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach stated that she traveled to the Roseville facility and went on a late Saturday afternoon
because she wanted to see a Topgolf facility during peak hours. She stated she was amazed that the parking
lot seemed to be full. Therefore, she asked if there was an overflow issue how would Topgolf propose to
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
mitigate parking problems. Mr. Charon stated that in the past they have worked with surrounding hotels,
office buildings, and off-site locations to lease parking space.
Councilmember Beach asked what Topgolf s typical capacity is. Mr. Charon stated about 1000.
Councilmember Beach asked if Topgolf typically hits capacity during peak hours. Mr. Charon replied in the
affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz asked how many parking spots they have in Roseville. Mr. Charon replied he didn't know.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he visited Topgolf and had asked about how many balls leave the facility.
He explained that at first he was told that Topgolf doesn't lose balls but that later an employee let him know
that it happens occasionally. He stated his concern was that Topgolf would be next to Murray Field and he
didn't want the kids playing on the field to be hit by balls. Accordingly, he asked what the tallest net pole
Topgolf had previously installed was. Mr. Charon stated that the company standard is for 170 foot tall net
poles. He explained that this was based off of ball flight studies and Topgolf s work with Titleist to keep all
balls in the facility. As well, he discussed their zero lost ball policy and their rules regarding individuals who
purposefully try to hit over the nets.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked how much latitude the City had in landscaping on top of the clay caps and
specifically could trees be planted. DPW Murtuza stated that this was tricky because the tree roots could
separate the clay caps.
Councilmember Keighran asked if Topgolf would be open to developing a shuttle service with the hotels so
that individuals weren't driving to Topgolf. Mr. Charon stated absolutely as it benefits all.
Councilmember Keigbran asked if they had a shuttle service at any other site. Mr. Charon stated that in Las
Vegas they are tied to the MGM so they have a dedicated shuttle that goes from MGM to Topgolf.
Councilmember Colson stated that she was a member of the task force during the RFP for the Golf Center
Site so her questions had been answered.
Councilmember Beach discussed her trip to the Roseville site. She stated that the guest experience was very
impressive and that she didn't feel pressured to have her table turned out from under her. She stated that
there was an hour and 40 minute wait for hitting bays, but was told if she got there at 5 pm there would be a
4 hour wait. She stated what struck her was that there wasn't a lot to do while you waited. She asked if they
had discussed allowing reservations. Mr. Charon stated that Topgolf's IT department is looking at
implementing a reservation system.
Councilmember Beach stated that she spent $184 at Topgolf for her and her two children. She asked if it
was typical to spend more money on food and beverages than golf. Mr. Charon replied in the affirmative.
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Councilmember Beach asked if the food and beverage pricing changes based on markets. Mr. Charon
replied no.
Councilmember Beach asked about the transition to the evening. She stated that she had talked to Topgolf
staff and they had stated that there was a big transition around 6:30-7:00 p.m. Mr. Charon discussed the day
progression from avid golfers at 9 a.m. to business people at lunch time, then students and in the later hours
it is a more social crowd into date night. He stated that there are four pillars of their business: 1. Millennial -
social seekers; 2. Avid golfers; 3. Families; and 4. Corporate events.
Councilmember Beach asked if the Thursday -Saturday night crowd was the Millennial -social seeker crowd.
Mr. Charon replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach stated that around 8 p.m. a DJ starts playing, and it becomes more of a high energy
atmosphere. She asked if Topgolf received any noise complaints at Roseville or their other sites. Mr.
Charon stated that they had but that they are very proactive and worked with the community and the local
police departments to alleviate any noise concerns.
Councilmember Beach asked if they had private security at all their venues. Mr. Charon replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Beach stated that the Roseville site had uniformed officers posted at Topgolf on Friday and
Saturday nights. Mr. Charon stated that they actively work with the police department to see what measures
the community would like to see Topgolf put in place to ensure everyone's safety.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was concerned about drinking and driving. Mr. Charon stated that all
the employees were fully trained to alleviate this possibility. As well, he explained that lyft is a corporate
partner and that they align themselves with other groups to ensure that their guests get home safe.
Councilmember Beach asked if Police Chief Wollman had talked to different municipalities' police
departments about Topgolf in their communities. Police Chief Wollman replied in the affirmative.
Police Captain Matteucci stated that he spoke with the Police Lieutenant in Roseville and that he was
informed that the uniformed officers on Fridays and Saturdays were just a precaution. He stated that BPD
talked to police departments in five locations that had Topgolf facilities: Gilbert, Arizona, Roseville,
California, Midvale, Utah, Hillsboro, Oregon, and Alpharetta, Georgia. He explained that all were in
suburbs outside of large cities.
Police Captain Matteucci stated that the five police departments explained that there were initial growing
pains with lighting, noise and traffic. However, he stated that all of the police departments stated that
Topgolf was great to work with in mitigating the issues and that the calls for service were within reason for a
venue of that nature.
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Police Chief Wollman stated that he talked to the Atlanta, Georgia police department about the Midtown
facility. He stated that this site was in downtown Atlanta and that it was busy. He explained that the police
department stated that this location had traffic congestion and some fights. However, he added that this
location was not similar to Burlingame and the Atlanta PD suggested he talk to the Alpharetta PD. In
speaking with the Alpharetta PD, he explained that it was clear that the police work closely with staff to
handle any issues.
Councilmember Beach thanked the police department for their due diligence. She stated that it seems that
any calls the police departments receive from Topgolf are not above the norm for a venue of its size. Police
Chief Wollman replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Don Pope stated his support for Topgolf.
Burlingame resident Cynthia Cornell stated that she would like the revenue from whichever applicant was
chosen to go towards affordable housing.
Burlingame resident 7oAnneh Nagler stated that an important issue in the community is how to create
affordable workforce housing and how to fund this project. She talked about how the revenue from the
applicant could start to chip away at this problem.
Former Councilmember Root asked the Council to address concerns such as parking upfront with Topgolf.
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Councilmember Beach asked if it was accurate that Topgolf would hire 500 employees for its potential
facility in Burlingame. Mr. Charon replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked if it accurate that 30 of the 500 employees would be salaried. Mr. Charon
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked what the average salary of a full-time salaried employee would be. Mr. Charon
stated that it was about $55,000 on a non -regional adjusted basis.
Councilmember Beach stated that these employees would be needing housing.
Councilmember Beach asked how late programing goes on Thursdays and Friday nights at Murray Field.
P&R Director Glomstad stated that it goes until 9-930 p.m. She added that Saturdays end at about 8 p.m.
Councilmember Beach asked if once Murray Field is turfed would it be used year round. P&R Director
Glomstad replied in the affirmative.
6
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item Bc
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Mayor Ortiz stated that Council had just received an email from USBC stating they wouldn't have a
representative at the meeting.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the Topgolf sites have cameras in the parking lot. Mr. Charon stated he
would have to look into that.
Councilmember Keighran stated that because of previous issues at the Bayfront, especially in hotel parking
lots, she would like to see cameras installed if Topgolf's proposal was chosen.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the property tax would be assessed on the constructed value of
improvements. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if it the build cost is $15 million, would that be the number the County uses to
assess property taxes. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if Caltrans was concerned about the impact of the project. DPW Murtuza
stated that 101 is already a major source of congestion and that Caltrans and the Transportation Authority are
currently looking into a project that would add lanes to 101.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if Topgolf s impact on congestion would be minimal or if it would cause
issues. DPW Murtuza stated that it would be minimal.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he saw a lot of benefits for the hotel and commercial developments
communities. He stated that from a community point of view he saw something good for 20-30 year olds
when there isn't a lot for that age group in area. However, he explained that it doesn't sit well with him that
public land is being conceded to a for profit entity. He explained that he would rather see the land used for
community purposes but the Council wasn't presented with a pure recreation community use.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he is concerned that Topgolf could detract from the downtown areas and
negatively impact local businesses. He discussed the idea that hotel guests wouldn't venture past the
Bayfront area.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the priority for him was that the City must get the best terms possible for
the Golf Center Site. He asked staff to look into the terms El Segundo had negotiated with Topgolf over the
lease of public land. As well, he stated that he didn't believe this project was recreational and was instead
entertainment. Therefore, because it was taking away from recreational uses, he stated he would like to see
some of the revenue funds directed towards recreational use.
Councilmember Keighran stated that it was unfortunate that USBC wasn't there to make a presentation or
answer Council's questions. She stated to her this showed a lack of commitment. She explained that in
terms of Topgolf it depended on how you defined recreation. She stated she looked up the definition of
recreation and it was activity that one does when one isn't working for pleasure, leisure, etc. And therefore,
to her Topgolf fits this definition.
