Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2006.06.05
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame Regular Meeting–Monday,June 5,2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 650 558-7200 Page 1 of 3 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES —Regular Council Meeting of May 15, 2006 and Approve Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 22, 2006 5. PRESENTATION a. Chamber of Commerce b. Discussion of possible ballot measure and financing Direct Staff options to public facilities for storm drain improvements c. Caltrain presentation on Burlingame Station 6. PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. Caltrain presentation and Resolutions for closing the South Hearing/Action Lane crossing of the Railroad Corridor to vehicular and pedestrian traffic and cooperative agreement for implementation of the Burlingame Train Station improvements b. Action on an Ordinance for proposed zoning for the Hearing/Adopt Rollins Road Zoning District to implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan adopted September, 2004 c. Action on an Ordinance to amend the Municipal Code Hearing/Adopt Zoning Maps by reclassifying the M-1District to Rollins Road(RR) District and establishing the automobile sales and service overlay area and the Southern Gateway entrance overlay area in the Rollins Road area to implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan adopted September, 2004 d. Adopt Ordinance to modify the Sanitary Sewer use Hearing/Adopt regulations BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame Regular Meeting—Monday,June 5,2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 650 558-7200 Page 2 of 3 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS — At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M. Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Library Board Vacancy Discuss 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Resolution authorizing the filing of an application for Federal Surface Transportation Program(STP) funding for resurfacing California Drive, Hillside Drive and Rollins Road b. Resolution awarding Burlinghome Subdivision Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 1 and 2 to McNamara& Smallman Construction c. Lot Line Adjustment at 1616 Willow Avenue, Lots 4 and 5 and a portion of Lot 6, Block 3, Burlingame Park No. 4 Subdivision d. Resolution approving the citywide Storm Drain Capital Improvements Master Plan e. Approval of Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center Mediation Services Contract for FY 2006-07 f. Chamber of Commerce promotional services contract for FY 06-07 g. Accept low bid by McNabb Construction for the construction of the restroom and snack shack at Bayside Park 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS-At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame Regular Meeting—Monday,June 5,2006 501 Primrose Road log Burlingame,CA 94010 650 558-7200 Page 3 of 3 12. OLD BUSINESS 13. NEW BUSINESS 14. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, April 18, 2006; Beautification, May 4, 2006; Planning, May 22, 2006 b. Department Reports: Police, April, 2006 c. Two letters from Comcast concerning programming adjustments 15.ADJOURNMENT 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 MEETING—Monday,June 19,2006 CITY O� BURLINGAME wAwi[o ue 6 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of May 15, 2006 STUDY SESSION Asst. DPW Murtuza provided a presentation on the overall Capital Improvement Projects. He also gave a detailed presentation on the Water and Sewer Capital Improvement Projects. P&RD Schwartz provided a presentation on Parks Capital Improvement Projects. 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. Mayor Cathy Baylock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Ken White. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 1, 2006 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PRESENTATION a. MANAGEMENT ACADEMY HRD Dolan explained the mission of the Management Academy and introduced recent graduate,Phil Monaghan, Senior Civil Engineer, who presented their class project: the new Small Dog Area of the City's Dog Park. SCE Monaghan invited everyone to the grand opening on May 18, 2006. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 Burlingame City Council May 15,2006 Unapproved Minutes a. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1416 BALBOA AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM MAY 1, 2006) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1416 Balboa Avenue. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. Clement Hung, applicant for 1416 Balboa Avenue, answered Council's questions. Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on the project. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. After Council discussion, Councilwoman O'Mahony stated she would not support a motion to approve as it would serve to entice other prospective builders to present a Tudor design; and it would set a precedent for design that the Planning Commission would approve. Councilwoman O'Mahony felt it is not a good way to execute design. Mayor Baylock was concerned about the height and how it would affect the neighbors. She recalled last year that an applicant on Vancouver started out with a Tudor design and redesigned with a colonial to keep within the height limit. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's decision by approving Resolution No. 32-2006, approving Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permits; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved by voice vote, 3-2 (Baylock and O'Mahony dissented). b. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1783 TO CHANGE AND INCREASE COST FOR ANNUAL OVERNIGHT PUBLIC STREET PARKING PERMITS COP Van Etten reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 1783 to change and increase cost for the annual overnight Public Street Parking Permits. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, suggested raising the fee to encourage residents to park off-street. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1783 amending Section 13.32.080 to increase the annual fee for Overnight Parking Permits; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Baylock directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. C. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1784 ESTABLISHING WATER RATES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 1784 establishing water rates for Fiscal Years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. Asst. DPW Murtuza made a brief presentation providing the background for raising water rates and sewer rates and the use of the funds that would be collected. 2 Burlingame City Council May 15,2006 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke: Marilyn Canon, 1545 Howard Avenue, Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Road, Eleanor Dwyer, 1901 Ray Drive, and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1784 adopting revisions to rates and fees for water service; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Baylock directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. d. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1785 ESTABLISHING SEWER RATES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 1785 establishing sewer rates for Fiscal Years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1785 amending Chapter 15.08 establishing wastewater collection rates and charges; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Baylock directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. e. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1786 AMENDING FEES AND PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE PROGRAM FOR 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 1786 amending fees and penalties associated with the Industrial Waste Discharge Program for Fiscal Years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1786 amending fees and establishing penalties associated with the Industrial Waste Discharge program for 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Baylock directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. L ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1787 FOR A STOP SIGN AT CORTEZ AVENUE AND SHERMAN AVENUE DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 1787 to permanently install stop signs at Cortez Avenue and Sherman Avenue. 3 Burlingame City Council May 15,2006 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1787 amending Section 13.20.010 for installation of stop signs at the intersection of Cortez Avenue and Sherman Avenue; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Baylock directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Terry Huebner, 1708 Davis Drive, requested a noise monitor for the Peninsula Hospital project. Al Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road, spoke against the potential location of SPCA on Rollins Road. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke in favor of the potential location of SPCA on Rollins Road. There were no further comments from the floor. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. UPDATE ON THE LONG RANGE PLANS FOR THE REFORESTATION OF EASTON DRIVE P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and provided Council with the reforestation plans for Easton Drive. P&RD Schwartz reported that a survey on the health of the trees had been conducted by Mayne Tree Company. The trees were found to be in good shape, but they are declining with age. The trees have been maintained fairly well over the last couple of decades. The Beautification Commission met with the neighbors on April 6, 2006, and will meet with them again to hear their long-term vision for the street. Councilman Cohen asked about the neighborhood reaction to the new plantings. P&RD Schwartz stated there were mixed priorities as to exactly where the trees should be planted, and the Beautification Commission would discuss this further at their next meeting with the neighbors. Councilman Cohen also asked about the Traffic, Safety &Parking Commission's suggestion that Easton become a one-way street. P&RD Schwartz said that would be discussed also at the next meeting with the neighbors. Councilwoman Keighran requested a copy of the minutes from the April 6th meeting with the neighbors. b. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 2004 CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance for the proposed zoning for the Rollins Road Zoning District to implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan adopted in September 2004. 4 Burlingame City Council May 15,2006 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Baylock requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Title 25 to adopt the Rollins Road District. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilman Cohen made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Baylock requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. C. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE ZONING MAPS BY RECLASSIFYING THE M-1 DISTRICT TO ROLLINS ROAD (RR) DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING THE AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE OVERLAY AREA AND THE SOUTHERN GATEWAY ENTRANCE OVERLAY AREA IN THE ROLLINS ROAD AREA TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 2004 CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance to amend the Municipal Code Zoning Maps by reclassifying the M-1 District to Rollins Road District establishing the Automobile Sales and Service overlay area and the Southern Gateway Entrance overlay area in the Rollins Road area to implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan adopted in September 2004. Mayor Baylock requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance amending the zoning maps incorporated in the Zoning Code by reclassifying the M-1 District to Rollins Road District and establishing the Automobile Sales and Service overlay area and the Southern Gateway Entrance overlay area in the Rollins Road District. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Baylock requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. d. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO MODIFY SANITARY SEWER USE REGULATIONS DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance to modify the Sanitary Sewer Use Regulations. Mayor Baylock requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 15.10 regarding Sanitary Sewer Use Regulations. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Keighran made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5 Burlingame City Council May 15, 2006 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Baylock requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Baylock requested further discussion of Items a. and b., and Vice Mayor Nagel requested further discussion of Item d. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR OUT OF STATE TRAINING FOR FLEET MECHANIC DPW Bagdon requested Council approve out of state travel to Jacksonville, Florida for the Fleet Mechanic to attend training on the repair and maintenance of Vaccon trucks. e. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #18055-18597 duly audited, in the amount of $2,234,392.84 (excluding library checks #18172-18204), Payroll checks #165262-165475 in the amount of $2,569,000.66 for the month of April 2006. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Items c. and e. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. d. RESOLUTION NO. 33-2006 AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION AND EXPENDITURE OF $89,5000 FROM THE CONTINGENCY RESERVE FOR MODULAR OFFICE SPACE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT FC Reilly requested Council approve Resolution No. 33-2006 authorizing the transfer of$89,500 from the Contingency Reserve Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund for purchase of modular offices for the Central Fire Department. Vice Mayor Nagel clarified that Burlingame's cost will be only $53,700; and Hillsborough will reimburse Burlingame for the balance. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to approve Item d. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF PORTIONS OF LOTS D & E, BLOCK 11, BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY MAP NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 1427 CHAPIN AVENUE DPW Bagdon requested Council approve the Tentative and Final Parcel Map for a lot combination for 1427 Chapin Avenue, PM 06-04. Mayor Baylock requested adding the Heritage Japanese Maple tree on the City's side of the property to the tree protection plan. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the parcel map with the inclusion of the protection of the tree; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 6 Burlingame City Council May 15,2006 Unapproved Minutes a. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1788 TO FOLLOW ON THE URGENCY ORDINANCE ADOPTED ON MAY 1, 2006, ALLOWING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE EXTENDED HOURS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARKING GARAGE FOR PENINSULA HOSPITAL CA Anderson requested Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 1788 adopting an interim amendment to the hours of construction allowed by Section 18.07.110 to allow Planning Commission approval of extended hours for construction of the parking garage for Peninsula Hospital. Councilwoman Keighran asked whether penalty fees would be imposed if the applicant is in violation of the conditions. CP Monroe stated that at the 30-day reviews required by the Planning Commission, the extended construction hours would be removed should there be a violation of the conditions since this type of penalty would be more meaningful to the contractor than a dollar amount. Mayor Baylock requested further information on the noise monitor. CP Monroe said the applicant agreed that if there were complaints, they would have an outside consultant provide additional studies on the noise level to determine the source of the noise. Mayor Baylock suggested recommending that the hospital hire an overseer for the project if problems recur. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Item a. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. CC Mortensen will publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on Item 6.a. There were no further comments from the floor. 12. OLD BUSINESS Councilman Cohen asked about the Rollins Road ordinance to include long-term boat storage and whether storage is taxable. CA Anderson advised that one option would be to amend the parking tax by ballot action. 13. NEW BUSINESS a. Vice Mayor Nagel asked about the current court case involving inferior concrete that had been supplied to several agencies. DPW Bagdon reported that the concrete poured at the recent wastewater treatment plant project had been analyzed during construction, and all test samples met the City's specifications. b. CP Monroe stated that the Charrette Subcommittee plans to meet on May 19 at 4:30 p.m. to walk about the area to be considered for the charrette. Vice Mayor Nagel and Councilwoman O'Mahony will participate in the May 19th walk. The Charrette is tentatively scheduled for Saturday, September 30, at the Recreation Center. C. Mayor Baylock stated that the Public Works staff of the Cities of San Mateo and Burlingame would be meeting to perform a traffic study of the Peninsula Interchange. 7 Burlingame City Council May 15,2006 Unapproved Minutes d. Mayor Baylock stated that the Peninsula Interfaith Action Committee is meeting on May 16 in San Mateo to discuss an initiative on affordable health care. e. Councilman Cohen requested the current attendance report of all commissioners. 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Parks &Recreation, April 20, 2006; Planning, May 8, 2006 b. Department Reports: Building, April 2006; Police, April 2006; Finance, April 2006 c. Three letters from Comcast concerning programming and rate adjustments 15. ADJOURNMENT At 10:10 p.m., Mayor Baylock continued the meeting to Monday, May 22, 2006. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 8 Burlingame City Council May 15,2006 Unapproved Minutes CITY 0 BURLINGAME 4-i"A..., JE-n-12 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 22, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed adjourned regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the Lane Community Room of the Main Library. Mayor Cathy Baylock called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Cheryl Enright. