HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 066-2010RESOLUTION NO. 66_2010
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
CORRECTING PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEES FOR DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS IN THE CITY PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 25.80
WHEREAS, the City has adopted Chapter 25.80 that provides for public
facilities impact fees for development projects that may occur in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City retained the consulting firm of MuniFinancial to prepare a
study to determine what impacts development projects have on the City's public facilities
and what mitigation fees might serve to offset some of those impacts; and
WHEREAS, the study provided the City with information on the nexus between
development projects and impacts on City facilities, and set out a formula of fees that
would serve to offset some of those impacts; and
WHEREAS, the study was presented at public sessions of the City Council for
review and public comment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after conducting a public hearing and following
the procedures in Government Code. sections 66016-66018, adopted Chapter 25.80 and
Resolution No. 76-2008, imposing development impact mitigation fees on new
development projects in the City; and
WHEREAS, an inadvertent clerical error was recently discovered in the schedule
of fees adopted in the Resolution as Exhibit "A", which error consisted of a transposition
the column of fees for "Commercial" developments with the column of fees for "Office"
developments; and
WHEREAS, the fee study clearly stated the correct development fees and said
report was made available in advance of the public hearing in accordance with the
Government Code sections recited above; and
WHEREAS, the Council affirms all of the findings made in its adoption of
Chapter 25.80 and the previous fee resolution; and
WHEREAS, the development impact fees corrected by this Resolution are based
on the study conducted by MuniFinancial, and the study and Chapter 25.80 provide the
following information:
A. the purpose of each public facilities impact fee; and
B. the use to which each public facilities impact fee will be put; and
C. the reasonable relationship between the use of each public facilities
impact fee and the type of development project on which the fees are
imposed; and
D. the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities,
services, and materials, and the type of development project on which
the fees are imposed; and
E. the reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and the
costs of public facilities, services, and materials or portions thereof that
are attributable to the development on which the fees are imposed; and
WHEREAS, the projects and fee methodology identified in the study are
consistent with the City's General Plan, Specific Plans, and Capital Improvement Plans,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not establish new or increase any development
impact fees but simply corrects the designation of the fees imposed by Resolution 76-
2008 by changing the fees listed in the column labeled "Commercial" with the fees listed
in the column labeled "Office" in the exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated
herein:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAEM RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
The Public Facilities Impact Fee Schedule, Exhibit "A" to Resolution 76-2008, is
hereby deleted and a new Public Facilities Impact Fee Schedule, Exhibit "A -l", is hereby
adopted, to reflect the correct Public Facility Impact Fees for "Commercial" development
and for "Office" Development as presented in the fee study of Muni Financial. Except as
stated herein, all other fees contained in the Public Facilities Impact Fee Schedule remain
unchanged. The corrected fee schedule is attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit "A-1".
0�/lam
athy Baylock, Mayor
I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the 16th day of August, 2010, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: BAYLOCK, BROWNRIGG, DEAL, KEIGHRAN , NAGEL
NOES: Councihnembers: NONE
ABSENT: Councihnembers: NONE
Mary E len Keam y, City CI
m
H
Ci
Q
O�
5
2
F
a
0
0
CD
n
a
co
a
&s
0
0
o'
O
0
UP
0
Q-
0
'G
n
n
aha
w
w
rt
M
l'1
d
CI
w
p
t -I
w
o
�
p
C.
(U
H
H
N
b
64
69
6A
69
N
lYJ
�-•
N
w
o
w
J
w
rn
r
�c
C
rn
b
H
69
69
o
.o
`o
LAaq
r
c69
n
cfl
s�
ss
,y
vj
.-r, .-•
N
m
o
N
'd
�
o
a 0
" oo
o
�
m
a
O
ss
�
�
cn
ss
,C
ss
,..y �•
�J
a
b
0 o
J
oN
J
n'
o
o
(1
�G
rn
0
z
'c7
o
ss
Ge
ss
sn
' i
�
0
ci
rn
v,
'd
o
0 o
H
W
00
A
G)
00
o'
rt O
o
(7
M
71
I
For
0 w
ol
1� - 0
qr
91
>
rL
9z
UC?
a
'd
0
UQ
m
rL
t7.4
P
P
m
En
1.9
UQ
C',
En
En
En
-P,
ON
cr,
En
G�
Ge
w
�
-P,
41
C\
C:)