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Councilmember Keigbran stated that there were a lot of recreational activities available to the youth
including the library, sports leagues and Parks and Recreation programming. She went on to explain that
during the General Plan update meetings, a common complaint is that there isn't a lot for 20-30 year olds to
do in the area. She stated that Topgolf would give this age range an option in the County.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she didn't believe that Topgolf would affect the downtown businesses
as it is a unique activity. Additionally she stated that the City depends on TOT revenues and that with $100
million unfunded CIP projects, Topgolf could help the City.
Councilmember Keigbran stated that she believed Topgolf would be beneficial to the City and that the
concerns that came up would need to be addressed during the negotiations.
Councilmember Beach stated that she had been struggling with determining what the best use is for the Golf
Center Site. She stated that she thought about what the highest calling for municipal land is and what it
should do for the community. She explained that she came to the conclusion that municipal land should
serve as a community gathering space where people are interacting. She gave the example of the library and
the meetings that occur there. She stated that there is less and less land available for those pursuits,
particularly if they don't generate revenue. Accordingly, she thought the Council has a responsibility when
investing in public lands that it be used as a community gathering space.
Councilmember Beach stated that she believed Topgolf to be a great company that has high morale and takes
care of its staff. She explained that she has every reason to believe that Topgolf would be a good partner in
the community. She discussed how she had talked with the Roseville Mayor and an Atlanta councilmember
about Topgolf in their communities. She stated that in those locations, public land wasn't utilized.
Councilmember Beach stated that the activity that occurs on public land is more important than the revenue
that can be generated. She stated that she believes the primary activity of Topgolf is entertainment and
hospitality and for her that doesn't fit with the vision of how public land should be utilized.
Councilmember Beach stated that she has lingering concerns about the quality of life with regards to how
Topgolf could negatively impact traffic, noise and light. Lastly, she stated that she wasn't sure the City had
found the right partner yet for this site and thought that the Council should be patient as the decision could
last 20-40 years.
Councilmember Colson talked about going to Topgolf in Las Vegas and how family oriented the experience
is. She stated that when making this decision the Council has to think about what serves the greatest number
of people. As well, she stated that she wasn't worried about local businesses because she agreed with
Councilmember Keighran that Topgolf would be a unique activity that wouldn't negatively impact the local
restaurant industry.
Councilmember Colson stated that the City has a history of working with for-profit companies on public land
projects. She gave the example of the development on Lots F and N.
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8c
Meeting Date: 4/3/17
Councilmember Colson stated that she believed Topgolf would be a good partner and explained that a
portion of the revenues should go towards affordable housing for the community.
Councilmember Colson stated that she supported Topgolf s proposal. As well, she thanked the staff for their
time spent reviewing this project.
Mayor Ortiz stated that the Golf Center Site was a unique situation as it was built above a landfill.
Accordingly, there was a lot that can't be done on this site. He explained that the staff had looked into using
the site to build additional fields for youth sports but that the cost was exorbitant. As well, he explained that
he didn't feel that USBC was committed to this project as they didn't show up to the meeting or answer
Council's questions.
Mayor Ortiz talked about visiting Topgolf in Roseville and its family environment.
Mayor Ortiz stated he was in favor of Topgolf.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to enter into negotiations with Topgolf; seconded by Councilmember
Keighran.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he was disappointed that there wasn't competition for this site. He stated he
would like to make sure that the City preserves air rights over the site.
Councilmember Beach asked if she should provide her list of concerns that she would like discussed during
negotiations to staff. City Attorney Kane stated that what they didn't have yet was the structure of the
negotiations and who would be involved. She recommended a closed session once it was determined if the
City was moving forward with Topgolf to discuss who would be involved in the negotiations.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked Councilmember Colson to amend the motion to add the language that a
significant portion of the revenue would be for recreational development. City Manager Goldman stated this
merited a separate discussion once terms and revenue were determined. The motion was not amended.
The motion was approved 4-1 by roll call. (Councilmember Beach voted against).
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 8:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
Burlingame City Council March 21, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
AGENDA ITEM NO: 8d
BURL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 3, 2017
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 3, 2017
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution of Intent to Amend the City of Burlingame Master
Fee Schedule Effective July 1, 2017; and Set the Public Hearing for Such
Amendment for May 1, 2017
Staff recommends that the City Council review and discuss staff recommendations for changes
to the City's Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2017-18, and establish a Public Hearing for
May 1, 2017 in connection with updates to the document.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has traditionally approved a Master Fee Schedule as part of the budget
process so as to reflect the annual increase in costs that are anticipated in the upcoming fiscal
year. The fee adjustments are not automatic. They require an annual review and approval by
the City Council. An annual review and update ensure that fees reflect current costs to provide
services, allow the addition of fees when applicable for new City services, and provide for the
elimination of fees for discontinued services.
A comprehensive cost allocation plan (CAP) and user fee study assists the City in determining
the actual cost of providing City services, and helps the departments establish appropriate user
fees. In 2015, City staff worked with Wohlford Consulting on a revised CAP, allowing for the
completion of an updated Cost of Services study. The study determined the actual cost of
providing City services/programs paid for by user fees, based on the FY 2015-16 operating
budget.
As is often the case, the updated Cost of Services study revealed dramatic differences between
actual current costs and the fees charged to recover those costs. For this reason, the 2016-17
Master Fee Schedule Update was a two-step process. Staff recommendations for fees were
reviewed in conjunction with the information provided in the Cost of Services study so that
Council direction could be provided on proposed changes in the 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
prior to requesting approval of the final document. Although the recommendations presented by
staff last year were meant to ensure that charges keep pace with the costs of providing
services, were competitive with comparable programs (where applicable), and were responsive
1
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2017-18
April 3, 2017
to demands for the service within the community, the Council indicated some discomfort in
authorizing fees that were increased by more than double the current fee. 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 and determine whether the prior year's strategy
remained appropriate. The proposed fee changes are summarized below, by department.
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 each service (fees reflect 100% of costs); as well as services in
which the General Fund subsidizes the fees charged by the City.
In general, the City's Master Fee Schedule reflects user fees that are intended to represent
100% cost recovery of fully burdened rates, with the exception of user fees that are highly
sensitive and promote citizen engagement. Fully burdened rates include the cost of direct labor
(direct staff time spent on the service), indirect labor (administrative and supervisory time), and
central services overhead (other budgetary support for the department providing the service).
To reflect general cost increases, some fees were increased in FY 2016-17 based on the Bay
Area Consumer Price Index (CPI), which increased 3.2% from February 2015 to February 2016.
The CPI increased 3.4% as of February 28, 2017 as compared to the prior year.
The City's overall cost recovery rate of 55% reflects varying rates of cost recovery amongst
departments, and amongst programs within each department, due to the wide variety of
services provided. For departments that provide social or public safety services, policy
concerns and market factors (as opposed to actual costs) tend to influence fee levels more than
for other types of services. To raise all fees to achieve 100% full cost recovery is not feasible or
desirable, as discussed in the Cost of Services Study. However, where full cost recovery is
recommended, the costs shown in the Cost of Services Study have been increased by CPI to
more accurately reflect current costs.
Pursuant to State law, certain fees to be charged by the Planning and Building Divisions, the
Fire Department, and 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. Therefore, staff requests that a Public Hearing for the update of the City of
Burlingame's Master Fee Schedule be established for May 1, 2017. The intent is for all fees to
become effective July 1, 2017.
The fees described below reflect amendments based on the following:
2
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2017-18
Administration
April 3, 2017
Administrative Services primarily provides support to other City departments, and therefore the
fees were not reviewed in the user fee study. Staff recommendations for changes are based on
staff's analysis of the cost of the service or activity.
Although certain city-wide administrative fees and fees charged by Finance and the City Clerk's
Office have been increased from time to time by CPI, staff recommends no changes be made in
these fees for the 2017-18 fiscal year.
Building
As with many comparably -sized cities, Burlingame's building permit fees are largely based on a
project's valuation, adjusted by criteria that define the scope of work. For the most part, the
Cost of Services Study evaluated only the unit fees for services provided by the Building
Division.
Therefore, staff proposed no changes to the building permit fees based on total valuation last
year, finding them to be consistent with other jurisdictions that use total valuation for setting
these rates, and adequate in covering City costs. Although flat fees were considered, the City's
current system allows more flexibility in establishing the total permit fee because it takes into
consideration items in the project's scope of work that differentiate a smaller project from a
larger project (other than the square foot tiering that a flat fee would provide).