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Keighran,Nagel, O'Mahony. Vice Mayor Nagel arrived at 6:10 p.m. COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6.34 TO BALANCE ASSESSMENT BASIS FOR THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (SUBJECT TO WRITTEN PROTESTS) CA Anderson excused Councilman Cohen who recused himself from the meeting. Councilman Cohen left the room. CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 6.54 to balance the assessment basis for the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District (BID) and to receive the City Clerk's report on validation and tabulation of any protests received. CC Mortensen stated that by the end of business yesterday, four protests had been received and validated. Today, 336 protests were delivered to the City at approximately 4:30 p.m. leaving no time to properly validate and tabulate all the protests by meeting time. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to continue this item to the May 31, 2006 Budget Study Session meeting, at 6:00 p.m. in the Lane Community Room; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved by voice vote, 3-0-1-1 (Cohen recused, Nagel absent). The City Clerk will provide a final report on the tabulation of the protests received. 1 Burlingame City Council May 22,2006 Unapproved Minutes b. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2006-07 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AOREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (SUBJECT TO WRITTEN PROTESTS) CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and to adopt the resolution setting 2006-07 assessments. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. Quent Cordair, 346 Lorton Avenue, stated that due to the number of protests submitted, he requested the City consider disestablishment of the BID. Bill Currie, 260 E1 Camino Real, spoke in opposition of the BID. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. CA Anderson advised there will be no further public hearings and that the City would not accept any more protests or rescissions. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to continue this item to the May 31, 2006 Budget Study Session, at 6:00 p.m. in the Lane Community Room; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Cohen recused). 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS Joe Schreurs, 330 Primrose Road, stated that according to State Franchise Tax records, there are many businesses in Burlingame that do not have a business license and suggested the City pursue adding those businesses to the business license roster to collect more revenue. David Lewin, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke on the Chamber supporting the promotion of businesses. Mary Beth Essa, President of the Burlingame Avenue Area BID, spoke on the advantages of the BID helping businesses and to work together. Linda Zimmerman, 346 Lorton Avenue, spoke on businesses wanting a voluntary organization to work on improving the business community. 6. ADJOURNMENT At 6:25 p.m., Mayor Baylock adjourned the meeting to Wednesday, May 31, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Lane Community Room. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 2 Burlingame City Council May 22,2006 Unapproved Minutes DID City/Chamber Goals and Objectives 1. Work with Broadway BID to identify and pursue the goals of the BID regarding Broadway marketing and business recruitment. 2. Work with voluntary Burlingame Avenue Merchants Association to market and recruit new business. (TBD) 3. Cooperatively market Burlingame with the City through City/Chamber e-blasts, Burlingame Water Department mailings and linked web site information/re sources. 4. Assist local business in working with City Planning/Permit Department to overcome obstacles. 5. Develop parking partnership with merchants to provide easy access to change for meters. 6. Identify the ten most frequently asked questions (FAQ's) on how to start a business in Burlingame posting them on the Chamber website. Link the answers to each question to the appropriate City process on the City website. Chamber Goals and Objectives 1. Increase visibility and develop a 5 year marketing plan by 8/06. 2. Create programs to reach out to current membership and increase new members by 20%by 12/30/06. 3. Create strategy to deal with finance, budget and staffing issues by 9/06. 4. Establish and maintain relationships which serve to enhance business advocacy efforts. CITY STAFF REPORT BUMiNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 5b. MTG. °*W DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED e BY DATE: June 2,2006 APPRO D FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 By SUBJECT: Financing Options for Public Facilities and Flood ControProjects RECOMMENDATION: That the Council review and discuss presentation relative public opinion survey and potential ballot measure for funding public facilities and storm drainage improvement projects and direct staff as to desirability of placing a ballot measure(s)before the voters in November 2006. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the public facilities master plan that we began two years ago was to provide the Council with an assessment of our public facilities needs for the next 20 years from which we could then develop a plan for funding those improvements. One vehicle for funding is"paying as you go", based on funds available. Given the state of city finances over the last five years, it is clear that the pay as you go approach will not provide adequate resources to address these$110 million in identified facility needs. Therefore the Council authorized a community survey to determine what improvement needs might realistically be presented to the voters for approval of additional funding. While the survey shows three areas where there are more than two thirds support from the voters (storm drains, disaster preparedness, and a community center) it is the Council that needs to determine priority for funding the improvements. It is clear from the survey results that we can only get funding for about 35% of our$110 million needs for public facilities and storm drains. Ideally at this point in the process we would want the Council to use the survey as one set of data to help in the overall question of how we fund the array of needs based on your priorities. However given the results of the survey and the fact that going forward with a measure this November is an ideal time, we now find ourselves focusing on the list of improvements without the benefit of having developed an overall funding plan based on agreed upon priorities. In setting priorities it is important that all stakeholders, including the public and the staff, have an equal opportunity to plead their case. Obviously in this case, the issue is the storm drains improvements vs. a new community center. If the Council feels that all of the storm drainage projects are more important than the community center project it may appear to be an easier question. But from a strategy standpoint we obviously want to avoid a situation where we offend a stakeholder group such that they fight against what ever we end up placing on the ballot. That matter gets even more complicated by the fact that depending on what option you select for a community center we may also be creating a group that will fight against a measure based on a community center option they don't like. Questions that need to be answered: 1. What improvements does the Council want to include in the final Public Facilities Master Plan? 2. Strategy for funding those improvements. 3. Are you interested in pursuing placement of an item(s) on the November Ballot for consideration by the voters? 4. What are the improvements that you want to place before the voters in November? 5. If more than one item, do you want to combine the items or have them placed separately before the voters? Given the November ballot opportunity we don't have the time we would like to complete the answers to questions one and two; however they should be kept in mind as we struggle with the question of what to place before the voters. To illustrate this point, if the Council decided that improvement X is your highest priority, but improvement X did not receive a high polling score in the survey it does not change the reality that the Council as elected and informed representatives have determined that X is an important need for the community you were elected to serve. So you still have to find a solution to fund improvement X, which may mean you couple it with something very attractive to the voters or you place the more popular item on the ballot and use existing the general fund money to fund improvement X. Examples of funding elements that might be included in an overall funding strategy would be to take advantage of the unusually strong support for storm drainage and place a measure on the ballot that would provide an ongoing funding(i.e. utility users tax) for our infrastructure needs; or approving a Park and Recreation In Lieu Fee(like the vast majority of cities in SM county) that would assess a fee on new developments to help fund demands for park and recreation facilities associated with the new residents from the additional housing units. Varied Perspectives As the Council wrestles with answering questions three and four above there are a number of different perspectives that may impact your direction: 1. If you look at the issue from what improvement needs will fare the best at the ballot box, clearly a single item for storm drainage should secure highest level of support. (See option 4 below.) 2. If you look at it from the perspective of trying to respond to the different interest that clearly resonated with the super majority(66.6%+) of the survey responders then you would probably want to look at a combined or three separate measures on storm drainage, community center, and facility disaster preparedness. (See options 2 and 3 below.) #3 If you look at it from the perspective of capacity to design and construct the improvements, you probably again would pursue a combined or three separate measures on storm drainage, community center, and facility disaster preparedness. Public Works staff indicates that it would take eight to ten years to design and build the $39 million storm drainage projects. So placing only the storm drainage projects on the ballot and waiting four or more years to return to the voters for a community center project while we would still have millions of dollars available for flood control projects may not be the preferred approach. (See options 2 and 3 below.) Combined or Separate Ballot Items From a community political perspective separating the choices for the voters is probably preferable. That way voters don't find themselves forced to vote for something they are not as supportive of to get something funded which they are very supportive of. However, separating the issues into separate ballot items sets up a dynamic where your needs are competing against each other. As elected representatives who are looking at all the community needs, if you feel that the improvements being funded are important for the community setting up a dynamic which results in the unintended consequence competing against yourself is not a good idea. In addition separate issues on the ballot increases the cost of placing the items on the ballot. Per the Elections Division, the estimated cost for one ballot item is $23,520 ($1.50 per voter- 15,679 in Burl.); if there should be a second item,the cost is at 70% - or$16,464 for a total of approx. $40,000. It staff s believe that splitting your needs into separate ballot measures more times than not will result in losing the ballot measure. Given the expectation of other funding measures from the state, county and possibly school district, separating our issues increases the likelihood that the voter will recheck all of them. Ballot Measure Options There is any number of permutations of options for ballot measures. We have provided four discuss below. Option #1 • Flood control $16 Million • Community Center(100% in park) 26 Million • Police/fire safety/ADA 1 Million Total $43 Million Advantages • This option would build the Recreation Center project and 40% of the flood control projects (This equates to about four years of work for our engineering staff). • Provides the advantage of support from both flood control and rec. center advocates for the ballot measure. • Provides some ready made advocates to actually work on the campaign. • Responds to two of the three items that received 2/3rd support from voters polled. Disadvantages • Placing 100%of the community center and parking in the park has the strong likelihood of having an opposition group formed, which could result in a defeat at the polls and the loss of a perfect opportunity to secure funding flood control improvements. • This option provides only 40%of the flood control funding needed leaving us with the need to fund the remaining$23 million of the flood control projects backlog. Option #2 • Recreation Center(parking across street) $30 Million • Storm Drains 10 Million • City Hall safety/ADA 3 Million Total $43 Million Advantages • This option would avoid using park land to accommodate the parking structure and minimize the amount of private property required for the recreation center. • Would provide funding for highest priority flood control project(Easton Creek)which is estimated to be a two year project. • Addresses the safety/ADA issues at City Hall • Would reduce potential opposition to Community Center Project • Responds to two of the three items that received 2/3rd support from voters polled • Provides some ready made advocates to actually work on the campaign. Disadvantages • If there is a lack of consensus on Recreation Center location, this option could result in a defeat at the polls and the loss of a perfect opportunity to secure funding for flood control improvements. • Only addresses 25% of the overall backlog • Could require condemnation of private property. Option #3 • Flood control $35 Million • Recreation Center Seismic upgrade 4 Million • City Hall/Police/Fire safety and ADA 4 Million Total $43 Million Advantages • Provides funding for 94% of the overall flood control backlog • Provides $4 Million funding for seismic upgrade of the Recreation Center and reduces possible serious or fatal injuries. • Avoids the potential opposition due to placement of some parking or the entire new recreation center in Washington Park. Disadvantages • Does not respond to clear support for a new Recreation Center • Continued lack of dedicated program space for teens and seniors • May have the potential to galvanize opposition by the Recreation Center advocates. • Reduced number of identified advocates to work and raise money for ballot measure campaign. Option#4 • Flood control $39 Million Advantages • Provides funding for 100% of the flood control backlog • Strong likelihood of voter approval • Approaches voters at what appears to be the most opportune time for flood control projects. • Avoids the potential opposition due to placement of some parking or the entire new recreation center in Washington Park. • 10% reduction of impact on property owners due to smaller amount being borrowed. Disadvantages • Does not respond to clear support for a new Recreation Center • Continued lack of dedicated program space for teens and seniors • May have the potential to galvanize opposition by the Recreation Center advocates. • Minimal number of identified advocates to work and raise money for ballot measure campaign. • Leaves $4 million of funding for facility improvements "on the table". Suggested Approach for Consideration Given all the pros and cons identified above and the limited amount of funds that could be secured through a ballot measure, staff would suggest the following idea for Council's consideration. Authorize placement of a GO Bond measure similar to option#3 above and as shown below: • Flood control $39 Million • Recreation Center 4 Million Total $43 Million Given that this approach fully funds flood control needs, plan on using$2 million that we would otherwise have planned to commit annually to CIP for flood control improvements,to cover annual debt service on the issuance of COPS (Certificate of Payment notes) for$24 to $26 million for funding facility improvements with the highest priority given to a new or reconstructed recreation center. Secondly, place an advisory measure on the ballot seeking feedback from the community relative to the community values associated with the extent of placing additional structures (parking and/or buildings) in Washington Park. Advantages • Provides funding for 100%of the flood control backlog • Strong likelihood of voter approval • Approaches voters at what appears to be the most opportune time for flood control projects. • Provides $28 to$30 million dollars for construction of a new community center • Is highly responsive to two of the three items that received 2/3rd support from voters polled. • Provides the Council with data on community's perspective on new community center in or out of Washington Park • Provides funding($4 million)to address seismic improvements at current recreation center should the community indicate they are opposed to a new recreation center in Washington Park. Disadvantages • Minimal number of identified advocates to work and raise money for ballot measure campaign. • Increases amount of annual revenue committed to covering COP payments by $2 million • Eliminates funding for storm drainage improvements until new revenues are realized. (Note in 2011 the COP payments on the Library, $780,000/year will end and those funds can be shifted to our CIP program to again fund storm drainage improvements.) ATTACHMENTS: A. Copy of Survey Questions with Results B. Additional Information on Community Center C. Response to questions raised by Vice Mayor Nagel FACILITIES MASTER PLAN BOND MEASURE OPTIONS June 6, 2006 AGENDA • Polling results • Timing - November 2006 election and why? Task deadlines for November 2006 election • Issues to be resolved for November 2006 ballot measure • Recreation Center • Bond measure options • Council commitment • Next steps • Questions/answers and feedback Survey of Burlingame Registered Voters conducted by SAJOpinion Research Facts about the Survey • Conducted April 1 - 9, 2006 • 600 registered voters interviewed by phone • Margin of error ± 4 percentage points Attitudes tthe Commum ty Not sure 17% 9"M yra: ( �• 'h �LL1 Wrong track 16% Right direction 67 % How well d thecitydo providingservices Not sure Poor 4% Excellent 3% 15% Only fair k 22% Good 56% Would the city do a better job with more' mode' rn fac' ilities' ? Attitudes toward