Although no changes are currently recommend for fees based on valuation, staff recommends
that fees for per -hour charges for inspections and plan checks (or flat fees based on per hour
inspection or plan check costs) be increased by a CPI of 3.4%. In addition, staff suggests that
fees that were limited to less than full cost recovery in the current Master Fee Schedule (due to
the large increase that would have been required) be increased to the desired cost recovery
prior to applying the CPI increase.
Engineering
The Engineering Division charges fees for development -related services including Improvement
Planning Application Reviews; Encroachment Permits; Construction, Demolition and Grading
Permits; and Subdivision Maps. Many of the fees were increased last year to provide greater
cost recovery. Most fees for engineering services are proposed to be increased by a CPI of
3.4%. Again, staff recommends that fees that were limited to less than full cost recovery in the
current Master Fee Schedule (due to the large increase that would have been required) be
increased to the desired cost recovery prior to applying the CPI increase. In general, amounts
needed to be held on deposit were not changed unless past experience indicated that these
amounts were frequently not adequate.
3
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2017-18
Library
April 3, 2017
The City of Burlingame's Library is a member of the Peninsula Library System (PLS). Service
rates and fines are largely coordinated throughout the system by the PLS Administrative
Council. Concerned that fines provide a barrier to accessing library services, the Administrative
Council last year eliminated overdue fines for children and teens system -wide and implemented
a new youth library card type for patrons under 18, to be utilized by all PLS libraries and applied
to all existing PLS patrons under 18. Current and future fees related to lost or damaged
materials on youth library cards/accounts remained unchanged.
Two specific fees have been added for library services in the proposed fiscal year 2017-18
Master Fee Schedule. First, as a result of opening the Passport Intake Office at the Main
Library, staff has experienced several requests for expedited paperwork. Typically, all passport
paperwork is mailed in one flat -rate envelope to the U.S. State Department, but if the customer
needs to receive their passport by a certain date, Express Mail must be used. Currently the
Express Mail rate is $19.99; this additional cost should be charged to the customer.
In addition, staff recommends the addition of a Photo/Filming fee for shoots in the Library after
hours. Because the Main Library is a visually appealing place for patrons, the Library has
received many requests over the years for photography or filming in the building. Staff oversight
of the filming is required, and if performed during closed hours, over -time pay is needed to meet
this type of request. The amount of $50 per hour is based on overtime pay for a Library
Assistant to chaperon the process.
Parks and Recreation
As was noted in the Cost of Services Study, the cost analysis of Parks and Recreation activities
did not follow the typical unit -based approach used for the other fee areas. For most of this
department's programs, the underlying data for each activity for which a fee is charged was not
available or varied widely, leaving the unit cost build-up approach impractical. Instead, the cost
analysis focused on the overall cost of each program area. Further breakdown of expenses by
park, playground, picnic area, event, class, or field would be needed in order to determine a
more specific distribution of current expenses. Therefore, Parks and Recreation Department
staff considers comparable or market -rate fees as a more relevant data set than the cost of
these programs as a whole in establishing fee recommendations. However, the cost data was
useful in providing cost parameters in the fee -setting process.
Note that for recreational programs, the user fee study results showed that Leisure/Fitness,
Preschool, and Youth Camp programs were highest in cost recovery, and Teen and Senior
programs, along with Community Events, had much lower levels of cost recovery. The 76%
average cost -recovery rate calculated for the department as a whole is typical, as park and
recreation programs offer a significant general community benefit. The department also
acknowledged that a number of services are provided at no charge due to the purely public
benefit derived from these events and activities.
n
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2017-18 April 3, 2017
That being said, most fees related to Parks and Recreation services were modified slightly
upward as the costs of all services have gone up. Fees associated with the rental of facilities
were substantially modified in fiscal year 2015-16 based on a detailed examination of rental
frequency experience in recent years. Therefore, staff has recommended that increases in the
fees charged for indoor facilities be kept to a minimum, and few changes have been
recommended for outdoor facilities rentals and Feld fees. The fee for Security Personnel for
events associated with renting indoor facilities has been removed, as the patrons are
responsible for procuring and paying for such services if needed. The most significant fee
changes recommended are for the various advertising options in the department's activity guide
as the department plans to provide for four issuances of the guide in fiscal year 2017-18 instead
of three.
Planning
For many of the permits and services provided by the Planning Division, full cost recovery is
justified, as these development activities are driven by an applicant or property owner who will
benefit from the service. For many services, an increase to full cost recovery significantly
increases the fee. For this reason, 50-75 percent of full cost recovery was recommended last
year for certain services that provide a community benefit (such as special permits, which
provide architectural design consistency and noticing). Staff also proposed 50-75 percent of full
cost recovery for activities where higher fees may discourage requests for the services (Sign
permits, Minor Modifications). Still other fees were held at existing rates to encourage
compliance (Fence Exception, Second Unit Amnesty, Reasonable Accommodation), promote
preservation of neighborhood character (Design Review additions and amendments), or
encourage participation in the planning process (Conditional Use Permits, Appeals, Planning
Commission Hearings).
For most Planning services, the fees are recommended to be increased by the CPI of 3.4% for
fiscal year 2017-18. For fees set at below 100% cost recovery last year due to the maximum
increase established in implementing the first year of cost recovery based on the Cost of
Services study, the fees were increased to the desired cost recovery prior to applying the CPI
increase.
Note that most development impact fees have not been changed. These fees are based on the
construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1 of each
year, and are reviewed/updated on a different schedule than other Planning Department fees in
the Master Fee Schedule. Only the Burlingame Avenue Parking in Lieu Fees (per parking
space) are recommended to be adjusted by CPI as of February 28, 2017.
Fees established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (collected and passed -
through by the Planning Division) have been updated to reflect adjustments by that agency
effective January 1, 2017.
5
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2017-18
Police
April 3, 2017
The Cost of Services Study in 2015 revealed an overall cost -recovery rate of 17% for Police
Department services. None of the fees had been set to recover the full cost of service,
providing a significant subsidy to fee payers. However, this was a largely anticipated result in
that police services are generally provided out of public funds for the benefit of the public at
large. However, there is a limited range of activities where it is appropriate for the department
to set charges to fully or partially recover costs. With that in mind, the Police Department last
year reviewed each of the fees to determine the extent of public benefit provided in each
service. So, while many fees remained unchanged (police report copies, bicycle license, false
alarm charges, curb painting, etc.) due to the public safety benefit attributed to the service, it
was determined that other services (vehicle release, DUI response, concealed weapon permits)
provide benefit only to the individual, with no particular benefit to the public at large. These fees
were increased to move the fees closer to full cost recovery. A few fees (for taxicab annual
inspections, fingerprinting, and specific business permits) were kept below cost recovery to
encourage compliance. Ensuring that charges are levied effectively in such circumstances will
help protect the provision of public police services by contributing to the overall funding of the
department.
The strategies employed last year to the very broad spectrum of services offered by the Police
Department remain largely intact, with staff recommending that the City continue to seek full
cost recovery for those services that offer benefit only to the individual. Therefore, fees that
were recommended to be increased to achieve full cost recovery last year were largely
recommended to be increased toward that goal for FY 2017-18. Other fees that had already
been established at the appropriate level of cost recovery were increased only by the CPI. The
descriptions of certain services were also changed to provide for a better understanding of the
services actually offered and provided. For example, Amusement/Entertainment Permit is
shown as Live Entertainment Permit so as to exclude a variety of incidental diversions that may
be offered to customers but are not the main focus of the business.
Public Works - Sewer and Water Utilities
Water rates were amended effective January 1, 2017, with the adoption of an ordinance that
established increases for three years. Based on a rate study by Bartle Wells Associates
Consultants, the rates are designed to generate the equivalent of a 9% increase in rate
revenues in calendar year 2017, and a 7.5% increase for each of the next two years. The rate
increases were necessary to cover the wholesale cost of water to the City as well as capital
improvements to the system. As part of the water rate modifications, fixed charges based on
meter size were reduced.
In the proposed Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2017-18, changes were made for water
services to reflect the increases that were approved and implemented in compliance with
Proposition 218, and effective January 1, 2017. The only sewer utility services where increases
are proposed are in Sewer Connection Fees. To keep up with the costs of these connections,
ri
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2017-18
April 3, 2017
the fees are adjusted to conform to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for
San Francisco each year.
Other Fees
Fees for Fire services are established by the Central County Fire Department (CCFD). As a
separate JPA that is funded by the City of Burlingame, the Town of Hillsborough, and the City of
Millbrae, the CCFD budget is separately adopted by the CCFD Fire Board on a separate time
table. The City will amend the Master Fee Schedule if CCFD makes any adjustments to their
fees.
Animal Control fees are set by the County of San Mateo. The City's Master Fee Schedule will
be amended when the fees established for these services are updated.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The recommendations presented by staff in this report ensure not only that charges keep pace
with the costs of providing certain services, but that they are also competitive with comparable
programs (where applicable) and are responsive to demands for the service within the
community. The changes to the 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 of activity varies.
In determining the full cost of providing services for which fees are charged, the Cost of
Services study laid the groundwork needed for development of a values -based and data -driven
User Fee Cost Recovery Policy. Council's input and comments on the fees proposed by staff
relative to the cost of the various services will assist in preparing such a policy for Council
consideration early in the 2017-18 fiscal year.
Exhibits:
• A Resolution of Intent of the City Council of the City of Burlingame to Amend the Master
Fee Schedule for City Services
• City of Burlingame Proposed Master Fee Schedule
• DOL Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area — February 2017
7
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO AMEND THE
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame regularly reviews the fees that the City charges
persons or entities for the use of City facilities, or the provision of City services; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the cost of such services and facilities is borne by the
users of said services and facilities in a fair and equitable manner, the City periodically adjusts the
fees for services and facility use to ensure that the fees charged reflect the actual costs to the City
and the City's taxpayers in providing those services and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the fees reflected in the Master Fee Schedule will be carefully reviewed by
each City department, and specific recommendations to amend fees will be provided to ensure
that charges keep pace with the costs for providing City services, where appropriate; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Burlingame City Council intends to amend the Master Fee Schedule.
2. The Master Fee Schedule, with proposed adjustments for fiscal year 2017-18, will
be posted and available online at www.Burlingame.orq with the staff report
associated with the May 1, 2017 Public Hearing related to Amendment of the
Master Fee Schedule.
3. The Master Fee Schedule, with proposed adjustments for fiscal year 2017-18, will
also be on file and available at the Office of the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California, and will be available for review during regular business
hours, 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday, at least 10 days prior to the Public
Hearing.
4. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby schedules a Public Hearing on
the proposed amendments to the Master Fee Schedule for Monday, May 1, 2017,
at 7:00 pm, in the Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
5. At the Public Hearing, the City Council will receive testimony and evidence, and
interested persons may submit written comments before or at the Public Hearing,
or such comments may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk, Burlingame
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010.
6. At the Public Hearing, any and all persons may make oral or written comments of
the proposed amendments.
7. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the City Council will deliberate upon the
proposed fees as outlined in the Master Fee Schedule, and will consider further
amendments and adoption of the 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule.
8. All of the facts recited above, in the staff report and supporting documentation are
true and correct and the Council relies upon same.
Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor
I, Meaghan 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 31 day of April, 2017, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk
City of Burlingame
Master Fee Schedule
EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1. 2017
�� cirr e
R �
BORLINGAME
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
�� cirr a
R �
9URLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT FEE
NEW FEE
BUILDING PERMIT FEES BASED ON TOTAL VALUATION
$1.00 to $500.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$37.00
No Change
$501.00 to $2,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$38.00 for the first
No Change
$500.00 plus $5.28 for
each additional
$100.00 or fraction
thereof up to and
including $2,000.00
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$109.00 for the first
No Change
$2,000.00 plus $22.15
for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction
thereof up to and
including $25,000.00
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$611.00 for the first
No Change
$25,000.00 plus
$16.30 for each
additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof up
to and including
$50,000.00
Page 2
S� CITY 0
4 �
6URLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
all LN[a,0
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT FEE
NEW FEE
$50,001.00 to $100,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,006.00 for the first
No Change
$50,000.00 plus
$11.07 for each
additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof up
to and including
$100,000.00
$101,000.00 to $500,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$1,551.00 for the first
No Change
$100,000.00 plus
$9.40 for each
additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof up
to and including
$500,000.00
$501,000.00 to $1,000,000.00
Resolution No 27-2011
$5,044.00 for the first
No Change
$500,000.00 plus
$8.57 for each
additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof up
to and including
$1,000,000.00
More than $1,000,000.00
Resolution No. 27-2011
$8,755.00 for the first
No Change
$1,000,000.00 plus
$5.80 for each
additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof
Page 3
�� cirr o
R �
BURLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT FEE
NEW FEE
Building inspections outside
Resolution No. 27-2011
$220.00 per hour
$230.00 per
normal business hours
(minimum charge of 2
hour (minimum
hours)
charge of 2
hours)
Re -inspection fees (minimum —
Resolution No. 27-2011
$220.00 per hour
$230.00 per
one hour)
hour
Energy Upgrade California
Resolution No. 27-2011
Basic Package
$220.00
$230.00
Advanced Package
$438.00
$460.00
General fire inspections for new
Resolution No. 27-2011
Determined by CCFD
No Change
building and tenant remodels
— pass-through costs
limited to building permits of
commercial or multi -family
residential
PLAN REVIEW FEES
Basic Fee — Building Division
Resolution No. 104-2002
65% of Building
No Change
Permit Fee
Energy Plan Check Fee (where
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of
No Change
applicable; includes review of
Building Permit Fee
Green Points Checklist)
Disabled Access Plan Check Fee
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 35% of
No Change
(where applicable)
Building Permit Fee
Page 4
�� ciTr c
6URLINGAME
b..
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT FEE
NEW FEE
Review of Request for Alternate
Resolution No. 27-2011
$220.00 per hour
$283.00 per
Materials and Methods
hour
Review of Unreasonable
Resolution No. 27-2011
$220.00 per hour
$283.00 per
Hardship Request
hour
Planning Department Plan Check
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of
No Change
Fee (where applicable)
Building Permit Fee
Minimum fee of $80.00
Plan Revisions for Planning
Resolution No. 27-2011
$220.00 per hour
$283.00 per
Department
hour
Plan Revisions Subsequent to
Resolution No. 27-2011
$220.00 per hour plus
$283.00 per
Permit Issuance
cost of any additional
hour plus cost of
review
any additional
review
Engineering Division Plan Review
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 25% of
No Change
(where applicable)
Building Permit Fee
Imaging Fee
Resolution No. 104-2002
Additional 5% of
No Change
Building Permit Fee
with minimum fee of
$5.00
Arborist 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
meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility
companies.
Page 5
S� cirr o
A �
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 Building -
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
4 �
6URLINGAME
40
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
S� CIrY U
4 �
BURLINGAME
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
�� CITY 0
R �
BURLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
11IDtacl
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
�� CITY p
4 �
BURLINGAME
So
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
4 S
BURLINGAME
�o
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
S� ciry e
R t
BURLINGAME
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
a� ciTr o
R t
6URLINGAME
'J
b..
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
6URLINGAME
4b �
b„
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
S� CITY p
4 �
BURLINGAME
}
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
F �
BURLINGAME
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 p
BURLNGAME
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
�� cirr
R
BURLINGAME
`k4 !
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
CITY CLERK & ELECTIONS
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT FEE
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
of tape
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
aF, crcr c
BURLINGAME
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
R �
BURLINGAME
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
�� CITY 0
A �
BURLINGAME
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
4 �
9URLANGAME
ko
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENTFEE
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
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
�� cirr c
R �
BURLINGAME
c
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 1st or 2nd 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
S� crcr c
R t
BURLINGAME
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
�F, cirr oa.
R
6URLINGAME
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
�� CIrY a
BURLINGAME
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
�6 cirr u
A 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
T� cirr u
R �
BURLINGAME
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
�� cirr e
BURLINGAME
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� cirr c
R �
BURLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT FEE
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 o
R �
BURLINGAME
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
SF, carr c
R t
BURLINGAME
ac =
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
�� CITY 0
R �
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
�� CITY p
4 �
BURLINGAME
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
�� cirr o
BURLINGAME
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
4 �
BIIRLINGAME
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
�� cirr c
R �
BURLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Page 38
�� ciTr u
R t
6URLINGAME
„Fo n
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
$50.00/hour
shoots requiring staff oversight
during closed hours)
Page 39
�� ciTr o
R �
BURLANGAME
e$�
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
..7_131
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT FEE
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
�� cirr c
R t
BURLINGAME
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
R �
BURLINGAME
R
0
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 11 hour
$148.00 1" 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 1st hour
$254.00 111 hour
2008
$125.00/ add' I hour
$128.00/ add' I hour
Non -Residents
Resolution No. 33-
$284.00 11t hour
$293.00 11t hour
2008
$142.00/ add' I hour
$145.00/ add' I hour
Auditorium Deposit
$500.00
No change
Page 42
4 S
BU_RLINGAME
°bqe
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 1" hour
$114.00 111 hour
$56.00 /add' I hour
$57.00 /add' I hour
Non -Residents
$121.00 11t hour
$124.00 111 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 11t hour
$148.00 1st hour
$73.00/add' I hour
$75.00/add' I hour
Non -Residents
$157.00 111 hour
$160.00 1" 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
�� CITY 0
BURLINGAME
k'4..