infrastructure i mprovements Move maint. µ City Hall efficiency City bldgs Rec ctr new Rec ctr existing Disaster preparedness Storm drains 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very good M Somewhat good WSNot sure ® Somewhat bad M Very bad Is flood control a citywide issue or a local issue in' low-lying areas ? Lower YIn9 N only Not sure 6 arywitle 80% Wouldyou vote fora $ 110 bond that . cost a typical homeowner $330peryear .? Not sure 13% "I For 38%�r Against 49% ■ u es toward $ 33.0/year ', 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% M For Against _1 Attlotudes toward $200 $200/yr Bond $330/yr Bond 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ■ For ■Against Attl' tudesowar 00/year $100/yr Bond $200/yr Bond $330/yr Bond 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% M For M Against Attitudes of frequent voters $100/yr Bond $200/yr Bond $330/yr Bond 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% M For M Against Survey Conclusions • Flood control, disaster preparedness and a new Recreation Center received support beyond the 2/3rds majority. • 2/3rds of the voters would support a bond issue costing $150 to $175/year for 30 years • This raises about a net of $45 million of the $110 needed for all projects • Other options including, a second bond at a later date would be necessary to fund for the full $110 needed. TIMING Pushing for this November? - Higher voter turnout Popular election - National awareness about flood control Pushing against this November? - Other competing measures on the same ballot i .e. County parks 1 /8th cent sales tax, state infrastructure bonds, and possible high school bond measure. TASKS FOR NOV 2006 ELECTION June 19, 2006 Council approves a resolution calling for a general obligation bond measure for the November ballot ( 1St reading of ordinance) Mid July, 2006 Council adopts an ordinance calling for the election (2nd reading of ordinance) July 17 — Aug 18 Prepare and test the ballot language and arguments for the measure August 11 , 2006 San Mateo County deadline for placing a bond measure on the November ballot June thru Nov Public outreach , education and campaign , ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED FOR NOVEMBER 2006 ELECTION RECREATION CENTER • The building location : whether on the existing site, tennis court site or outside of the park • Planning Commission and Council approval of the project • Re-verification of Construction cost estimates for $30 Million option • Visual aide of the Recreation Center Building (completed) Flood Control • Visual aide of the flood control master plan report (completed) • Council approval of the Capital Improvements Master Plan listing projects with their benefits and costs (scheduled for the June 5 , 2006 Council meeting) RECREATION CENTER OPTIONS BOND MEASURE. OPTIONS There are any number of permutations of Ballot Measure Options We have offered four options as a way to illustrate the possibilities i OPTION 1 November 2006 ballot measure • Flood control $16 Million • Rec Center (100% in park) 26 Million • Police/fire safety/ADA 1 Million Total $43 Million OPTION 1 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages • This option would build the Rec Center project and 40% of the flood control projects • Provides the advantage of support from both flood control and Rec Center advocates for the ballot measure • Provides some ready made advocates to actually work on the campaign • Responds to two of the three items that received 2/3,d support from voters polled Disadvantages • Placing 100% of the Rec Center and parking in the park has the strong likelihood of having an opposition group formed, which could result in a defeat at the polls and the loss of a perfect opportunity to secure funding for flood control improvements • This option provides only 40% of the funding needed, leaving us with the need to fund the remaining $23 Million of the flood control projects backlog OPTION 2 November 2006 ballot measure • Rec Center ( parking across street ) $ 30 Million • Flood control 10 Million • City Hall safety/ADA 3 Million Total $ 43 Million OPTION 2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages • This option would avoid using park land to accommodate the parking structure and minimize the amount of private property required for the Rec Center • Provides funding for the highest priority flood control project(Easton Creek) • Addresses the safety/ADA issues at City Hall • Reduce the potential opposition to Rec Center project • Responds to two of the three items that received 2/31d support from voters polled • Provides ready made advocates to actually work on the campaign for Rec Center Disadvantages • If there is a lack of consensus on Rec Center location, this option could result in a defeat at the polls and the loss of a perfect opportunity to secure funding for flood control improvements • Only addresses 25% of the overall backlog of flood control projects • Could require condemnation of private property for Rec Center OPTION 3 November 2006 ballot measure • Flood control $ 35 Million • Rec . Center Seismic upgrade 4 Million • City Hall / Police/ Fire safety 4 Million Total $43 Million OPTION 3 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages • Provides funding for 94% of the overall flood control backlog • Provides $4 Million funding for seismic upgrade of the Rec Center and reduces possible serious or fatal injuries during a seismic event • Avoids the potential opposition due to placement of some parking or the entire new Rec Center in Washington Park Disadvantages • Does not respond to clear support for a new Rec Center • Continued lack of dedicated program space for teens and seniors • May have the potential to galvanize opposition by the Rec Center advocates • Small number of identified advocates to work and raise funds for the ballot measure campaign i OPTION 4 November 2006 ballot measure • Flood control $39 Million Total $39 Million OPTION 4 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages • Provides funding for 100% of the flood control backlog • Strong likelihood of voter approval • Approaches voters at what appears to be the most opportune time for flood control projects • Avoids the potential opposition due to placement of some parking or the entire new Rec Center in Washington Park • 10% reduction of impact on property owners due to smaller amount being borrowed Disadvantages • Does not respond to clear support for a new Rec Center • Continued lack of dedicated program space for teens and seniors • May have the potential to galvanize opposition by the Rec Center advocates • Small number of identified advocates to work and raise funds for the ballot measure campaign • Leaves $4 Million of funding for facility improvements on the table' i I SUGGESTED APPROACH November 2006 ballot measure • Flood control $39 Million • Rec Center seismic upgrade 4 Million • Use COPS to fund the remaining of the Rec Center Total $43 Million SUGGESTED APPROACH ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages • Provides funding for 100% of the flood control backlog • Strong likelihood of voter approval • Approaches voters at what appears to be the most opportune time for flood control projects • Provides $28 to $30 Million for a new Rec Center Highly responsive to two of the three items received 2/3rd support from voters polled • Provides Council with data on community's perspective on new Rec Center in or out of Washington Park • Provides $4 Million funding to address seismic improvements at current Rec Center should the community indicate they are opposed to a new Rec Center in Washington Park Disadvantages • Small number of identified advocates to work and raise funds for the ballot measure campaign • Increases amount of annual revenue committed to covering COP payments by $2 Million • Eliminates funding for flood control improvements until new revenues are realized (the COP payments of $780,000 for the library will end in 2011 , which could be shifted to our CIP program again to ongoing fund flood control improvements) COUNCIL COMMITMENTS • Unanimous and clear support on the selected bond measure • Approval of funding for professional services public information regarding the improvements , financing , and tax impacts of the bond measure (up to $ 150 , 000) • A personal commitment to campaign including speaking to community groups advocating for their support • Personal support for formation of advocacy group to campaign for the measure and raise funds for the campaign . i NEXT STEPS • Council direction on an option and whether to proceed with a November 2006 election ballot measure • Council approval of a community outreach consultant agreement (approximately $ 100, 000 to $ 150 , 000) no later than June 19, 2006 if the City proceeds with a November 2006 election ballot measure • Schedule a continued regular meeting of the City Council on one of three possible dates for Council action to place measure on the ballot, (July 19, 20 or 24th) QUESTIONS/ANSWERS - FEEDBACK ,�l elk ��y a rel' �1 _..,`rw.• � y�/` ,� .z..-.r�v.�-,�5 �.i�:., r f`���� 11.E=moi 7T ' r ,��:. s `ti5 «j�, � ',CrU`tlr yuirn�spunlui,.ti..� flilitfllMU If111j" �►� '!--__�r s t =a�n p�c•�t•fir : R - :.�3 .�,3. {1.:� 1 � ' 1 9 il � C.'/ om-Inun-l* ty � � 11 ���r'e t � =l Feature .. Q%-e to Ltiye' Community (Center encompasses . ✓ Facilities for teen;- - areas fx recrear:ion program:;,,, hangout, homev►v ork and ounselin g ✓ Facilities for senior citizens - drop-iii activity E.nd sochi l service assistan(;e areas ✓ Community gymnasium - :jhared fay. ility for sports, fil.ness activities ✓ Improved current recreation facilities - provides long-teen solution to replat.. 58-ye,---.r Ad facili:y eao u. nao u. Aexao? l^dE 16HT ROOM Aewo7 1p�O•i STUDIO KITCHEN Iona.►. _ Ieoal Yd�1,lJI (70k407 (24k2ll Coo d• CDO d. (C',fga'� (ICk7a7 MEETING 6ALLERIA ROOM,L% (40'rc(A') EkD!? ---�- T----- ------------------ — -- _T INV ISm RO , STO Fnoa.i. Aoknl9 Dotirrl Aw'xxop , . 1 ---------I--- ----- ------- ----------- LIONS CLASSROOM STORf46E STORAGE 400.2. GakE07 �L foo'luo? TV/ ISAME/ GAPEER — HAMSOUT ACTIVITIES CENTER HOMENORK/ loon mt. 610.1 #00.t. COMPUTER falfkM7 Gtrkar? Aro NAo� 67l.i. LR B IANE City of Burlingame 0 ff ly 20' Building Uses DES Architects+Engineers Community Center Callander Associates , 00.01 OF.f,EHAER 17,21100 Proposed Community Center Existing Parks and Recreation ,Facility �',' WBIAmYoOAf R,Uuo a.n r-- �` �• Rr,pfen IEE,n10 ROp{Lly. pr J MrNo I I : I a,oa�� b I I I ( I dWEMr. , Rn]L1(fF .� 1UVN� �p�y�9 CPJI,EII f1011t1V010tl ' OOfRU,R.If Y_J 7617 Description Proposed Existing Parks and Total Community Center Recreation Facility Floor Area 20,000 s.f 21,000 s.f. 41,000 s.f. rarkincg 191 stalls 79 stalls* 270 stalls *Actual required parking per zoning code would be approximately 157 stalls. City of Burlingame Building Elements DES AFrh tects+Engineers Community Center Callander Associates Developeda re Interests 1. Preservation /enhancement of natural beauty and passive areas of Washington Park 2. Transportation - maximize ability to gain access on public transportation 3. Traffic and Parking - provide adequate parking to avoid undue impacts on the adjacent neighborhood streets and minimize the traffic impacts on adjacent single-family properties 4. Safety - to ensure maximum level of sense of safety for all members of the public that would utilize the facility as well as neighboring properties 5. Preservation of historical resources - avoid any negative impact on existing historical facilities 6. Proximity to other teen destination points - easy walking distance to other destination points desirable to teenagers 7. Teen ownership - ensure to provide a sense of teen ownership to maximize the potential success of attracting and serving the targeted teens 8. Financially responsible 9. Operational efficiency 10. Address the needs of those displaced i.e. tennis players Architects ' _ ..... _...... _�ry Benefits • Adds 153 new parking spaces 6109 "AN Sq.if.2-Story S 10.00 M lawne+•Rebcallon $ 150M • Provides new facilities for teens & seniors Ift Dovrolopmonl S Q Som t 4 TOlaf S1IOD N "'`-�. "a, • Upgrades current recreational facility • 1100141%110 WIN MEC.STAUS t± �. • Locates recreation programs at existing site Y� 2 � Issues SuAoce Irkg Mew 10 can ��. 1.1106019' hkg WW* "co` • More impact on neighborhood is anticipated ,,�`• �•,. Told Prkg 76 can S 1.70 M Utiace hk9 Tin". 22 Can with the addition of new program space Told Gain 54 can zs1�► r,• 'v .,, 'A" • Designated parking is over a block from SuAace.rk9..Ewsl 60 Co" "'•a.,, proposed facility UnOwgi.hkp-Nw. SO can 9�MfYV�ARR1NCr.S1.LliS7_llsE r` T0401 hip 110 can S 1,60 M hop407 Acquisition $2.76 M TOW Gain SO can !•loon S 0.10 M SneoovelaMneM $0I'd 6M osis (preliminary) hkg Sh"N S Ervk Vf can $2.10 M r r. $5.00 M • $18.7 million .116 $3 million in property acquisition 12 million facility construction 1.NEW CENTER S 1200 M 1.NEW CENTER S 12 00 M 2 U140ERG11 ►RKG S 1 7o AA 2.UNDElGR PRKG s 1.70M 3.7 million parking construction I PARKING LOT 5 160M 4.?WKG SIRUCTURI S 500M TOTAL S1130M TOTAL $istoM • Does not include cost for relocation of tennis Total hkp 1E4 can Told Prkg 2.15 can "0 Cem A04 can �9 Gam 15'cars courts, if facility is moved to southwest _ _ corner of Park v _ • t v a `` `„�• -[� '�l �• � 1�. �t �,.r•-.,fit _Z `� F�. � `,r � ��•. � \� J. , h.e ? ,tea ��J .f►'+ J s �j,�;.� ���M\� �� ;���V�,��..�e.`•iii`! �`^.'f� � b �! `''r': uiC�,� u.ueam�m, �lilci lid[ll�i ifllii A� a p MIT -• •n.E' ,�-.u,,: —. eee aj '\,. C.(�` �: �;k f\FIT" aS ��•y� ` �.�, � •t��11� ( i� ,`�� 1 1 1 How Does This Project Benefit Our Community • New drop-in and programming facilities for teens • New drop-in area for senior citizens • Provides more recreational program space for community use — including City gymnasium • Upgrades 58 year old recreational facility to conform with seismic, fire and ADA regulations • Decreases facility's impact (traffic, noise) on the neighborhood • Addresses current lack of designated parking • Creates opportunities for intergenerational programming • Maximizes the use of land space v.' ISI['#'►. � . i J c r DES I I I 1 PFA . �A ;J doL lop rl Ii 1 I I e Lffin , L Community Recreation Center ftpi�11&creakh Features: a �k •40,000 sf- 2 story community recreation center at the south-west corner of the park-utilizing only 30,000 sf of park space i •Original architectural style ofthe Gunst Estate •Parking structure over the current Lions Hall parking lot h � •Brings playground near new facility 4�Pf�er 'lace to L1Ne' •Leaves Lions Hall intact •Tennis courts moved to playground site in a 2/2 configuration Needs met with new plan: •Provides facility for supervised teen programs&impromptu area •Provides drop-in area for senior citizens •Adds meeting space for community groups •Keeps playground near Community Center •Eliminates need for renovation work at Recreation Center •Keeps outdoor basketball court for public use •Takes traffic away from residential area of neighborhood •Avoids duplication of facilities(ex.kitchen,offices,restrooms) •Keeps current facilities open during construction project •Expands parking availability in area •Allows for full-day,intergenerational programming •Upgrades group picnic facilities •Eases feelings of insecurity associated with underground parking facility •Only one structure in park •Provides facility in proximity to transportation,schools,recreation facilities,pool,Burlingame Avenue,Library,etc. Play�round0 Parkinp-Lot Community Recreation Center O Group O Picnic y o Area 0 O 0 Diagram A - (Patrol Vehicle Sightlines into Washington Park) Diagram showing existing facilities } R,i.� IIFIFTI larea difficult for I patrol cars j to obsen e) Concord ¢ j � � L1 o Tennis Recreation U Courts Center Burlingame Avenue (Not drawn to scale) T T Diagram showing proposed facilities Concord a� d' a U Ctr. Burlingame Ave. (Not drawn to scale) •� 1 Iji/ k ,t.�.i ✓7�'��� '� `�� 1`7A� 1 + I t�i �7 +[��J' + r,',r^!l�{ I Y, !{Yt •� ,�l,I{/ '�of !`"� r'.i '� '� t y.'�...S i �I I�/�. _ - z y t�•k" f .:.II .. �' •r�a �� 1 - ,__A:Z.♦5' i y't� $.k'�! •�? �{4` _. 1i,~,�`� /I I I I t� _Sj �< c 1 � �!✓r � 5 `" i M... �l"1 / 5/y i l/y�l�r?l,��'.