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 ^ Y -will be on duty 30 minutes prior to and 30 minutes after duration of activities at Recreation Center.
Security fee will be GhaFged for ad private parties evep 15Q persons or serving alcohol c beverages.
Page 44
�� cirr n
R �
BURLINGAME
�.I
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
Cerwity Personnel
RegAi ,As
121.00 per hour
t��n nn ti„
eu
2008
Remove fee
Wine/beer to be served
Resolution No. 31-
$31.00 additional
$32.00 additional
2003
Page 45
a� CITY 0
R �
BURLINGAME
1
Fiscal Year 2017-18 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
ay carr c
R S
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
�� CITY 0
4 �
BURLINGAME
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
Osberg 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
4 �
BURLINGAME
i S
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
S� ciTr u
R �
BURLJNGAME
u�
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-
$40.00 per hour
$41.00 per hour
2008
Bayside Field Lights
Resolution No. 24-
$35.00 per hour
No change
2010
Page 50
�F, cirr o
A A
BURLINGAME
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
�� CITY p
A �
BURLINGAME
0 o's 4
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
�� crcr c
R �
6URLINGAME
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
�� CITY 0
BURLINGAME
b
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
�� cirr u
BURL�NGAME
M :I'
ro
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
S� c�Tr ow:
R
6URLINGAME
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
�6 Cirr a
BURLINGAME
u
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
�� ciTr c
F t
BURLINGAME
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
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
�� CITY Q
A S
BURLINGAME
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
R �
9URLINGAME
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
a�, cirr n
R �
BURLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACILITY/SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT FEE
NEW FEE
Brochure Ads
Resolution No. 27-
1 issue/3 issues (1
1 issue/4 issues (1
2011
year)
year - 20%Dis)
1/8 page
$69.00/$173.00
$71.00/$227.00
1/4 page
$127.00/317.00
$142.00/$454.00
1/2 page
$230.00/$575.00
$284.00/$909.00
Full page
$443.00/$1,108.00
$568.00/$1,818.00
Full Page Inside Front Cover
$500.00/$1,200.00
$765.00/$2,448.00
Full Page Inside Back Cover
$547.00/$1,368.00
$714.00/$2,285.00
Full Page Back Cover
$633.00/$1,583.00
$850.00/$2,720.00
Layout
$75.00 per hour
No Change
Discount for Non -Profits
25% resident groups
No Change
0% non-resident
No Change
groups
CLASSES
Class Fees
Resolution No. 31-2003
To be set based
No change
on class provider
and
materials/facilitie
s provided
Page 62
S� cirr o
R �
BURIJNGAME
�.I
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
s� ciTr c
BURLINGAME
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
�� cirr r
R
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
�� ciTr o
R T
BURUNGAME
e
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
Resolution No. 33-2008
$2,958.00
$4,625.00
Condominium Permit, 11 Units to 25 Units
Resolution No. 33-2008
$3,474.00
$6,150.00
Condominium Permit, 26 Units to 50 Units
$4,078.00
$4,216.00
Condominium Permit, 51 Units to 100 Units
$4,788.00
$4,950.00
Condominium Permit, 101 Units and
Greater
$5,621.00
$5,812.00
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
$1,380.00
$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
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
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
BURLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENTFEE
NEW FEE
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
Municipal Code Chapter
$836.00
$1,672.00
Use Permit
25.77
Plan Recheck Fee
More than two revisions to plans
Resolution No. 32- 2009
$440.00
$675.00
Major redesign of project plans
Resolution No. 32- 2009
$785.00
$812.00
ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental, Categorical Exemption
Resolution No. 27-2011
$109.00
$113.00
Environmental, Negative Declaration (R-1
Resolution No. 27-2011
$5,054.00
$5,852.00
and R-2)
Environmental, Mitigated Declaration
Resolution No. 27-2011
Pass-through
No change
and/or with a Responsible Agency
of actual
contractor
cost
Environmental Impact Report
Resolution No. 31-2003
20% of
No change
contract,
Page 67
R t
6URLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT FEE
NEW FEE
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
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
Page 68
R n
BURLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT FEE
NEW FEE
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
Removal of Illegal Sign
Resolution No. 33-2008
$113.00
$117.00
PUBLICATIONS
Page 69
S� CITY 0
4 �
6URLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
I r w.1111 11 UTO
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT FEE
NEW FEE
Zoning Map
Resolution No. 32-2009
$5.00
No change
Page 70
6URLINGAME
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/TSF
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
l� ciTr o
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
S� cirr a
R �
BURLINGAME
m oe^
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
a� CITY Q
R n
BURLANGAME
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
�� CITY U
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
Audio Tap�
Re nl tien Ne 32 2009
$90$90 nn e..eF tape
delete
Rn of Finn I\IA 22
$90.00 pe
deetnnn/ ter,/ nvn
delete
phategrap4s
Regc titin Ne 32 2009
$9n 0�,�,00nPeF Fell
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
aF, cirr
R
BURLINGAME
K�
ey ^nn
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT FEE
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
S� ciTr e
A S
BURLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENTFEE
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)
_h e 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
Ra`, CITY O�
BURIINQAME
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
(Section 6.42.060)
fingerprinting fees
Sale or Transfer
Resolution No. 41-2008
$216.00 plus
$432.00
(Section 6.42.120)
fingerprinting fees
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
$162.00 plus
$324.00
(Section 6.42.160)
fingerprinting fees
Massage Operator
Application
Resolution No. 32-2009
$741.00 plus
$766.00
(Section 6.40.060)
fingerprinting fees
Sale or Transfer
Resolution No. 32-2009
$658.00 plus
$766.00
(Section 6.40.120)
fingerprinting fees
Renewal
Resolution No. 32-2009
$400.00 plus
$479.00
(Section 6.40.160)
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
�F, cirr o
R T
BURLINGAME
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
(Section 6.41.040)
fingerprinting fees
Sale or Transfer
Resolution No. 41-2008
$216.00 plus
$432.00
(Section 6.41.100)
fingerprinting fees
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
$162.00 plus
$324.00
(Section 6.41.130)
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
�� CITY Q
4 S
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
(Section 6.30.040)
fingerprinting fees
Concealed Weapon
Resolution No. 32-2009
$452.00 for
$904.00
investigation
Fortune Teller
Resolution No. 41-2008
$324.00 plus
$335.00
(Set by Section 6.38.060)
fingerprinting fees
Unruly Gathering
Section 10.70.070
Cost of Hours of
No Change
Officer Response
Page 80
�� ctrr
R
BURLINGAME
e
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
BURLINGAME
e
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
CURRENT FEE
$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
Sd CITY G
4 �
BURLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
�IAT,T k
SERVICE
REFERENCE
CURRENT FEE
NEW FEE
Restaurant
Section 15.08.020
$967.00/TSF
$1,006.00/TSF
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
R �
BURLINGAME
4 y '
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
�F, cirr o
R �
BURLINGAME
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
8
$128.46
9 or more
$150.60
Page 85
S� cirr a
R �
BURLJNGAME
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 (2812
$41.80
$36.36
2017)
1" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (2812
$71.08
$60.60
2017)
1 - %" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (294-2
$138.00
$121.20
2017)
2" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (2942
$221.62
$193.92
2017)
3" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (2812
$418.17
$363.60
2017)
4" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (2812
$698.34
$606.00
2017)
6" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (
$1,392.49
$1,212.00
2017)
8" meter
Ord. No. 1880 (2812
$2,228.84
$1,939.20
2017)
WATER CONSUMPTION
Page 86
S� CIYY 0
4 �
BURLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
WATER
)er+win .ti„ r;.., A!I Locations
-,--,-,�,-�
Ord. No. 1880 =03.-2
(
2017)
9.09 per thousand
gallons
$9.92 per thousand
gallons
GutsAd,pthe Citi
QFd me Loon (2012)
<4 n
theusand gallens
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
�� CITY Q
4 �
BIIRLINGAME
b..
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
�� cirr o
R �
BURLINGAME
e
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
NVIAwk
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
S� CITY 0
A S
BURLINGAME
4
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
�� crcr c
R �
BURLINGAME
F 'I
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
s� cirr c
R �
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� cirr r
R
BURLINGAME
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,
First Offense, unlicensed & no tag
sheep, etc.)
50.00
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
S� cirr c
� t
BURLINGAME
b..
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL
Board Charges (Per Day):
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
$ 100.00
$ 50.00
$ 260.00
$ 100.00
$ 10.00
$ 35.00
$ 50.00
$ 100.00
$ 25.00
$ 0.20 per page
Page 94
�� ciTr o
BURLINGAME
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Master Fee Schedule
COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL
Page 95
NEW
BUREAU
U. S. D E P
S R E L E
OF LAB OR STA
A R T M E N T O F
For Release: Wednesday, March 15, 2017
T I S T I C S
L A B O R
WESTERN INFORMATION OFFICE: San Francisco, Calif.
Technical information: (415) 625-2270 BLSinfoSF@bls.gov www.bls.gov/regions/West
Media contact: (415) 625-2270
'VP���F,NT OFC90
S C U
O �T glg4
SATES U4 P
17 -332 -SAN
Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area — February 2017
Area prices were up 0.8 percent over the past two months, up 3.4 percent from a year ago
Prices in the San Francisco area, as measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI -
U), rose 0.8 percent for the two months ending in February 2017, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. (See table A.) Assistant Commissioner for Regional Operations Richard Holden noted that
the February increase was influenced by higher prices for shelter, apparel, and gasoline. (Data in this report
are not seasonally adjusted. Accordingly, month-to-month changes may reflect seasonal influences.)
Over the last 12 months, the CPI -U rose 3.4 percent. (See chart 1 and table A.) Energy prices jumped 11.0
percent, largely the result of an increase in the price of gasoline. The index for all items less food and
energy advanced 3.6 percent over the year. (See table 1.)
Chart 1. C3ver4he-year percent change in CPI -l1, San Francisco, February 2014—February 2017
Percent change
S.6
—.AII items
— All items less food and energy
0.0
Feb
'14
Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb
115 '16 '17
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Food
Food prices advanced 0.3 percent for the two months ending in February. (See table 1.) Prices for food away
from home rose 0.4 percent, and prices for food at home increased 0.2 percent for the same period.
Over the year, food prices moved down 0.2 percent. Prices for food at home decreased 3.3 percent since a
year ago, but prices for food away from home increased 3.4 percent.
Energy
The energy index rose 2.8 percent for the two months ending in February. The increase was mainly due to
higher prices for gasoline (6.2 percent). Prices for natural gas service declined 2.7 percent, and electricity
prices decreased 0.2 percent for the same period.
Energy prices jumped 11.0 percent over the year, largely due to higher prices for gasoline (19.2 percent).
Prices paid for natural gas service advanced 6.3 percent, and prices for electricity rose 1.1 percent during
the past year.
All items less food and energy
The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.8 percent in the latest two-month period. Higher prices
for apparel (6.4 percent), household furnishings and operations (1.0 percent), and shelter (0.9 percent) were
partially offset by lower prices for education and communication (-1.1 percent) and medical care (-0.6
percent).
Over the year, the index for all items less food and energy advanced 3.6 percent. Components contributing
to the increase included shelter (6.4 percent) and apparel (2.3 percent). Partly offsetting the increases were
price declines in education and communication (-3.0 percent) and household furnishings and operations
(-2.3 percent).
Table A. San Francisco -Oakland -San Jose CPI -U bi-monthly and annual percent changes (not seasonally
adjusted)
Month
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
1 2017
Bi-
Bi-
Bi-
Bi-
Bi-
Bi -
monthly
Annual
monthly
Annual
monthly
Annual
monthly
Annual
monthly
Annual
monthly
Annual
February ..................................
1.1
3.0
1.3
2.4
1.2
2.4
1.0
2.5
0.9
3.0
0.8
3.4
April .........................................
0.9
2.1
0.8
2.4
1.2
2.8
1.1
2.4
0.7
2.7
June .........................................
0.3
2.6
0.5
2.6
0.7
3.0
0.6
2.3
0.6
2.7
August .....................................
0.6
2.8
0.1
2.0
0.0
3.0
0.3
2.6
0.7
3.1
October ....................................
0.7
3.2
0.2
1.6
0.5
3.2
0.4
2.6
0.9
3.6
December ................................
-1.4
2.2
-0.4
2.6
-0.9
2.7
-0.3
3.2
-0.3
3.5
The April 2017 Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco -Oakland -San Jose is scheduled to be
released on May 12, 2017.
Technical Note
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change in prices over time in a fixed market
basket of goods and services. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes CPIs for two population groups: (1)
a CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U) which covers approximately 89 percent of the total population and
(2) a CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI -W) which covers 28 percent of the total
population. The CPI -U includes, in addition to wage earners and clerical workers, groups such as
professional, managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed,
and retirees and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors' and
dentists' services, drugs, and the other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. Each
month, prices are collected in 87 urban areas across the country from about 4,000 housing units and
approximately 26,000 retail establishments --department stores, supermarkets, hospitals, filling stations, and
other types of stores and service establishments. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of
items are included in the index.
The index measures price changes from a designated reference date (1982-84) that equals 100.0. An
increase of 16.5 percent, for example, is shown as 116.5. This change can also be expressed in dollars as
follows: the price of a base period "market basket' of goods and services in the CPI has risen from $10 in
1982-84 to $11.65. For further details see the CPI home page on the Internet at www.bls.gov/cpi and the
BLS Handbook of Methods, Chapter 17, The Consumer Price Index, available on the Internet at
www.bls.gov/opub/bom/homchl7_a.htm.
In calculating the index, price changes for the various items in each location are averaged together with
weights that represent their importance in the spending of the appropriate population group. Local data are
then combined to obtain a U.S. city average. Because the sample size of a local area is smaller, the local
area index is subject to substantially more sampling and other measurement error than the national index. In
addition, local indexes are not adjusted for seasonal influences. As a result, local area indexes show greater
volatility than the national index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. NOTE: Area indexes do
not measure differences in the level of prices between cities; they only measure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.
The San Francisco -Oakland -San Jose, CA. metropolitan area covered in this release is comprised of
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, and
Solano Counties in the State of California.
Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice
phone: (202) 691-5200; Federal Relay Service: (800) 877-8339.
Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U): Indexes and percent changes for selected
periods San Francisco -Oakland -San Jose, CA (1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted)
Item and Group
Indexes
Percent change from -
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Dec.
Jan.
2016
2017
2017
2016
2016
2017
Expenditure category
All items...........................................................
269.483
-
271.626
3.4
0.8
All items (1967=100) .......................................
828.464
-
835.053
-
-
-
Food and beverages ....................................
266.412
-
267.322
0.1
0.3
-
Food.........................................................
266.586
-
267.295
-0.2
0.3
-
Food at home .......................................
248.921
249.468
249.301
-3.3
0.2
-0.1
Food away from home...... ....................
287.887
-
289.007
3.4
0.4
Alcoholic beverages .................................
269.857
-
273.109
2.8
1.2
-
Housing........................................................
317.130
-
319.808
5.5
0.8
-
Shelter......................................................
361.605
363.451
364.845
6.4
0.9
0.4
Rent of primary residence(1)................
408.710
411.357
412.606
6.5
1.0
0.3
Owners' equiv. rent of residences(1)(2).
391.310
393.808
394.419
6.9
0.8
0.2
Owners' equiv. rent of primary
391.310
393.808
394.419
6.9
0.8
0.2
rasidence(1)(2)..................................
Fuels and utilities ......................................
368.466
-
368.463
3.3
0.0
-
Household energy ................................
324.310
321.879
321.319
2.7
-0.9
-0.2
Energy services(1)............................
324.993
322.389
321.687
2.6
-1.0
-0.2
Electricity(1)...................................
335.551
334.735
334.735
1.1
-0.2
0.0
Utility (piped) gas service(l) ..........
287.301
281.428
279.426
6.3
-2.7
-0.7
Household furnishings and operations.....
134.707
-
136.113
-2.3
1.0
-
Apparel.........................................................
110.011
-
117.008
2.3
6.4
-
Transportation ..............................................
184.241
-
188.125
5.5
2.1
-
Private transportation ...............................
175.532
-
178.984
6.6
2.0
-
Motor fuel .............................................
200.151
208.379
212.552
19.2
6.2
2.0
Gasoline (all types) ............................
199.310
207.524
211.703
19.2
6.2
2.0
Gasoline, unleaded regular(3).......
199.059
207.340
211.554
19.4
6.3
2.0
Gasoline, unleaded midgrade(3)
186.840
193.495
197.182
18.6
5.5
1.9
(4) ..................................................
Gasoline, unleaded premium(3)....
190.590
198.233
202.054
18.5
6.0
1.9
Medical care ....................................... -........
488.508
-
485.741
-
-0.6
-
Recreation(5)................................................
112.725
-
113.213
-0.6
0.4
-
Education and communication(5).................
142.129
-
140.597
-3.0
-1.1
-
Other goods and services ............................