• K J r� n � p �,� -- "'} �,,fl� !r ;, J � 14 Y i. 4 Vit,>p I i RLI ME City of Burlingame \ N!EH�P RI:�L�I )DFD I. NEW MG STROCF. AT 270 EAST LANE 145 cars TOTAL lis cars Community Center Proposal �;� ► �+ i Components ✓ Replacing current 54-year old facility recreation facilities "= ^ �� � ✓ Community gymnasium - shared facility for sports and fitness activities • 3 ✓ Teen facilities - recreation programs, socializing, homework and counseling ✓ Senior Citizens facilities - drop-in activities and social service assistance Developed Shared Interests .sass __ , 1. Preserve/enhance the natural beauty and passive areas of Washington Park `L ►"`� I j 2. Maximum access to public transportation " 3. Provide adequate parking to avoid undue impacts on the neighborhood streets and minimize the traffic impacts on adjacent single-family properties ��,` LJ 4. Ensure maximum level of sense of safety for all members of the public that �� d would utilize the facility as well as neighboring properties CITIOFBIBLINGANIE ornoN m cnnlnll,nln crNrea rte.a 5. Preserve historical resources 6. Proximity to other destination points desirable to teenagers Parks and Recreation 7. Provide a sense of teen ownership to maximize the potential success of attracting and serving the targeted teens 8. Financially responsible BUILDFAMILYUNITY • TAKE CARE OF LATCHKEY CHILDREN 9. Operational efficiency REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT • LOSE WEIGHT • BE HAPPIER 10. Address the needs of those displaced D1IvIINISH CHANCE OF DISEASE • BUII DSELF-ESTEEM Benefits of Proposal FEEL GREAT • REDUCE STRESS• MEET FRIENDS • RELAX • Adds 145 new parking spaces PROMOTE SENSITIVITYTOCULTURALDIVERSITY • LOOK BETTER • Decreases impact (traffic, noise) on residential area INCREASE CONIMUNITYPRIDE • REDUCE CRIME• GENERATE REVENUE • Provides more recreational program space for community use EDUCATE CHILDREN AND ADULTS• PROVIDE SAFE PLACES TO PLAYLOWERHEALTHCARE COSTS• PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT • Provides new facilities for teens & seniors citizens ELIMINATE LONELINESS • CONTROL WEIGHT • INCREASE TOURISM • Adds maximum amount open space Washington Park while allowing STRENGTHENNEIGHBORHOODINVOLVEMENT • PROVIDE CHILDCARE Center users to take advantage of Park f facilities BOOST ECONOMY • CURB EMPLOYEEABSENTEEISM • Does not impact any existing recreational opportunities in Washington Park BUILD STRONGBODIES • INCREASE PROPERTYVALUES• LIVE LONGER • Maximizes the use of land space ATTRACT NEW BUSINESS • CREATE MEMORIES • CONQUER BOREDOOM • Locates recreation programs near Burlingame Avenue, Washington Park, CLEAN AIR AND WATER • BOOST EMPLYEEPRODUCTIVITY Burlingame High School, Aquatic Center, Transportation, etc. ENHANCE RELATIONSHIP SKILLS • DECREASE INSURANCE PREMIUMS• Single facility allows for intergenerational opportunities, shared use of OFFER PLACE FOR SOCIAL INTERACTION • DIMINISH GANG VIOLENCE facility areas,, lower staffing/maintenance costs, eliminates duplication of TEACH VTTALLIFE SKILLS • PROVIDE SPACE TOENJOYNATURE... facility featuures/areas THE BENEFITS ARE ENDLESS. . . V Cew, ` .dJ jj' , l�O w Y ,fir Ali EXFyf �Y TIN IL or 2 'a��Exkr� � \tom Community Recreation Center First Floor s, Elevator &Stairs Hang-out Area Restrooms annou ements Storage Info a Area y Drink & Snack © chin Classroom Homework/ Computer Grine Room Conference Room Room Community Recreation Center Second Floor Storage Storage Auditorium Staff Conference Room Kitchen Elevator &Stairs OfEces Restrooms Front Office &Counter Senior Office work room Drop-in Drink & Snack pay Storage FRONT Machines phones DOOR EEII Community Recreation Center - 1st Floor 1"=20' stairs & Weight elevator Game Room Room Office total size: total size: Teen 25'x45' 15'x 30' ntrance Counter Party Dance Room total size: 30'x 50' Gym-total size: 105' x 70' Kitchen total size: 30' x 40' Classroom#2 total size: Auditorium 3O' x 5O' total size: 45' x 50' Offices Classroom#1 total size: 30' x 50' Main Entrance Counter Conf. #1 stairs & Office Workroom elevator Storage Restrooms always 140' z 200' =28,000 sq. f Community Recreation Center - 2nd Floor stairs & onf#3(T) elevator Offices Computer& total Hangout size: Homework 10'x 30' total size: total size: 30' x 40' 30'x 30' Job/Scholarship Boards, snack machines Dance Studio total size: Gym-total size: 105' x 70' 30' x 60' Arts/Crafts #1 Classroom#3 total size: Auditorium 30' x 60' total size: total size: 30'x 50' 45'x 50' Arts Crafts#2 total size: 30' x 50' Classroom#4 Snack total size: Machines 30' x 50' Conf. #2 stairs & total size: elevator 20' x 40' Lobby Gallery Demolish Buildintl Structure • Demolish remaining Building Structure vuv: +npc.c Ceramics Room--convert to Histo•ic Society storage/office space E-1 Lounge 1 - Convert to free standing spEce fI II I I Ce;amiss C_] Lounge 2- Convert to free standing spEce RoomI Toilets—Renova.e to meet code -1 requirements for occupancy Covered exteiior w 3lkwav Toilet Izacili 'es Repair Ecisting Conc ete Patio- Win e 1 _ounce 2 3 i1' lits5" Y-L.- r-sit- a .�..■ v Awmaww A �TA►47 0 t-IT"' e _ 1tsot Flocr ----0 5 ,U 20 -- Burlingame Recreation Censer Gensler After Connmunity Center is Built Parks and Recreation BE HAPPIER • BUILD FAMILY UNITY • TAKE CARE OF LATCH KEY CHILDREN REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT • LOSE WEIGHT • D84MSH CHANCE OF DISEASE FEEL GREAT • BUILD SELF-ESTEEM • REDUCE STRESS• MEET FRIENDS PROMOTE SENSITIVITY TO CULTURAL DIVERSITY • ELIMINATE LONELINESS INCREASE COMMUNITY PRIDE • REDUCE CRIME• GENERATE REVENUE EDUCATE CHILDREN AND ADULTS • RELAX • PROVIDE SAFE PLACES TO PLAY LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS• • CONTROL WEIGHT STRENGTHEN NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT • PROVIDE CHILDCARE BOOST ECONOMY • CURB EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM • INCREASE TOURISM BUILD STRONG BODIES • INCREASE PROPERTY VALUES • LIVE LONGER ATTRACT NEW BUSINESS• CREATE MEMORIES• PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT CLEAN AIR AND WATER • BOOST EMPLYEE PRODUCTIVITY • LOOK BETTER ENHANCE RELATIONSHIP SKILLS • DECREASE INSURANCE PREMIUMS OFFER PLACE FOR SOCIAL INTERACTION • DEMI ISH GANG VIOLENCE TEACH VITAL LIFE SKILLS • PROVIDE SPACE TO ENJOY NATURE... THE BENEFITS ARE ENDLESS . . . Agenda Item 6a Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: June 5, 2006, Fo SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: May 25, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: CALTRAIN PRESENTATION AND RESOLUTIONS FOR CLOSING THE SOUTH LANE CROSSING OF THE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TO VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BURLINGAME TRAIN STATION IMPROVEMENTS. CITY PROJECT NO. 74230 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council: 1 . Review and accept the revised plans for the Burlingame Train Station Improvements, 2. Approve the attached resolution authorizing the closure of South Lane to vehicular and pedestrian traffic with conditions, and 3. Approve the attached resolution for a cooperative agreement for design, construction and implementation of the Burlingame Train Station Improvements. Staff from the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) will make a presentation on the revised Burlingame Train Station Improvements and respond to questions prior to Council taking action. BACKGROUND: Caltrain made a presentation to Council and received comments on the Burlingame Train Station Improvements at their February 22, 2006 meeting. Council then held a community stakeholders meeting on March 28, 2006 and developed a list of negotiation points (attached) for a revised design. These included wider walkways, more landscaping, less parking on the west side of the tracks, aesthetically appealing fencing, less perimeter fencing, demarcation of the historic South Lane, and removal of streetscape improvements along California Drive. Since March, four meetings have been held between staff, the mayor, Caltrain representatives, and their consultant engineer and landscape architect to review details of the revised plans. Staff has also obtained Council member feedback on the SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\74230 Burlingame Train station agree and South Lane closure for Council 6-5- 2006.SR.doc concrete color, bus shelter design, and the split rail fencing. The current plan responds to these comments and will be included in the Caltrain presentation. SOUTH LANE CLOSURE: At their December, 2005 meeting, Council directed staff to negotiate the closure of South Lane with Caltrain. The closure is necessary in order to construct new longer platforms at the Burlingame train station. Per Council direction, Caltrain has agreed to pay for the restoration of South Lane in the event that the tracks are either elevated or depressed, or if the train station is closed in the future. South Lane access to West Lane from California Drive will be maintained with the street closure. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT:Caltrain and staff will work cooperatively to complete the revised design, construction, and implementation of the Burlingame Train Station Improvements. Encroachment permits will be required for the use of West Lane for public parking and leased vehicle storage for Mike Harvey. In addition six public parking stalls along Carolan Avenue and three along West Lane(disabled accessible stalls)will be dedicated for Caltrain commuter parking. Staff is asking Council to give the Public Works Director and staff the authority to execute these encroachment permits on behalf of the City. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the City as a result of the revised plans. Caltrain and the Joint Powers Board will finance the construction of the train station improvements including the closure of South Lane. EXHIBITS: Resolution for South Lane Closure with Exhibit A(legal description and plat map) Resolution for Cooperative Agreement for Design,Construction and Implementation of the Burlingame Train Station with Exhibits Negotiation Points with Caltrain from March 28,2006 Council meeting Caltrain public notice posted on the site Declaration of Posting of Notices Caltrain letter mailed to property owners within 300 feet of project. San Mateo County Times May 23,2006 Public Hearing notice J Gomery P ram Manager c: Jim Nantell,City Manager: George Bagdon, Director of Public Works: Larry Anderson,City Attorney: Meg Monroe,City Planner: Doris Mortensen,City Clerk: Ian McAvoy,Caltrain: Brian Fitzpatrick,Caltrain: Al Fung,Caltrain S:VA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\74230 Burlingame Train station agree and South Lane closure for Council 6-5- 2006.SR.doc RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CLOSING SOUTH LANE CROSSING OF THE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TO VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC FOR BURLINGAME AVENUE STATION IMPROVEMENTS AND USAGE RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) is planning a project to upgrade the Burlingame Caltrain Station (the "Station") platforms and boarding area (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, as part of the Project, the JPB will undertake improvements to increase the safety of the Station platforms and eliminate the "hold-out rule", which slows oncoming rail traffic during .passenger boarding times, by converting the station from center boarding to outboard boarding, providing a center track fence and installing new signalized pedestrian crossings; and WHEREAS, the Project will bring the Station to current Caltrain standards, similar to other recently re-constructed Caltrain stations, and will increase the efficiency of Burlingame's roadway system; and WHEREAS, the modernization of the Station to Caltrain's current standard will vastly improve JPB's ability to serve the Station; and WHEREAS, JPB plans to continue to operate a passenger train schedule that regularly stops at the Station; and WHEREAS, as part of the Project, JPB will construct new street and pedestrian improvements at North Lane and Howard Avenue, provide improved grade crossings and associated safety improvements, and create approximately 13 new City-controlled parking spaces along West Lane; and WHEREAS, the construction and operation of these improvements require the closure of the South Lane where it crosses the railroad corridor as shown on Exhibit A (legal description and plan map); and l WHEREAS, construction of the Project and closure of South Lane is expected to increase the efficiency of the City's roadway system by 45% at North Lane and 30% at Howard Avenue; and WHEREAS, the South Lane crossing is not necessary to the safe circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the Burlingame Station area, but only if the improvements are constructed as specifically provided in the plans submitted to the City Council by JPB; and WHEREAS, the improvements would provide a safer crossing for both vehicles and pedestrians at an improved North Lane crossing about 300 feet north of existing South Lane; and WHEREAS, in the future, the State of California or the JPB may construct an elevated or depressed rail line through the City of Burlingame in which case the City wishes to preserve its ability to reopen South Lane to vehicle or pedestrian or both types of traffic; and WHEREAS, in the event that an elevated or depressed rail line is constructed, or the Burlingame Caltrain Station is closed, the JPB shall reopen and finance the restoration of South Lane to the condition that existed as of the date of this resolution upon written assurance by the City to the JPB that the South Lane crossing may be legally reopened; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2006,the City Council held a public forum to hear from all interested persons and viewpoints and to weigh the various options and issues involved in the Station area; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 5, 2006, to consider this closure, and received and considered all comments and testimony submitted by any interested person; and WHEREAS,the City would not consent to and approve the closure of the South Lane crossing if JPB were planning to close or suspend operations to the Burlingame Caltrain Station, or if the platform improvements were not going to be constructed in the manner presented by the JPB to the City at the City Council meeting of June 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and convenience to close the South Lane rail crossing to vehicle and pedestrian traffic, subject to the understandings stated above. NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS ORDERED: 2 1. Pursuant to Streets & Highways Code § 1920, the closure of the South Lane rail crossing to vehicle and pedestrian traffic is approved, subject to the understandings stated in this Resolution. 2. Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed to constitute or approve an abandonment or vacation of South Lane in any way or at any point, nor an abandonment of the rights of any existing utility to continue to operate within South Lane. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, 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 day of , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 3 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board October 7,2005 Sheet 1 of 3 EXHIBIT A SOUTH LANE-EAST LANE CLOSURE—BURLINGAME PARCEL JPB—SM-0032 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property situate in the City of Burlingame,County of San Mateo,State of California,being a portion of that certain parcel of land described in the deed to Southern Pacific Railroad Company,recorded July 19, 1903,in Book 96 of Deeds,Page 214,in the Office of the County Recorder,County of San Mateo and being a portion of that certain parcel of land described first in the Decree of Condemnation had on March 4, 1904,in Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Mateo,recorded March 5, 1904,in Book 100 of Deeds,Page 435,in the Office of the County Recorder,County of San Mateo, described as follows: PARCEL ONE (South Lane): Beginning at the intersection of the southwesterly line of that certain 60 foot wide strip of land described in said deed(96 of Deeds 214),with the southeasterly line of that certain parcel of land described second in said Decree(100 of Deeds 435),said southeasterly line also being the northwesterly line of South Lane(50 feet wide)as shown on that map entitled"Supplementary Map to Map No.l of the Town of Burlingame, San Mateo County,California", filed August 10,1905,in Volume 3 of Maps,Page 71,in the Office of the County Recorder,County of San Mateo; Thence,along the easterly prolongation of said northwesterly line,North 49030'00"East, 107.02 feet to the northeasterly line of said parcel described first in said Decree(100 of Deeds 435),said northeasterly line also being the northwesterly prolongation of the southwesterly line of East Lane(40 feet wide)as said Lane is shown and so designated on said map(Vol.3 Maps 71); Thence,along said northeasterly line,South 61'22'19"East,53.51 feet to the northeasterly prolongation of the southeasterly line of said South Lane; Thence,along said prolongated line,South 49°30'00"West, 107.02 feet to the southwesterly line of said 60.00 foot wide strip deed(96 of Deeds 214),said southwesterly line also being the northeasterly line of West Lane(40 feet wide)as said Lane is shown and so designated on said map(Vol.3 Maps 71); Thence along said southwesterly line North 61*22'19"West,53.51 feet to the Point Of Beginning; Containing 5,351 square feet,more or less. Sheet 2 of 3 PARCEL TWO (East Lane): Commencing at the intersection of the southwesterly line of that certain 60 foot wide strip of land described in said deed(96 of Deeds 214),with the southeasterly line of that certain parcel of land described second in said Decree(100 of Deeds 435),said southeasterly line also being the northwesterly line of South Lane(50 feet wide)as shown on that map entitled"Supplementary Map to Map No.1 of the Town of Burlingame, San Mateo County,California",filed August 10,1905,in Volume 3 of Maps,Page 71,in the Office of the County Recorder,County of San Mateo; Thence,along the northeasterly prolongation of said northwesterly line of South Lane,North 49°30'00" East,99.83 feet to the southeasterly prolongation of the southwesterly line of East Lane(50 feet wide)as said lane is shown and so designated on said map(Vol.3 Maps 71)and the True Point Of Beginning; Thence,along said prolongated southwesterly line,North 40°30'00"West, 18.86 feet to the northeasterly line of said parcel described first in said Decree(100 of Deeds 435); Thence,along said northeasterly line,South 61'22'19"East,20.18 feet to said northeasterly prolongation of the northwesterly line of South Lane; Thence,along said prolongated northwesterly line,South 49°30'00"West,7.19 feet to the True Point Of Beginning; Containing 67.8 square feet,more or less. And as shown on Sheet 2 attached and made a part hereof. KEVIN C.C.MY A to!30/oCe ��repared by:Kevin C. Gray- P.L.S.No. 7018 M0.701� op C ����® Fi SUp�,�� L S,qy E` TO Mq T or�3 � 1 -35, T�� � OP � �qR ��U/v Np OP� CITY OF PupLINGAW o COUNTY OF 5AN MMO A/ 18' PAUL TWO �A5T CMN o 5TAt OF C&IFOt? 20, NIA 30'00,, (61.6 5a. PT, :I:> 5 61'22'1911 E - - rx S,P,t;.f?, CO. mob PAPIC�� Tw GOOK 100 bffn5 PAGE PLMINGAX 5TA110N �q 0 5.P,t R' CO. GOOK 96 MR25 PA6� 214 P06 PAPUL ONS POC PAUL TWO CO N 61'22'1911 W �_.._.. 600K 100 P05 PAGE 435 (5F,CONn P�5GF\ff n)-Z-/ / W5T�AN� o � �ANp S �/ <v KEVIN C.GRAY C— — — FCJP6 PFOP�P\v UNC I ECAI, P�5Ct;IPTION LINE v� POP POINT OF PE61NNIN6 NO.7018 POC POINT OF COMM%CWNT OF CA��F o D� ocC 16 mO6 TFT POINT OF PUNNIN6 F RAIL SURVEYORS & PLAT TO ACCOMPANY Date: 10/07/05 ENGINEERS, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Scale: I"=40' 1075 Old County Road PARCEL J PB - SM - 0032 Drawn By: T.L. ' Belmont,CA 94002 Sheet No.: 3 OF 3 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE CALTRAIN STATION OUTBOARD PLATFORM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board(JPB) have worked with the community over the past two years to develop an improvement program for the Burlingame Avenue train station that will serve the best interests of the entire community and meet the needs of pedestrians, train users, area businesses, bicyclists, motorists, and station visitors; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a number of public hearings and meetings on the station area, including a public forum on March 28, 2006, and a public hearing on June 5, 2006, where the Council has received an considered all testimony and suggestions offered by all interested persons; and WHEREAS, in order to implement the comprehensive reconstruction of the platforms and the adjacent streets and walkways, the City and the JPB need to provide access to each other's property for rearrangement of uses, parking, and access; and WHEREAS,these arrangements through an exchange of encroachment permits will allow the most efficient and effective use of the area in the platform project and will make safe access and use by pedestrians and bicyclists a high priority, WHEREAS,the Cooperative Agreement is in the best interest of the public, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Cooperative Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit I is approved, and the City Manager is authorized to execute the Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 1 2. The City Clerk is directed to witness the Manager's signature on behalf of the City. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, 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 day of ,2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 E X H I B I T `I` (total of 7 pages) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BURLINGAME CALTRAIN STATION OUTBOARD PLATFORM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD This Cooperative Agreement for Design, Construction and Implementation of the Burlingame Caltrain Station Outboard Platform Improvements Project(Agreement), is entered into June 5, 2006 by and between the City of Burlingame (City) and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) RECITALS WHEREAS, City is a duly established municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, JPB is a public agency organized and existing under the laws of the State of California; WHEREAS, City and JPB wish to cooperate in the design, construction and implementation of the Burlingame Caltrain Station Outboard Platform Improvements Project (the "Project") which will include the removal of a spur track, the relocation of JPB's main railroad tracks and the construction of new passenger platforms, and will improve the boarding arrangements for Caltrain passengers, improve traffic flow and reconfigure parking arrangements in the vicinity of the Caltrain Burlingame Station; and WHEREAS, City has agreed to issue JPB an encroachment permit (the "JPB Encroachment Permit") over three areas of approximately 1,100 square feet, approximately 800 square feet and approximately 1600 square feet, all as shown on the attached Exhibits A-1 and A-2 (collectively, the "JPB Encroachment Area"), at no cost to JPB to aid in the implementation of the overall plan for the Project and to provide extra parking dedicated to Caltrain patrons; and WHEREAS, JPB has agreed to issue City an encroachment permit(the "City Encroachment Permit") over an area approximately 700 square feet, as shown on the attached Exhibit B ("City Encroachment Area"), at no cost to City to provide for public parking, to be maintained and monitored by the City at not cost to JPB; and WHEREAS, JPB and the City concur that it is necessary to close South Lane to effectuate construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, by adoption of City Resolution No. , the Burlingame City Council has approved.closure of South Lane on the condition that in the event that an elevated or depressed rail line is constructed, or the Burlingame Caltrain Station is closed, the JPB shall reopen and finance the restoration of South Lane to the condition that existed as of the date of the 1 1188301.2 Resolution, June 5, 2006; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and obligations herein, City and PCJPB agree as follows: I. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT This Agreement is intended to memorialize certain understandings that were reached among the Parties regarding the implementation of the Project. This Agreement,together with the City Encroachment Permit and the JPB Encroachment Permit, is intended to be an integrated agreement and therefore constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties with regard to the Project and supersedes all prior and/or contemporaneous agreements, communications and representations, oral or written, express or implied. I1. JPB'S OBLIGATIONS 1. JPB agrees to pay for the cost of re-opening South Lane to the conditions that existed as on June 5, 2006, the date of the Resolution, in the event that an elevated or depressed rail line is constructed through the City of Burlingame, or the Burlingame Caltrain Station is closed, upon receipt of written assurance by the City to the JPB that the South Lane crossing can be legally reopened. 2. JPB agrees to pay for the costs of paving and re-striping all the parking spots within the City Encroachment Area and JPB Encroachment Area. 3. JPB agrees to landscape the median of North Lane as more specially described in the plans for the Burlingame Caltrain Station. 4. Concurrently upon execution of this agreement, JPB will execute an Encroachment Permit in favor of City, in a form substantially similar to JPB's standard form, covering the City Encroachment Area, for an initial term of five years, and to renew automatically thereafter, at no cost. III. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS 1. Concurrently upon execution of this agreement, City will execute the Encroachment Permit in favor of JPB, in a form substantially similar to City's standard form, covering the JPB Encroachment Area, for an initial term of five years, and to renew automatically thereafter, at no cost. 2. City agrees to maintain all landscaping and improvements outside of JPB's right of way. IV. NOTICES 2 All notices with respect to this Agreement shall be given by first class mail to the parties as follows: City: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attn: Director of Public Works PCJPB: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 Attn: Executive Director or to such other person, addresses or telephone numbers as the parties may designate in writing from time to time. V. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. HEADINGS The subject headings of the articles and paragraphs in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of any of its provisions. B. SEVERABILITY If any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,void, or unenforceable, the rest of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. C. CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement, and each of its provisions, terms and conditions, has been reached as a result of negotiations between the parties. Accordingly, each of the Parties expressly acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement shall not be deemed to have been authored by, prepared by, or drafted by, any particular party, and that the rule of construction,to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party, shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or in the resolution of disputes. D. SUCCESSORS This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto. E. ATTORNEYS' FEES 3 1188301.2 If any legal proceeding should be instituted by any of the parties to enforce the terms of this Agreement or to determine the rights of the parties under this Agreement, the prevailing party in the proceeding shall receive, in addition to all court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and JPB have entered into this Agreement as of , 2006. CITY OF BURLINGAME PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT A Public Corporation POWERS BOARD By By City Manager Michael J. Scanlon Executive Director ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Attorney 4 3 1 • • s• M, ------------------------------ 1 ■■■■■ ■■■■■■MEN MOM, Molligil■■■■■■s■ ■■■■■moss■■■■■■■ ■■s■ ■ MME - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ■■e ■a■■■ms ■m s■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■s■s■s■■■■■ ■■■■s ■■■■� ---- ---- .- - -- ------ - . . SUBJECT EXHIBIT A-1 Peninsula e - Corridor - ENCROACHMENT Powers • • • CONTRACT • ■ • • SHEET I OF �di3h II i —.............. ......_..... - .. .. - - - - ..._ ..._._.. ...... ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■s■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■��■ IF MEN ••, • ---------------------------------------------------------- •. :.. . n t r �i ® ■ . ■ • ML q all • -_��J� 10, • TyP�. • NEGOTIATION POINTS WITH CALTRAIN Obtain a resolution from the Joint Powers Board agreeing to restore South Lane at its expense if the Burlingame Avenue station is closed or South Lane is grade separated. Narrow the cobblestone areas to provide wider walkways and replace the cobblestones with landscaping. Widen the sidewalk on the south side of North Lane to 20 feet and include a landscaping strip and railing between the road and sidewalk on both sides. Remove six commuter parking spaces along the east side (northbound) platform from North Lane to Burlingame Avenue and replace them with sidewalk and landscaping. Eliminate the outer fencing along the platforms between North Lane and South Lane and use wrought iron for all remaining fencing. Use more aesthetic materials such as tiles or pavers for the platforms, similar to those at the Menlo Park station. Use a greater variety of landscaping with appropriate irrigation as identified through a meeting of the Mayor, City Arborist and Caltrain landscape architect. Provide a split rail fence per historic photographs at each end of South Lane behind the platforms with rose bush planters and irrigation. Eliminate the streetscape sidewalk along California Drive between North Lane and South Lane. Use a color selected by the City for all new sidewalks. Provide landscaping strips and railings between the sidewalks and roadway along Howard Avenue similar to North Lane. Provide a solid versus transparent back to the shelters. S:\A Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\9608-CALTRAIN STATIONS\CALTRAIN-Broadway and Burlingame stations\BURLINGAME TRAIN STATION\Council Negotiations Points with Caltrain 3-29-06.doc Public Hearing on South Lane Closure Caltrain Construction at Burlingame Station to Require Road Closure Dear Coltrain Neighbor: I Caltrain will be doing construction at the Burlingame Caltrain Station to improve safety, pedestrian access and make train service more efficient. In order to make necessary platform improvements at this station, South Lane will be closed to pedestriand and vehicle traffic at the railroad crossing for the forseeable future. The City of Burlingame will hold a public hearing on this issue on Monday, June 5, at 7 p.m. To offer comment about the closure of South Lane, interested persons can attend this meeting at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, in Burlingame. South Lane will remain open until summer 2007. Testimony will be taken on whether the needs of pedestrians and vehicles will be met by alternative routes, so that the South Lane crossing would not be needed at this time. Project Description The current Burlingame station configuration only allows one train to be in the station or pass through the station at a time. This delays service and requires crossing gates at adjoining streets to be down for a prolonged period of time. This project will replace the current center-boarding platform with two outside boarding platforms, on either side of the tracks. A new center-fence between the train tracks will improve safety, by preventing pedestrians from crossing the tracks, except at designated crossing areas, which will be protected with pedestrian crossing arms, bells and lights. When construction is complete, passenger safety will be improved, trains will no longer block North Lane, and traffic delay-time at tracks near the station will be reduced. Approximately 60 percent of the traffic that uses South lane will be redirected to Howard Avenue, while the rest will cross the tracks at North Lane. Both West and East lanes will remain open, allowing traffic access along either side of the tracks. Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin during the summer of 2007 and will last approximately one year. The street closure will be conducted under Chapter 3 of the Public Streets, Highways and Service Easement Vacation Law (Streets & highways Code §§8300 et seq). Questions about this can be directed to Caltrain Project Cal l:, Manager Al Fung at 650.508.7790. 5/19/1006 DECLARATOIN OF POSTING OF NOTICES PURSUANT TO STREETS & HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 8323 I, Martin Ruiz, declare as follows and that I would be competent to testify thereto if called as a witness: • 1 am employed by the San Mateo County Transit District as Distribution Supervisor. • On May 22, 2006, 1 posted notice of the proposed vacation of South Lane by doing the following: - Posted the notice and map of the project area at the Burlingame Caltrain Station in the rail agency's information boards. - Posted the notice and map of the project area on utility and light poles along West Lane from Howard Avenue to the Burlingame Caltrain Station. - Posted the notice and map of the project area on utility and light poles along East Lane from Howard Avenue to Burlingame Avenue. - Posted the notice and map of project area on utility and light poles along South Lane from California Drive to the rail line. A copy of the posting is attached. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this was executed on May 22, 2006 in San Carlos, California (headquarters of the San Mateo County Transit District). d� Distribution Supervisor, KTartin Ruiz RECEIVED MAY 2 3 2006 DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF BURLINGAME • BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2006 KEN YEAGER, CHAIR JOSE CISNEROS,VICE CHAIR NATHANIEL FORD Cal f1:1 DON GAGE � JIM HARTNETT JERRY HILL ® ARTHUR L. LLOYD JOHN MCLEMORE SOPHIE MAXWELL MICHAEL J. SCANLON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR May 16, 2006 Dear Property Owner, Caltrain is planning to construct platform improvements at the Burlingame Avenue train station. As part of the improvements, South Lane is proposed to be closed at the railroad crossing. Attached for your reference is a sketch of the proposed street closure. The project construction is anticipated to begin in the summer of 2007 and it will take approximately one year to complete the project. A public hearing is planned to be held June 5, 2006 at the City of Burlingame City Hall. Meeting will begin at 7 p.m. If you would like more information regarding this project prior to the Public Hearing, please contact JPB Project Manager Al Fung at (650) 508-7790. For information regarding the City's street closure process, please contact Augustine Chou, Burlingame Traffic Engineer. He can be reached at (650) 558-7230. Sincerely, V' Cassandra G. Clomon Real Estate Department Specialist (650) 508-6304 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD 1250 San Carlos Ave. — P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 (650)508-6269 Public Notices Page 1 of 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME SOUTH LANE CLOSURE NO CITY OF BURLINGAME SOUTH LANE CLOSURE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Burlingame will hold a public hearing on June 5, 2006, at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California to consider closure of South Lane to pedestrians and vehicles at the railroad crossing in the summer of 2007 as part of Caltrain's plans to construct platform improvements at the Burlingame Train Station. Traffic that uses South Lane would be redirected to West and East Lanes, Howard Avenue or North Lane. Testimony will be taken on whether the needs of pedestrians and vehicles will be met by the alternative routes, so that the South Lane crossing would not be needed at this time. The City Council will receive testimony on the South Lane closure from all interested persons who appear at the Council meeting. To receive additional information and a map of proposed closure and improvements, or to provide written comments, interested persons may contact Al Fung, Caltrain Project Manager, at 650-508-7790. Appeared in: San Mateo County Times on Tuesday, 05/23/2006 Home Back http://www.mypublicnotices.com/InsideB ayArea/PublicNotice.asp?Page=PublicNoticePrint&AdI... 5/23/2006 f '�\ s Cal : PARSCM: Morris Low�W ~ - L CAMI- lr' r (! Morris E l i I I i I i:�i�m a r l I I i i n S CJ' East L'2ne J7 North Lane South Lane Howard Avenue Site Plan 1 MGr,ispum Morris . Burlingame Tran Station I!i r'I r J--am T rain Station lot Fast�inr " 4 .orth Lane `v- South Lane Howard Avanue�" i tt Site Plan J9WpMW Morris, Eaap� Morris Burl ngame Tran Station Burlingame Train Station j 9 x rr r » i Ilk ;r . xu ! Plant Material-Trees flalp+F Lf:K+Y+terrl °'• �'rww�oas Morris ''v? ® Morris ;� F 9 ri TrR!n Station Burlingame Tram Station �•r Plant Material-Trees Accolade Elm 1 r w r Burl nig a Team tagwoyn, ur ngame ra >t tattoo wd Plant Material-Trees �c w�a�eim Plant Material-Trees C.mry W..d D.w hlm r Mrd Burlingame Tran Station Burlingame Train Station r FA rr its r-. rl;,t'• L Plant Material-Trees Cork 0N1, ur ngame ram to on '. Burl ngame ran to on M +. ,. 4 4k - Vn" ,,.� „utn arr Ho.v2r0 A-- Plant Material-Trees Cork o.k 1'IaDt rViaterial-Shrubs D.ymr 2 jam "�' �' .rover.. Morris • YY� Burlingame ran Mahon V Burl ngame ra ne taS it oo—ns ercnze 1 �.c M MumDelight Plant Materiel-Shrubs New Zeeland Flu Plant Material-Shrubs LompebJao wL rds ..� r � Buel ngame Traln to_ ot - Tr—. *69M game Burl v non Plant Material-Shrubs Rosemary 1, s Y Mrd "Z rMorris Burl nig a Tra n to on ' . Bur ngame T tagon ♦ ! J � ' ♦717 •- •, ice' Plant Material-Shrubs Plant Material-Shrubs white f sn)tt Rose 3 Burlingame ran tatton rr s Burlingame ra..- to on ' n S� mt.am lalaau.a.x..: IfL Soa[h Iwoc Plant Material-Shrubs awe on Split eau Fence ; t r r pq� Mous Burly a ram'rai Station �y Buelmgame ran Cation to T_ MIA YaVia Missinu"fHaY+," PeVl "i r Morn, i r M rri B ru 1 game ran tatiMn Burlingame Tram talion ' ;..r ----------------- j -- .�f /_ ® iias liar= rsea� Site Furniture Pas ngerSheh "! 4 MI M Burlingame Tram to on Burlingame T —Z Mr Morris ram to on ' . f roti - Sam ► , • 'a' eY JAI P Site Furniture Site Furniture Bench and Tmh Reeeptade TBurlingame ran , +s!a rf� Burlingame Train to on 41�—. y 7fin nowartl avenue MELUI,- Site Furniture Beech ud TrohReapide °'Ti r Mord; • lV Burl ngame Tran to on _ Burlingame Tram tation M ,,, Site Furniture Light Fixture Site Furniture wrought iron fence 5 Morris _-�- r i�ON! Morris I _'rj 1 i r I r i J#i r r i r r lin Station Burlingame Train station /32 ■r ,..a• .: a T1s sa -� ..®� "_.0 rJ - :"•.T"y"Y. ..._,.:""-Y.',r"".Y'M`yYG"rYti"tT`Y`TT'"'rff"M"'�']„�'Y`ft.-t.5'✓..: . . 6 p g u tilfz aan ' yy.eu x �uav e- f 4,, Site Furniture Wrought Iran Fence 6 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 6b M E 9.0 MTG. AATEDJUNEb DATE 6.05.06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BYTZ.