441.471
-
440.022
2.0
-0.3
-
Commodity and service group
All items...........................................................
269.483
-
271.626
3.4
0.8
-
Commodities ................................................
180.091
-
182.562
1.2
1.4
-
Commodities less food & beverages........
133.867
-
136.861
2.2
2.2
-
Nondurables less food & beverages ....
169.918
175.905
5.4
3.5
-
Durables ...............................................
98.883
-
99.032
-2.7
0.2
-
Services........................................................
344.016
-
345.954
4.4
0.6
-
Special aggregate indexes
All items less medical care ..............................
260.520
-
262.875
3.6
0.9
-
AII items less shelter ........................................
231.574
-
233.234
1.2
0.7
-
Commodities less food ....................................
139.594
-
142.626
2.3
2.2
-
Nondurables ...... ........................................ -....
219.031
-
222.737
2.3
1.7
-
Nondurables less food .....................................
177.371
-
183.218
5.2
3.3
-
Services less rent of shelter(2)........................
336.962
-
337.052
1.0
0.0
-
Services less medical care services ................
335.030
-
337.396
4.7
0.7
-
Energy.............................................................
248.677
253.127
255.631
11.0
2.8
1.0
All items less energy .......................................
273.816
-
275.735
3.1
0.7
-
Note: See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U): Indexes and percent changes for selected
periods San Francisco -Oakland -San Jose, CA (1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted) - Continued
Item and Group
Indexes
Percent change from -
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Dec.
Jan.
2016
2017
2017
2016
2016
2017
All items less food and energy .....................
275.753
-
1 277.857
3.6
0.8
-
Footnotes(1) This index series was calculated using a Laspeyres estimator. All other item stratum index series were calculated using a geometric
means estimator.
(2) Index is on a December 1982=100 base.
(3) Special index based on a substantially smaller sample.
(4) Indexes on a December 1993=100 base.
(5) Indexes on a December 1997=100 base.
- Data not available
NOTE: Index applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date.
STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 8e
a MEETING DATE: April 3, 2017
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 3, 2017
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Levy Broadway Avenue Business
Improvement District Assessments for Fiscal Year 2017-18 and Setting a
Public Hearing for May 1, 2017; and Approving the District's Annual Report
for 2016-17
Staff recommends that the City Council:
(1) Approve the Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District Annual Report for Fiscal Year
2016-17;
(2) Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2017-18; and,
(3) Set a public hearing for Monday, May 1, 2017 at 7:00 p.m.
BACKGROUND
The Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District (BABID) submitted a draft of its annual
report on March 24, 2017. A review of its financial activities through February 28, 2017 is
included as part of the report. There are no recommended changes in the boundaries,
assessments or classifications of businesses within the improvement district for the new fiscal
year.
The Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments notifies all businesses within the district of the
City Council's intention to levy the assessments and collect the fees for the district. The public
hearing associated with these actions gives the businesses an opportunity to voice their opinions,
comments, suggestions, and concerns directly to the City Council. The date of the hearing is
May 1, 2017, at 7:00 p.m.
DISCUSSION
Since the BABID was first established in the 1990s, the Broadway Avenue Business
Improvement District has operated to promote the businesses in the district and provide for the
area's physical attractiveness. Each year, the BABID files an annual report of the district's
improvements and activities with the City.
1
BrvadwayAvenue BID
April 3, 2017
Upon approval of the annual report and subsequent to a public hearing on the matter, the City
Council then levies assessments on the businesses in the district for the subsequent fiscal year,
and collects the levies with the annual renewal of business licenses.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed assessment for fiscal year 2017-18 is $26,950, and will be collected with the City's
annual business license renewal process. The funds are forwarded to the BABID for
expenditures as authorized by the board of directors. The City will continue to cover the
expenses associated with the renewal of the BABID. These expenses include staff time,
postage, and supplies.
Exhibits:
• Broadway Business Improvement District Annual Report
• Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Declaring Its Intention to Renew the
Broadway Area Business Improvement District, to Establish 2017-18 Assessments for the
Broadway Area Business Improvement District, and Approving the 2016-17 Annual Report
• Notice of Proposed Assessments and Public Hearing for the Broadway Area Business
Improvement District for 2017-18
2
BROADWAY
VILLAGE
March 23, 2017
City Manager
City of Burlingame
c/o Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District
1399 Broadway
Burlingame, CA 94010-3422
Dear City Manager:
RE: BID Annual Report and 2017- 2018 Budget
The BID proposes no changes in boundaries or assessments.
Budget outline for fiscal 2017- 2018 activities (in percent of total
revenue):
A) Advertising & BID Events 30%
B) Burlingame Shuttle 30%
C) Streetscape Beautification 30%
D) Website Design and Maintenance 10%
Detail of Funds as of February 28, 2017 (Funds on Handl
Income Received
Interest Income $ 20.70
Bid Assessment Collected 28,345.03
Total Income Received $ 28.365 73
3roadway Business Improvement District • 1399 Broadway, Burlingame, California 94010
BROADWAY
VR.LAGE
Broadway Burlingame Improvement District
Statement of Funds - Cash Basis
As of February 28, 2017
Savings Account —US Bank $ 13,905.85
Savings Account — Chase Bank 25,945.56
Checking Account — Chase Bank 5.000.00
Total $ 44.851.41
3roadway Business Improvement District • 1399 Broadway, Burlingame, California 94010
Expenditures
Advertising & Promotion
873.45
Shuttle Contribution
7,500.00
Streetscape Beautification
22,441.21
BID Events
4,913.67
Bank Service Fees
125.00
Website Design
163.84
Miscellaneous
526.00
Total Expenditures
Status of Funds as of February 28 2017 (Funds on Hand)
Savings Account — US Bank $ 13,905.85
Checking Account — Chase Bank 5,000.00
Savings Account — Chase Bank 25.948.56
Total
$ 44.854.41
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at Nuts
for Candy. (650) 676-7301.
Sincerely,
� c
John Kevranian
President, BID
Iroadway Business Improvement District 0 1399 Broadway, Burlingame, California 94010
WAY��BURING
BROADWAY
VILLAGE
Broadway Burlingame Improvement District
Schedule of Income Received and Expenditures - Cash Basis
For the Twelve Months Ended February 28, 2017
Income Received
Interest Income
Bid Assessment Collected
Total Income Received
Expenditures
Advertising & Promotion
Shuttle Contribution
Bid Events
Bank Service Fees
Streetscape Beautification
Website Design
Miscellaneous
Total Expenditures
Total Income Received less Expenditures
3roadway Business Improvement District 0 1399 Broadway, Burlingame, California 94010
$ 20.70
28.345.03
L28,365.73
873.45
7,500.00
4913.67
125.00
22,441.21
163.84
526.00
$36,543.17
$ (8,177.44)
To the Board of Directors
Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District
Burlingame, CA
We have compiled the Statement of Funds — Cash Basis of Broadway
Burlingame Business Improvement District (a not-for-profit corporation) as of
February 28, 2017 and the related Schedule of Income Received and
Expenditures — Cash Basis for the period then ended included in the
accompanying prescribed form in accordance with Statements and Standards for
Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants. The financial statements have been prepared on the cash
basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than
generally accepted accounting principles.
Our compilation was limited to presenting in the form prescribed by the City of
Burlingame information that is the representation of management. We have not
audited or reviewed the financial statements referred to above, and accordingly,
do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them.
The Statement of Funds — Cash Basis and related Schedule of Income Received
and Expenditures — Cash Basis which differ from generally accepted accounting
principles. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those
who are not informed about such differences.
We are not independent with respect to this engagement
9 /(Jaw,
JANE E. KLAUS, EA, INC.
March 23, 2017
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY BROADWAY AVENUE BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18, AND
APPROVING THE DISTRICT'S 2016-17 ANNUAL REPORT
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq.,
the City Council of the City of Burlingame established the Broadway Area Business
Improvement District (`BABID') in 1992 for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization
and physical maintenance of said business district, and
WHEREAS, the BABID Advisory Board has filed its 2016-17 annual report with the
City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the BABID has provided important services in enhancing the Broadway
business area, its businesses, and properties; and
WHEREAS, at the request of the BABID Advisory Board, the City Council desires to
set and levy the assessments in connection with the BABID for Fiscal Year 2017-18.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND FIND AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council accepts and approves the 2016-17 annual report of the Broadway
Area Business Improvement District.
2. The Burlingame City Council intends to levy an assessment for the 2017-18 fiscal year
on businesses in the BABID, as the BABID is described in Ordinance No. 1461, to pay for
improvements and activities of the BABID.
3. The types of improvements and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of
assessments on businesses in the BABID are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by
reference; these activities and improvements are without change from those previously
established for the BABID.