— DATE: MAY 24, 2006 APPROVED i'U FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZON G FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 2004. Introduction: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the proposal to amend the zoning regulations to establish new zoning district regulations for the Rollins Road portion of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road planning area. These new zoning regulations would replace the current M-1 (light industrial) regulations. The proposed Rollins Road regulations were introduced without change. At the May 15, 2006, meeting the City Council set this item for a second reading and public hearing at the Council's meeting on June 5, 2006. Public Notice was published in the San Mateo Times on May 22, 2006, and notice was mailed on May 25, 2006, to all property owners within the proposed Rollins Road zoning district and all property owners within 500 feet of the new district's boundaries. With these actions the public notice requirements in the Municipal Code have been met. General Plan Compliance: The Rollins Road zoning district is part of the implementation phase of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan adopted by the City Council and amended to the Burlingame General Plan in September 2004. The provisions in the ordinance are consistent with the plan because they are taken from the land use element and design guidelines in that adopted plan, supplemented with provisions from the existing M-1 district for the Rollins Road Light Industrial district which currently regulates development in this area. The M-1 zoning has been fundamental in implementing the 1969 General Plan to which the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan is an amendment and in establishing the existing land use pattern for this area. The Rollins Road district consists of all the area between the CalTrain tracks on the west, El Portal Creek which is the northern city boundry, US 101 on the west and Broadway on the south; about two-thirds of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Planning area. The proposed provisions of the Rollins Road zoning district are consistent with the directives of the Specific Plan they are intended to implement. CEQA Compliance: Negative Declaration ND533-P was prepared and adopted for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan in September 2004. Since the zoning action to adopt the implementing regulations for the Rollins Road subarea is an implementation of that adopted plan and is consistent with the provisions of that plan, this zoning action is determined to be covered by ND533-P. ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June S,2006 History of Public Review of the Proposed Rollins Road Zoning District Regulations Planning Commission September 26 2005: At the Commission meeting on September 26, 2005, the Commissioners discussed the proposed Rollins Road regulations. They directed staff to change the regulations for incidental food establishments to extend their hours of operation from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. to 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. so that these uses could better serve those businesses in the industrial area which have employees on shifts. The commission directed that this item should be brought back to the action calendar when the change had been made and there has been proper public notice. On October 24, 2005 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and took action on the proposed zoning regulations for the Rollins Road area. The Commission voted 7-0 to approve the proposed changes and recommend them to the City Council for action with specific direction: to make exceptions to the performance criteria for auto row subject to a conditional use permit; to change the requirements for retail sales and display areas to allow the service of alcoholic beverages but not the sale; and to leave the proposed regulations for the drainage area, the FAR in the Southern Gateway Entrance area, the prohibition of retail uses in the Southern Gateway Entrance area and the provision for veterinary hospitals. However the Commission directed staff and the subcommittee to revisit and return to the Commission with: ■ refined direction on self-storage uses in the Rollins Road drainage area; ■ look at an appropriate minimum lot size to exempt a developer in the Southern Gateway Entrance area from having to consolidate properties to be eligible for the FAR density bonus; ■ look at what retail uses might be appropriate in the Southern Gateway Entrance area; and ■ study further the regulation of veterinary hospital use in the Rollins Road area. City Council Study Session December 19 2005. On December 19, 2005, the City Council studied the Rollins Road zoning regulations as recommended to them by the Planning Commission. At that meeting the City Council directed the regulations back to the Planning Commission for them to resolve all the issues remaining (called out above); and to return the proposed ordinance to the Council when the commission had acted on the entire document. Planning Commission Action March 18 2006• The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Subcommittee of the Planning Commission, reported out to the Planning Commission for action their recommendations on the remaining items to be resolved on March 18, 2006. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended the proposed Rollins Roads zoning district regulations to the City Council for approval on March 18, 2006. The regulations as recommended by the Planning Commission are summarized below, with the exception of the definition of animal shelter/animal rescue center, which has been revised based on the City Council direction. City Council Study Session March 29 2006: On March 29, 2006, the City Council held a study session to review the Rollins Road zoning regulations as recommended by the Planning Commission. Following discussion the City Council directed staff to address three issues before bringing the proposed regulations for Introduction: • A clarification of the definition of animal shelter/animal rescue center; • Removal of the criteria addressing traffic in the Southern Gateway Entrance overlay regulations; and • Investigate if a fee could be assessed for the storage of vehicles and boats. A new definition for Animal shelters and rescue centers has been proposed (See City Attorney's Memo April 20, 2006, amending animal shelter definition). The proposed text narrows the definition of animal 2 ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN .Tune 5,2006 shelter/rescue center to match state law, with the clarification that the use may include facilities for public education and training of volunteers, and facilities to keep animals on site for adoption. Criteria had been added to the Southern Gateway Entrance overlay area regulations to call developer's attention to the particular impact of development on these lots on both the level of service at the Rollins Road/Broadway intersection and on the capacity of Rollins Road at this location. Council determined at study that since both of these issues were identified as community standards in the specific plan, they would be addressed in the environmental analysis of any development in the Gateway Entrance area, so do not need to be cited in the zoning regulations. This section of the Southern Gateway Entrance Overlay regulations was removed. Regarding the idea of assessing a fee for storage of vehicles and boats on properties in the Rollins Road area the City Attorney notes that the City's (airport)parking tax applies to the parking or storage of vehicles, but, on the face of it, not to the parking of boats. There are three exceptions in the present requirements: where the predominant use of the property is not parking or storage; where the vehicles are company-owned or leased such as a utility yard; and where the vehicles are part of an inventory, in particular a car dealership storage area. To change the present regulations to include boats or to extend the tax to storage on other property would require a vote of the people. (See City Attorney's memo April 5, 2006, Commercial Parking Facility Tax and Its Application to Storage Businesses). City Council Introduction and Setting for Hearing May 15 2006• At the Council meeting on May 15, 2006, the Council introduced the ordinance without changes and set the public hearing/second reading of the proposed Rollins Road zoning regulations for June 5, 2006, with a 5-0 voice vote. Staff reviewed the correspondence received after the packet for the introduction had been prepared (see responses below). A Council member asked if the 5,000 SF of retail allowed in the industrial area was intended to be used as a showroom associated with an industrial use, such as mattress manufacture, on site. Staff noted that was the intention in the current and proposed regulations. BACKGROUND The Background portion of this staff report is divided into the following sections: ■ General Summary of the Proposed Rollins Road Zoning Regulations with changes from the M-1 district regulations noted in italics. ■ Recommendations for addressing the issues raised by the City Council and Planning Commission during their review of the proposed zoning from September 26, 2006 through March 29, 2006. ■ Responses to comments received at introduction of the proposed ordinance. General Summary of the Proposed Rollins Road Zoning Regulations with changes from M-1 Noted The proposed zoning regulations for the Rollins Road area build on the current M-1 (light industrial) regulations which have been found consistent with the General Plan and have been in place for many years. The discussion which follows describes the proposed Rollins Road regulations and notes in italics the changes added to the M-1 regulations in order for the zoning to comply with the specific plan .(see Annotated Rollins Road Zoning District attached). ➢ Permitted uses (CS 25.44.020) o All uses currently permitted in the M-1 zone with the same performance criteria including: air courier, delivery or other transshipment services; ambulance services; automobile and truck repair, service and body shops; any light industrial or manufacturing use; food establishments 3 ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June 5,2006 within a multi-use building; laboratory and clean room facilities for research, teasing or creating products and goods; outdoor storage of materials accessory to a permitted use; rental and leasing of goods and equipment conducted wholly within an enclosed building; service businesses; warehousing, storage, distribution of goods, materials, liquids and equipment; accessory uses necessary for permitted uses, retail sales and display areas accessory to a permitted use; o Office use in conjunction with and for the sole support of a permitted use occurring on the same site not to exceed 25%of a warehouse building. ➢ Conditional uses (CS 25.44.030): o All uses currently conditional in the M-1 zone with the same performance criteria including: industrial uses with an FAR not to exceed 1.0; air courier, delivery or other transshipment services; automobile rental businesses (truck and recreation vehicle); automobile dealerships; automobile storage for car rental businesses; commercial recreation; health services and medical clinics which function to support businesses in area; food establishments which do not meet performance criteria of permitted use; motor freight terminals; outdoor storage or treatment of materials; retail sales and display areas accessory to a permitted use; veterinary hospitals; living quarters in association with a permitted or conditional use to be used by night watchman; structures over 35' in height; structure covers more than 60% of the lot; accessory structures necessary to a conditional use; retail sales accessory to a warehouse use permit only for alcohol sales in containers and hours of operation; accessory uses related to a permitted use which require outdoor processing; o Technical schools with training related to permitted or conditional uses; o Building materials and garden supply stores; o Office uses supporting permitted or conditional uses that exceed 25% GSF and do not to exceed 50% GSF of the warehouse structure. o Animal shelter or animal rescue center with detailed performance criteria; o Any commercial or industrial use similar in nature to a permitted or conditional use in this or the Inner Bayshore (IB)zoning district. ➢ Prohibited Uses (CS 25.44.040). o All uses currently prohibited in the M-1 zone : adult oriented businesses; massage,bathing or similar; automobile sales lots; automobile wrecking,junk yards, storage or baling of scraps; conference and exhibition facilities; hotels and motels; living quarters and residential structures (except night watchman); outdoor storage or treatment of materials in required parking or landscaping; gasoline service stations; personal services. o Kennels. ➢ Special requirements for the Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area (CS 25.44.050) o Permitted uses: only automobile sales lots, automobile repair; automobile rental; o Conditional uses: all other uses permitted or conditional in the RR district. o Prohibited uses: adult oriented businesses; massage, bathing or similar businesses; automobile wrecking,junk yards, storage, baling of scraps; conference and exhibition facilities; hotels and motels, living quarters and residential structures; outdoor storage or treatment of materials;gasoline service stations;personal services. ➢ Special requirements for the Southern Gateway Entrance Overlay Area (CS 25.44.055) o Permitted uses: office uses with a maximum FAR of 1.0; automobile dealers and dealerships max. FAR 1.0; commercial recreation facilities except theaters max. FAR 1.0. 4 ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June 5,2006 o Conditional uses:gasoline service stations; all other uses permitted or conditional in the RR district. o Permitted and conditional uses which include an approved gateway feature as defined by the Planning Commission and are located on a lot of at least 15, 000 SF shall be eligible for up to a maximum of 1.0 additional FAR as determined by the Planning Commission. o Prohibited uses: adult oriented businesses; massage, bathing or similar businesses; automobile wrecking,junkyards, storage, baling of scraps; conference and exhibition facilities; hotels and motels, living quarters and residential structures; outdoor storage or treatment of materials;gasoline service stations,personal services.. ➢ Use of drainage rights-of-ways (CS 25.44.060) o Permitted uses: Publicly owned and operated drainage facilities and improvements ;privately owned and operated electric transmission lines. o Conditional uses: supplemental parking for permitted or conditional uses in the district; storage for operable vehicles including automobiles and trucks; recreation vehicle and boat storage; outdoor storage related to immediately abutting uses; fencing; uses similar with frontage on a public street and which proposed use and siting meets all the requirements established by the city engineer. o Prohibited uses: all uses not listed as permitted or conditional in this section shall be prohibited, including but not limited to long term airport parking. ➢ Outdoor storage(CS 25.44.065) o Storage shall be paved, not located in requiring parking, aisles, driveways or landscaping. o Lots north of Mills Creek or with lot fronts on Rollins Road. No outdoor storage in front yard on any lot north of Mills Creek or with a lot front on Rollins Road. o Fencing. all outdoor storage shall be enclosed by an opaque of solid fence or wall 8' in height; if in side or rear of building or not visible from the street, fencing may be open. ➢ Design Review(CS 25.44.070) o Applied to all projects which are substantial construction or which change more than 50%of the front facade or any facade facing a public street or parking lot;processed as set out in the zoning code. o Six Criteria for design review based on the design guidelines in the Specific Plan o Awnings shall be included in design review ➢ Building Regulations. (CS 25.44.075) o Lot coverage: 70% o Maximum front setback and build-to line. ■ Rollins Road, North Carolan road, Ingold Road, Guittard Road and Broderick Road:front wall shall be set back 20 feet from the front property line and 60% of the structure shall be located at the front setback. ■ David road, Edwards Court, Marsten Road and North Carolan: front wall shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet. ■ Adrian Road and Adrian Court: front wall shall have a 0 foot setback and shall have a minimum of 20%of the building built at the zero setback line. o Rear setbacks: there shall be no rear setback requirements. ➢ Height Limitations. (CS 25.44.080) o Maximum height for structures is 60 feet. 5 ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June 5,2006 o Structures with lot fronts on Nerli Lane or Broadway shall have a maximum height of 75 feet. o Maximum heights are subject to limitation by the FAA. ➢ Minimum lot size and street frontage.(CS 25.44.080) o Minimum lot size of 10,000 SF and minimum street frontage of 50 feet. ➢ No variance for lot size and street frontage.(CS 25.44.095) ➢ Landscaping, creek access and fencing requirements.(CS 25.44.100) 0 10% of total property shall be landscaped; 0 60% of the front setback shall be landscaped, if 10% of total property is less than 60% of front setback, all landscaping shall be in the front; if 10% of the total property is more than 60%, the remaining landscaping shall be visible from the public street. o landscaping shall be outside of fenced areas and visible from the public right-of-way; o landscape plan shall be submitted for City Arborist approval when construction plans are submitted. o Fences. maximum of 8 feet. o Creek Access. Any parcel with frontage on Easton, Mills and El Portal creeks shall provide as apart of the on-site landscaping plan a public access trail along the top of bank for the portion of the creek bank on the site. Design shall be compliant with the Rollins Road Design District guidelines and Public Works requirements. ➢ Parking requirements. (CS 25.44.105) o All uses are subject to the standards in Ch 25.70 (parking) and such additional parking as may be required for conditional or permitted uses. ➢ Add New Definitions: 25.08.155 Building materials and garden supply store. "Building materials and garden supply store"means a retail or wholesale establishment that predominantly sells buildings materials,paint, wallpaper, glass,fixtures, lumber, nursery stock, lawn and garden supplies, electrical,plumbing, heating and air conditioning equipment and supplies, and building and construction tools. 25.08.077 Animal shelter or animal rescue center. "Animal shelter"or "animal rescue center"means . a facility operated by a government agency, societyfor the prevention of cruelty to animals, humane society, or rescue group providing services for stray, lost, injured or unwanted animals including treatment, regulated under Division 14 of the Food&Agriculture Code(sections 30500 to 32030). Such a use may include facilities for public education and training of volunteers, as well as facilities for the keeping of animals on site for a limited time. Note: Revision based on Council direction at March 29, 2006, study meeting, to see if the definition could be clarified so that it did not use as a criteria, profit or non-profit operation. The proposed definition is based on the definition used by the State of California as cited in the Food &Agriculture code. 6 ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June 5,2006 25.08.137 Boarding Kennel "Boarding Kennel"means any kennel where more than the number of animals allowed on a single site under title 9 of this code and owned by another person are temporarily boarded for pay or other compensation of any kind;provided, however, this definition shall not apply to zoos, animal shelters, animal rescue centers or veterinary hospitals. 25.08.666 Veterinary hospital. "Veterinary hospital"means an establishment for the care and treatment of the diseases and injuries of animals and where animals may be boarded during their convalescence; however, overnight care of said animals is not apart of veterinary hospital except when necessary in the medical treatment of the animal. Recommendations for addressing the issues raised by the City Council and Planning Commission: Following meetings of the Subcommittee on December 8, 2005, and January 24, 2006, the following solutions to the issues raised by Council and Commission were recommended by the Subcommittee. These recommendations were later endorsed by the Planning Commission in their action on February 27, 2006. A summary of the Subcommittee recommendations follows: Land Uses in the Rollins Road Industrial Area ➢ Add a new definition of Veterinary Hospital which removes "boarding and breeding" reference. Allow Veterinary Hospitals as a conditional use but add performance criteria requiring: all exercise areas inside, operation by a licensed veterinarian, sanitary standards, and odor control. A traffic study prepared by the city to compare trip generation numbers for various animal care facilities, show that there are measurable differences between the trip generation characteristics of various types of animal care facilities. Veterinary hospitals generate more a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic than commercial boarding kennels (e.g. 'doggie day care' ) facilities. Animal shelters generate less a.m./p.m. peak hour trips than either veterinary hospitals or commercial boarding kennels/ 'doggie day care', in part because they do not open until after the a.m. peak hours. Veterinary hospitals generated the most traffic in the a.m. peak hour. (See Fehr & Peers May 5, 2006, memo attached). ➢ Define and allow "Animal Shelters and Rescue Center" as a conditional use with performance criteria similar to veterinary hospitals. The use shall be defined as it is defined by the State in the Food & Agriculture code with the allowance of public education. training of volunteers and allowing animals to be housed on the site for a limited time. Performance criteria also address odor, noise, presence of an attendant 24 hours a day, and veterinarian supervision. A traffic study of trips generated by three types of animal care facilities indicates that Animal Shelters/Rescue centers generate the fewest trips of the three types of animal care facilities at p.m. peak hours, and no trips at a.m. peak hours because such facilities are not open until after the a.m. peak. (See Fehr & Peers May 5, 2006, memo attached). ➢ Define and prohibit "Commercial Boarding of Animals" and kennels which include breeding animals for sale. ➢ Clarified the performance criteria for "Large Scale Building Materials and Garden Supply Stores" with a maximum of 100,000 SF of indoor and outdoor display including any storage area and sales area 7 ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June 5,2006 combined. Performance criteria for this use make it a clear requirement that parking for all customers, loading and unloading of trucks, and parking for all employees must be provided on-site. This on site parking requirement along with the landscaping requirements will determine that the size of almost any operation will be below the maximum 100,000 SF allowed. Because of the available site sizes in the industrial area the space on site required for parking will limit the area available to be used for retail sales. Regarding the viable size of such businesses, it was noted that there is an emergence of a "boutique" large scale building materials and garden supply store which can be profitable at a size smaller than 100,000 SF. (See Santa Cruz Staff Report included in the Background Binder) Auto Row Overlay Zone ➢ Recommend that the properties fronting on Adrian Court be removed from the Auto Row Overlay area. These properties do not have frontage on US 101 so do not have the visibility of freeway exposure to encourage auto sales and many of these buildings are occupied by small tenants. This area seems to be most attractive for tenants engaged in industrial or related activities which would be allowed in industrial area, so having to get a conditional use permit would be a burden since the basic use of the Adrian Court area is not likely to change. Rollins Road Drain Area ➢ The recommendation for the Rollins Road Drain area is to clarify the permitted and conditional uses and add performance criteria for the selection of any other uses based on Public Works and Planning needs. Permitted uses are public drainage and private power lines. Conditional uses are defined as: supplemental parking for uses in the area; storage for operable vehicles including cars and trucks with keys retained on site and cars moved by appointment outside of a.m. and p.m. peak hours; recreational and boat storage; outdoor storage related to immediately adjacent uses; fencing; and uses similar in nature which meet all the performance criteria as determined by the City Engineer and Specific Plan. Long term airport parking is a prohibited use. The performance criteria added include: importance of the detention basin to control flooding and to providing habitat for rare and endangered species; a listing of the agencies which must provide permits and Federal regulations including NPDES for any use to be allowed; the requirement that any property proposed for a use in the drain must have approved access on a public street; and that the City Engineer must find that any use meets all the requirements set out by the Public Works Department. Southern Gateway Entrance ➢ Regarding incentives to providing a "gateway feature", the subcommittee recommended that if a parcel was at least 15,000 square feet and included a gateway feature acceptable to the Planning Commission (based on the design guidelines in the adopted plan), the user would be eligible for an additional FAR up to 1.0 with a conditional use permit. The amount of the additional FAR would be dependent upon the quality of the gateway feature and its compliance with the adopted design guidelines for the Southern Gateway Entrance area. The quality and compliance with the design guidelines would be determined by the Planning Commission. ➢ For land uses, the recommendation is that the Southern Gateway Entrance be made an overlay zone, with the permitted uses being office uses, automobile dealerships, commercial recreation (except theaters). However, the land use base was expanded to allow, as conditional uses, any of the uses allowed in the adjacent industrial area. This is the same provision used in the Auto Row overlay zone. (This action would require an amendment to the Specific Plan/General Plan.) 8 ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June S,2006 ➢ The Subcommittee recommended that "pedestrian oriented" retail uses like those in the Broadway Commercial Area not be allowed in the Southern Gateway Entrance area . Their recommendation was based on the following: the heavy traffic volume in the area, the difficult access to many of these properties given the high volume of traffic and the current service level of the Broadway/Rollins Road intersection in the a.m. and p.m. peak traffic hours; and the separation of the area by the railroad from the Broadway Commercial district which would impact pedestrian safety. Together these factors make the gateway entrance properties an "unfriendly" environment for high levels of pedestrian activity and "pedestrian oriented" retail uses which encourage foot traffic. ➢ Reference to intersection capacity limitations and ascendance of the traffic analyzer, both community standards cited in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, were removed from the Southern Gateway Entrance Overlay requirements because they were determined to be duplications with CEQA requirements. Responses to comments received at Introduction of the proposed Rollins Road zoning regulations (Mav 15, 2006): Issues raised in public comments at Introduction were as follows. Each comment is followed by a staff response. ❖ Concern about dangerous traffic problems which occur on Rollins Road between Broadway and Millbrae daily. (Albert Guibarar letter May 15, 2006, 1400 Rollins Road, attached) Staff note: As a part of the background work for preparing the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Fehr&Peers prepared a trip generation (a.m. and p.m. peak hour) study for the Rollins Road area at plan build out conditions. (Draft Report, North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, Transportation Impact Analysis, Chapter IV Plan Buildout Conditions, Fehr&Peers, date stamped October 8, 2003.) In this chapter of the report the transportation related impacts of the implementation of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan are addressed, specifically estimates of changes to area trip genration, the resulting trip generation and their assignment to the roadway network. After reviewing the preferred land use changes (based on the land use plan adopted for the entire planning area), the traffic engineers concluded that "the Preferred Alternative would result in an overall net trip reduction". In the a.m. peak hour there would be a reduction of 575 inbound trips and 13 outbound trips for a total reduction of 589 trips. During the evening peak hour, the preferred alternative would reduce study area trip generation by 219 inbound trips and 482 outbound trips for a total reduction of 699 trips. For trip distribution on Rollins Road to determine intersection impact , the north, central and southern parts of Rollins Road were looked at. According to the results of the trip generation analysis, all intersections that operate at LOS E or F under Backgound Conditions (considered unacceptable operations by the cities of Burlingame and Millbrae) are expected to experience a reduction in overall traffic volume under conditions with the preferred alternative. This is reasonable given that the land use changes with the preferred alternative are expected to result in a net trip reduction. The conclusion of this report is that implementation of the land uses proposed in the plan based on those land uses existing and allowed in the M-1 district, which is the base for the proposed Rollins Road zoning, will in fact reduce the traffic generated in the Rollins Road area and not make the critical intersection at Broadway/Rollin Road any worse. 9 ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June 5,2006 ❖ Request that CS 25.44.055 (d) (1) (2) related to potential traffic impacts at Rollins Road/Broadway intersection be deleted. (Robert Lanzone letter, May 12, 2006, re: 1206-1220 Rollins Road) Staff Note: this section was deleted because the requirement will be applied to each development through the environmental review process based on the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the community standards adopted in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. ❖ Can a Building Materials and Garden Supply Store be located in the Southern Gateway Entrance Overlay area. (Robert Lanzone letter, May 12, 2006, re: 1206-1220 Rollins Road) Staff Note: Yes, a building materials and supply store can be located in the Southern Gateway Entrance overlay area with a conditional use permit. Building Materials and Garden Supply Stores are not a permitted use in the Southern Gateway Entrance overlay area, but all uses allowed in the industrial area adjacent are underlying and can be located in the area with a conditional use permit providing they meet the development requirements for the area established in the zoning and Specific Plan and are approved by the Planning Commission. ❖ Do "building materials and garden supply" stores include "building materials" only, such as plumbing supplies, electrical supplies, lighting fixtures and supplies e.g. individual sale of anything that could be sold at a small "Home Depot" or "Ace Hardware"? (Robert Lanzone letter, May 12, 2006, re: 1206-1220 Rollins Road) Staff Note: "Building Materials and Garden Supply Stores" are defined specifically in the proposed zoning as: "Building materials and garden supply store" means a retail or wholesale establishment that predominantly sells building materials, paint, wallpaper, glass, fixtures, lumber, nursery stock, lawn and garden supplies, electrical, plumbing, heating, and air conditioning equipment and supplies, and building and construction tools." (CS 25,08.155 proposed) Clearly the building materials business is intended to support the local construction industry as a lumber yard would; a retail discount/wholesale bulk merchandise use is not included in this definition. One reason for focusing on building materials and garden supply stores exclusively is that traffic studies indicate that Home Improvement stores generate a little more than half the amount of p.m. trips as a free standing discount store. The definition proposed makes it clear that a Building Materials and Garden Supply store would sell a "combination of products" all related to construction, not a single item. So a definition of"building materials" does not appear to be necessary. However, if the council feels it necessary to add a definition of 'building materials'to the code you might consider the following: "Building materials" means materials that are used by contractors and builders to construct a structure and that are incorporated into the actual structure in such a way as to become an integral part of the structure. Examples of building materials are concrete, lumber, conduit, wiring, pipe, sheetrock and insulation." Should the Council wish to add a definition for "Building Materials", the action should be taken by a separate ordinance so that the Council can proceed with applying the currently proposed provisions to implement the Specific Plan. 10 ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June 5,2006 Finally it should be noted that in the proposed Rollins Road zoning district retail sales and display areas accessory to a permitted use, interior to a building are allowed with performance criteria including limits on hours of operation, size (5,000 SF), and no generation of noise or vibration at property line. A good example of this accessory use is the Wolf Appliance site on Rollins Road which is a distribution warehouse which has a display area for wholesalers only; retail sales to walk-in customers are prohibited from this site. ❖ Can retail sales such as mattresses, home videos, computers, be allowed on the property at 1206-1220 Rollins Road if the sales area was limited to 5,000 SF. (Robert Lanzone letter, May 12, 2006, re: 1206-1220 Rollins Road) Staff Note: The answer is no. Free standing retail sales not accessory to a permitted use such as warehouse distribution, even if limited to 5,000 SF, cannot occur on the property at 1206-1220 Rollins Road, as the proposed zoning is presently written. ❖ Based on the proposed zoning, can the Peninsula Humane Society locate in the Rollins Road area? (Lawrence Pelzner, e-mail, to Cathy Baylock, May 11, 2006; Barbara Nagata, e-mail, to City Council, May 9, 2006; Miyuki Yokoyama, e-mail, to Cathy Baylock, May 12, 2006) ❖ The presence of animal shelters may likely preclude further industrial development and investment in the immediate area out of concern that such uses are inconsistent and incompatible with the activities of an animal shelter vs. trucking. (David T. Moutoux, letter March 29, 2006) Staff Note: The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan is based on the City's General Plan adopted in 1969 and the existing M-1 zoning district which implements the General Plan. The adopted Specific Plan elaborates on direction of the General Plan by adding design guidelines and identifying specific subareas within the industrial area to better accomplish the current development objectives of the city. These specific subareas are identified on the land use map, zoning map and zoning ordinance as the overlay areas. The directives of the General Plan are implemented by the current M-1 (light industrial) district which provides the specific interpretation of the generalize land use designation "Industrial & Office". The proposed Rollins Road zoning regulations begin with the M-1 district regulations. In the M-1 district Veterinary Hospitals are allowed as a conditional use with specific performance criteria(all animal care activity is within a structure, noise level is not increased at property line by more than 5 dBA 1,10; no animal is kept over night without an attendant present). Since the M-1 zoning is recognized as implementing and being consistent with the General Plan, veterinary hospitals are a use which is consistent with the industrial uses allowed in the General Plan. Since the Specific Plan did not exclude veterinary hospitals from the land use plan and since the Specific Plan which was adopted as being both consistent with and a part of the General Plan, veterinary hospital continues to be a conditional use, with performance limitations, that is included in the industrial area. When the Peninsula Humane Society expressed interest in locating their domestic and native animal Care and Concern center in the Rollins Road area they asked the Planning Commission for a determination whether their proposed use was a " commercial or industrial use similar in nature to a permitted or conditional use in this (M-1) district". The Planning Commission found that the PHS/SPCA use as proposed was "similar to" a veterinary hospital, and therefore consistent with the industrial area uses, with