4. The method and basis of levying the assessments on the businesses in the BABID and
the amounts of those assessments are set forth in Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by reference;
the method, basis and amounts of the BABID assessments will remain the same as those levied
in the previous fiscal year.
5. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment.
1
6. The annual report of the BABID is on file and available at the Office of the City Clerk
at 510 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, and is available for review during regular
business hours, 8 am to 5pm, Monday through Friday.
7. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby schedules a public hearing on the
proposed BABID assessments for 2017-18 for Monday, May 1, 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the
Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
8. At the public hearing, the City Council will receive testimony and evidence, and
interested persons may submit written comments before or at the public hearing, or they may be
sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, CA 94010.
9. At the public hearing, any and all persons may make oral or written protests of this
proposed assessment. In order for a person's protest to be counted in the majority protest against
the proposed assessments or programs and services for 2017-18, the individual must submit the
protest in writing to the City Clerk at or before the close of the public hearing on May 1, 2017.
A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public
hearing. Each written protest shall identify the business and its address, include a description of
the business and state the number of employees of the business. If the person signing the protest
is not shown on the official records of the City of Burlingame as the owner of the business, then
the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of
the business. Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in
writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made.
10. At the conclusion of the public hearing, if the City Council determines that there are
of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the BABID which will pay fifty
percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire BABID, as to the proposed
assessments for 2017-18, the City Council shall not levy any assessment for 2017-18. At the
conclusion of the public hearing, if the City Council determines that there are of record written
protests by the owners of businesses within the BABID which will pay fifty percent (50%) or
more of the total assessments of the entire District only as to a particular improvement or activity
proposed, then that particular improvement or activity shall not be included in the District for the
2017-18 fiscal year.
11. Further information regarding the proposed assessments and the procedures for filing
a written protest, may be obtained from the City Clerk, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California, 650-558-7203.
12. The City Council directs the City Clerk to provide notice of the May 1, 2017 public
hearing by publishing notice as well as this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in
the City of Burlingame in accordance with the requirements of the Government and Streets &
Highways Codes and mailing them in accordance with those requirements as applicable.
PJ
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 3rd day
of April, 2017, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NOES:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
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.
f. 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
Establish a people mover system between the area and the hotel district, to be funded on a
cooperative cost sharing basis.
11
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
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.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE
BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 AND TO
DETERMINE WHETHER A MAJORITY PROTEST HAS
BEEN MADE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 1, 2017 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers,
Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, the City Council of the City of
Burlingame will conduct a public hearing to consider the following:
1. The adoption of a Resolution imposing proposed assessments on businesses in the
Broadway Area Business Improvement District for the 2017-18 fiscal year, the
amounts of those assessments, the types of improvements and activities proposed to
be funded by the assessments, and the method and basis of levying the assessments.
2. Any and all written protests against said assessments.
3. Whether there are written protests to the proposed assessments by the owners of
businesses within the Broadway Area Business Improvement District which will pay
fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District.
4. Whether there are written protests to a particular District improvement or activity by
the owners of businesses within the Broadway Area Business Improvement District
which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire
District.
The proposed basis for the 2017-18 assessment is the same as that used for the 2016-17 fiscal
year. The purposes, programs and activities to be supported by the proposed assessments are
described in the Resolution of Intention, a copy of which is available for review at the City
Clerk's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame California.
The public hearing on the proposed Broadway Area Business Improvement District programs
and the assessments for the 2017-18 fiscal year is set for May 1, 2017 at 7:00 p.m., before the
City Council of the City of Burlingame, in the Council's Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. At that time, the Council will hear from any interested
person who wishes to submit written or oral testimony regarding the proposed assessments.
Oral or written protests maybe made before or at that public hearing, but no later than the close
of the public hearing. See the Resolution of Intention for information on how protests are made
and what effect protests have.
Further information regarding the proposed assessments may be obtained from the City Clerk at
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650-558-7203). Written comments
and/or written protests may be directed to the City Council, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA 94010.
aSTAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 8f
MEETING DATE: April 3, 2017
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 3, 2017
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director — (650) 558-7307
Subject: Approval of Parks and Recreation Director's Out -of -State Travel
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve by motion the Parks and Recreation Director's
out-of-state travel.
BACKGROUND
The annual National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) conference will be held in New
Orleans, LA, September 26-28, 2017. The Parks and Recreation Director has been a member of
NRPA for many years and tries to attend the annual conference.
DISCUSSION
The early bird NRPA member registration fee for the conference is $535 and includes three days
of training sessions covering leadership and management, public relations, marketing, revenue
generation, planning of parks, grants, programming, conservation, and collaborations, in addition
to other subject matter. The cost of airfare and lodging is estimated to be $1,250.
FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the Parks and Recreation Department for travel, and
Professional Development funds will be used for conference registration and hotel.
9
E
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: April 3, 2017
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 3, 2017
From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant — (650) 558-7204
Subject: Consideration of Appointments to the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council make appointments to fill two impending vacancies on the
Planning Commission or take other action.
BACKGROUND
The vacancies are due to the expired terms of Commissioners Jeff DeMartini and Nirmala
Bandrapalli. The vacancies were publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commission
applicants. Eight applications were received as of the deadline of March 17, 2017. The following
eight applicants were interviewed by Mayor Ortiz and Councilmembers Colson, Beach and
Keighran on March 29, 2017: Jeff DeMartini, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Steven Lamont, Thomas Smith,
Zoe Assaf, Sandy Comaroto, Brenden Kelly and Audrey Tse.
The appointee terms will be for four years, ending on April 7, 2021.
I
OFFICIAL BALLOT
APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
(Four year term, ending April 7, 2021)
April 3, 2017
JEFF DEMARTINI
NIRMALA BANDRAPALLI
STEVEN LAMONT
THOMAS SMITH
ZOEASSAF
SANDY COMAROTO
BRENDEN KELLY
AUDREY TSE
Councilmember Signature
Vote for TWO
i,t
OFFICIAL BALLOT
APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
(Four year term, ending April 7, 2021)
April 3, 2017
JEFF DEMARTINI
NIRMALA BANDRAPALLI
STEVEN LAMONT
THOMAS SMITH
ZOE ASSAF
SANDY COMAROTO
BRENDEN KELLY
AUDREY TSE
Councilmember Signature
Vote for TWO
K
i S t
ist
OFFICIAL BALLOT
APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
(Four year term, ending April 7, 2021)
April 3, 2017 Vote for TWO
JEFF DEMARTINI _
NIRMALA BANDRAPALLI
STEVEN LAMONT
THOMAS SMITH
ZOE ASSAF
SANDY COMAROTO
BRENDEN KELLY
AUDREY TSE
Councilmember Signature A U K t -
OFFICIAL BALLOT
APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
(Four year term, ending April 7, 2021)
April 3, 2017 Vote for TWO
JEFF DEMARTINI
NIRMALA BANDRAPALLI
STEVEN LAMONT
THOMAS SMITH
ZOE ASSAF
SANDY COMAROTO
BRENDEN KELLY
AUDREY TSE
Councilmember Signature
i,t
OFFICIAL BALLOT
APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
(Four year term, ending April 7, 2021)
April 3, 2017
JEFF DEMARTINI
NIRMALA BANDRAPALLI
STEVEN LAMONT
THOMAS SMITH
ZOE ASSAF
SANDY COMAROTO
BRENDEN KELLY
AUDREY TSE
Councilmember Signature
Vote for TWO
7—qc�
Z9)
OFFICIAL BALLOT
APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
(Four year term, ending April 7, 2021)
April 3, 2017 Vote for TWO
JEFF DEMARTINI
NIRMALA BANDRAPALLI
STEVEN LAMONT
THOMAS SMITH
ZOE ASSAF
SANDY COMAROTO
BRENDEN KELLY
AUDREY TSE
CouncilmemberSignoture '�;yv� (� �� �
Znc�
OFFICIAL BALLOT
APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
(Four year term, ending April 7, 2021)
April 3, 2017 Vote for TWO
JEFF DEMARTINI
NIRMALA BANDRAPALLI
STEVEN LAMONT
THOMAS SMITH
ZOE ASSAF
SANDY COMAROTO
BRENDEN KELLY
AUDREY TSE
Councilmember Signature fma, 5
OFFICIAL BALLOT
APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
(Four year term, ending April 7, 2021)
April 3, 2017 Vote for TWO
JEFF DEMARTINI
NIRMALA BANDRAPALLI
STEVEN LAMONT
THOMAS SMITH
ZOE ASSAF
SANDY COMAROTO
BRENDEN KELLY
AUDREY TSE
Councilmember Signature