performance criteria applied. The performance criteria requirements insure that the use will integrate with other uses in the industrial area. Performance criteria are also required of manufacturing uses, car rental uses, and accessory retail uses in both the current M-1 and proposed Rollins Road zoning districts. Further it should be noted that commercial recreation uses have been a long standing, accepted conditional use in the M-1 (light industrial) district with the General Plan and incorporated into the 11 ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June S,2006 community's understanding of'industrial uses'. Included in the animal shelter/animal rescue center use is the opportunity for public education and the training of volunteers which is an activity similar in nature and function to a commercial recreation activity. A survey of Bay Area cities also shows that animal shelters are common uses in industrial areas with no apparent problems. Traffic impacts of uses in the Rollins Road area have been raised as both distinguishing characteristics and as presenting potential impacts on existing industrial and related uses in the area. A trip generation study was prepared for the Specific Plan to determine the overall impacts of build out in the planning area. A trip generation study was also prepared for animal related uses which are similar to veterinary hospitals: commercial boarding kennels and animal shelter/rescue centers. The conclusion of the trip generation study for the planning area was that at build out of the planned land uses the trip generation at a.m. and p.m. peak hours would actually be reduced. The evaluation of a.m. and p.m. trip generation for animal related uses which could locate in the industrial area was that the most a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips per 1000 SF, were generated by veterinary hospitals and the least by animal shelters/rescue centers. Commercial boarding kennels can generate more trips than veterinary hospitals, depending upon how they are operated. Evening peak trip generation for a veterinary hospital is about equal to that of auto repair or a medical office building. Evening peak trip generation for an animal shelter/rescue center is a more than an R&D center and less than new auto sales business. The commercial boarding kennel's p.m. peak trip generation is closer to that of a specialty retail use, and a use that is less consistent with the nature of the industrial area. Based on the available date it can be concluded that the trip's generated by a veterinary hospital and animal shelter/rescue center are within the ranges of the a.m. and p.m. trips generated by other uses allowed in the industrial area. Further because the total trips generated in the planning area in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, after build out according to the plan, will be less than the trips currently generated in the planning area and these uses will not reverse that situation; at least two of the animal care uses, veterinary hospital and animal shelter/rescue center, based on traffic impacts are consistent with the industrial uses presently located in and projected for the Rollins Road area. ❖ Staff draws a distinction between animal shelters/rescue centers and commercial boarding kennels based on their traffic generating characteristics which is in appropriate and should conclude that both uses are inconsistent with the industrial uses. (David T. Moutoux, letter March 29, 2006) Staff Note: The Fehr and Peers Animal Care Trip Generation study documents that based on trip generation the animal shelter/rescue center has far less impact on the industrial area, in part because such facilities do not open to the public until after the a.m. peak hour. While patrons of commercial boarding kennels (Doggie Day Care), arrive in large numbers at the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The study indicated that the extent of the impact of commercial boarding kennels on a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic varies substantially based on the way they operate and their size; however, the average impact of the two facilities examined was larger than that of an animal shelter/rescue center, but not larger than that of a veterinary hospital. ❖ A meaningless distinction is drawn in the zoning text between non-profit and for-profit kennels. ❖ The proposed zoning change (25.08.077) allowing non-profit animal shelters in the Rollins Road area is at odds with the primary goals and plans for this area. (David T. Moutoux, letter March 29, 2006) Staff Note: The definition of animal shelter/rescue center has been revised so that it is now based on the California Department of Food and Agriculture code definition of animal shelter and rescue center. No longer is there a distinction between the profit character of the operation. This definition recognizes that all communities area obligated to shoulder their responsibilities to provide public services. 12 ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June 5,2006 25.08.077 Animal shelter or animal rescue center. "Animal shelter" or "animal rescue center" means a facility operated by a government agency, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, humane society, or rescue group providing services for stray, lost, injured or unwanted animals including treatment, regulated under Division 14 of the Food &Agriculture Code (sections 30500 to 32030). Such a use may include facilities for public education and training of volunteers, as well as facilities for the keeping of animals on site for a limited time. This is the definition which was included in the draft of the ordinance introduced by the City Council at their May 15, 2006, meeting. Further as is discussed above veterinary hospitals and commercial recreation uses have been established as being consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan since its adoption in 1969. The proposed Specific Plan is a "window" in the General Plan, providing more detail for implementation but essentially consistent with the adopted General Plan. The M-1 zoning district has been found consistent with the General Plan and been used to implemented the General Plan for the Rollins Road area since 1969; and the proposed Rollins Road zoning is based on the M-1 district regulations including the allowance of veterinary hospitals, commercial recreation and uses found to be similar to permitted or conditional use in that zone including animal shelters and animal rescue centers. (See discussions above). Finally, the goals and policies of a plan set the broad parameters of the community's development objectives. Goals and policies are not required to be consistent, but concepts to weigh in making a decision. While one objective of planning is to meet community needs both for producing a revenue base, there are other community objectives as well, to meet the social needs and to support the values of the community. The policies set out in the General Plan and the Specific Plan amendment must be weighed against the needs of all three. It is up to the City Council, as the elected representatives of the community to make a final determination about the consistency of any land use with the goals and policy objectives of General Plan and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. ATTACHMENTS: Map: Rollins Road Zoning District Map, amendment to Zoning District Map Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt the Rollins Road (RR)District Annotated Rollins Road(RR) District Regulations PC Minutes February 27, 2006 Larry Anderson, City Attorney, Memo to City Council, Amendment to Definition of Animal Shelter and Animal Rescue Facility, April 20, 2006. Fehr&Peers, Greg Saur and Chris Mitchel, Memo to Meg Monroe, Animal Care Trip Generation, May 5 2006 Transportation Impact Analysis, North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, Chapter IV. Plan Buildout Conditions, Fehr&Peers, pages 20-28, August 2003 Larry Anderson, City Attorney, Memo to City Council, Commercial Parking Facility Tax and Its Application to Storage Businesses Items from the public handed in at the March 29, 2006 City Council Study Meeting Map showing property owners that object to the SPCA and any type of boarding of animals. David Moutoux, letter, March 29,2006, to City Council, re: proposed zoning changes allowing animal rescue centers in the Rollins Road Corridor. MTI Properties, letter March 29, 2006, re: proposed zoning changes with attachments of earlier submitted letters in opposition to animal boarding facilities. Items from the public handed in at the May 15, 2006, City Council Introduction Bob Lanzone, letter, May 12, 2006, to City council, re: Rollins Road District Rezoning Property: 950 Broadway and 1206-1220 Rollins Road. David Moutoux, letter May 15, 2006, re: Agenda item 8b, Regular City Council Meeting of May 15, 2006 13 ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June 5,2006 Albert Guibara, letter May 15, 2006, to City Council with photos attached Barbara Nagata, 1426 Capuchino Avenue, e-mail re: PHS/SPCA, May 9, 2006 Lawrence Pelzner, 849 Hinckley Road#120, e-mail, re: PHS proposed new site, May 11, 2006 Miyuki Yokoyama, e-mail, re: PHS, May 12, 2006 Notice of Public Hearing, published in San Mateo Times, May 20, 2006 Also refer to Rollins Road section of the Background Binder. 14 I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME 3 AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ADOPT THE ROLLINS ROAD (RR)DISTRICT 4 Section 1. In 2004,the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan 5 to guide development and use of the northern portion of the City. Among the subareas in the Plan is the 6 Rollins Road area, which includes a variety of uses and lot sizes. This ordinance implements the 7 Specific Plan for this subarea. This chapter replaces the M-1 District regulations,which had boundaries 8 that generally coincided with the new RR District. 9 10 Section 2. Chapter 25.44 is amended to read as follows: 11 Chapter 25.44 12 ROLLINS ROAD (RR)DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sections: 13 25.44.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 25.44.020 Permitted uses. 14 25.44.030 Conditional uses. 25.44.040 Prohibited uses. 15 25.44.050 Special requirements for the automobile sales and service overlay area. 25.44.055 Special requirements for the entrance to the southern gateway entrance overlay area. 16 25.44.060 Use of drainage rights-of-ways. 25.44.065 Outdoor storage. 17 25.44.070 Design review. 25.44.075 Building Regulations. 18 25.44.080 Height limitations. 25.44.090 Minimum lot size and street frontage. 19 25.44.095 No variance for lot size and street frontage 25.44.100 Landscaping, creek access and fence requirements. 20 25.44.105 Parking space requirements and special parking requirements. 21 22 25.44.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 23 The following regulations shall apply in all RR districts and shall be subject to all other 24 provisions of this title relating to RR districts. It is the purpose and policy of this chapter to implement 25 the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan by establishing in the Rollins Road area a vital 26 industrial center for the Burlingame community and the mid-peninsula. The Rollins Road area lies 27 between US 101 and the CalTrain railroad tracks,the City Boundary ofMillbrae and Broadway. Future 28 development in the area should build on good access to mass transit for workers and employers, 511512006 1 ROLLINS ROAD I incorporating daytime amenities for area workers and encouraging new development which enhances 2 Burlingame's industrial,heavy service and employment base. Fundamental to the planned character of 3 the Rollins Road area is the development of distinct gateway entrances which are supported by safe and 4 attractive pedestrian and bicycle access and roadway facilities throughout the area which balance the 5 needs of employee access,service vehicles,and business operations. The zoning regulations establish 6 and maintain all areas designated as RR district to provide space for warehouse, distribution, and 7 manufacturing uses;to provide opportunity for a centralized area for automobile sales and service with 8 reasonable access and optimum visibility from US 101; to provide areas for commercial and service 9 uses; to encourage other similar uses which are supported by access to San Francisco International 10 Airport; and to discourage uses, buildings and structures which are incompatible with the intended 11 character of the district. 12 13 25.44.020 Permitted uses. 14 The following uses are permitted in the RR district: 15 (a) Air courier,delivery,or other trans-shipment services,including freight forwarding,which: 16 (1)Provide on-site parking for all company vehicles dispatched from the site and for vehicles 17 of employees working on the premises; and 18 (2)Provide adequate on-site space for loading and unloading goods, equipment and materials. 19 (b) Ambulance services, including dispatch, day rooms, and parking for all company vehicles 20 dispatched or stored on the site and vehicles of employees working on the premises. 21 (c)Automobile and truck repair, service and body shops,wholesale or retail,which are: 22 (1)Located south of Easton Creek; and 23 (2) Provide on-site parking for all vehicles being serviced and for vehicles of all employees 24 working on the premises. 25 (d) Any light industrial or manufacturing use,including associated laboratories,such as but not 26 limited to electronic,biotechnology, furniture,pharmaceutical, and printing,which: 27 (1)Is conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building with a floor area ratio of no more 28 than 0.5; and 5/15/2006 2 ROLLINS ROAD 1 (2) Does not increase noise at property line by more than 5 dBA L,o; and 2 (3)Does not generate vibrations which can be felt off the site and which will have no increased 3 effect on pernvssible adjacent uses; and 4 (4) Is conducted in such a manner so as to preclude any nuisance, hazard, or commonly 5 recognized offensive and obnoxious conditions or characteristics from odors detectable at the property 6 line or off the site. 7 (e)Incidental food establishments within a multi-use building which meet all of the following 8 requirements: 9 (1)Are not the primary use of the building or structure; and 10 (2)Are open no earlier than five(5:00)a.m.and close no later than seven(7:00)p.m.,and open 11 Monday through Saturday only; and 12 (3)Have a maximum size of one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet; and 13 (4)Are at least fifteen(15) feet in length and fifteen(15) feet in width; and 14 (5)Provide parking of at least one (1)space per three hundred(300) gross square feet. 15 (f) Laboratory and clean room facilities for research,testing, or creating products and goods. 16 (g)Office uses,but only in conjunction with and for the sole support of a permitted,non-office 17 use occurring on the same lot, where the office use does not exceed twenty-five(25)percent of gross 18 floor area of the buildings on the lot, and parking is provided on-site to code requirements. 19 (h) Outdoor storage of materials which is an accessory use to a permitted use and which meets 20 the requirements of section 25.44.065 below. 21 1 (i) Rental and leasing of goods and equipment conducted wholly within an enclosed building, 22 with no associated outdoor display or storage areas in the front yard where goods,equipment,or stored 23 supplies are visible from the street. 24 0) Service businesses,including but not limited to janitorial and contractors,and other support 25 services,but not including personal services,which: 26 1 (1) Provide on-site parking for all company vehicles dispatched from the site and vehicles of 27 employees working on the premises; and 28 (2)Provide adequate on-site space for loading and unloading goods, equipment and materials. 6115/2006 3 ROLLINS ROAD I (k)Warehousing,storage,and distribution of goods,materials,liquids,and equipment conducted 2 wholly within an enclosed building with a floor area ratio not to exceed 0.5. 3 (0 Accessory uses which are necessary for the permitted uses under this section. 4 (m)Retail sales and display areas as an accessory use to a permitted use,interior to a building 5 only,with the following additional requirements: 6 (1)The hours of operation are between six (6:00) a.m. to nine(9:00)p.m. only; and 7 (2) Retail display area is limited to a maximum of 5,000 square feet; and 8 (3)No sale of alcoholic beverages; and 9 (4)Does not increase noise at property line by more than 5 dBA 1,10 ; and 10 (5)Does not generate vibrations which can be felt off the site and which will have no increased 11 effect on permissible adjacent uses. 12 13 25.44.030 Conditional uses. 14 The following are uses requiring a conditional use permit: 15 (a) Industrial uses with a floor area ratio not to exceed 1.0; 16 (b) Air courier,delivery,or other transshipment services,including trucking which do not meet 17 the requirements for permitted uses. 18 (c) Automobile rental businesses,including rental of recreation vehicles and trucks,which meet 19 the following minimum standards: 20 (1) The use is the sole tenant and only occupant of any building or area on the site; 21 (2) The site is a minimum size of seven-tenths (0.7)of an acre; 22 (3)Parking is provided on-site for storage of at least twenty-five(25)percent of the cars rented 23 monthly,based on a annual average for the site; 24 (4)Parking is provided on-site for all employees and customers; and 25 (5)The use meets all the other requirements of development in the district,including peak hour 26 trip generation at critical intersections as defined in the city's traffic analyzer. 27 (d) Automobile dealerships that are wholly enclosed within a warehouse structure with no 28 outdoor vehicle display areas; 5/15/2006 4 ROLLINS ROAD I (e)Automobile storage for car rental businesses provided the following requirements are met: 2 (1)Vehicles shall not be moved during a.m.and p.m.peak hour traffic periods as defined by the 3 city engineer; and 4 (2)Minimum site size of seven-tenths(0.7)of an acre; and 5 (3)The storage area is enclosed with an opaque fence or wall eight(8)feet in height at a location 6 approved by the Public Works Department. 7 (f)Building materials and garden supply stores, which: 8 (1) Have no more than 100,000 square feet of indoor floor area, outdoor storage display, and 9 sales areas combined; and 10 (2) Have paved, on-site parking based on retail sales requirements of chapter 25.70 and for all 11 indoor and outdoor retail sales areas,adequate area on-site for maneuvering,parking,and unloading of 12 trucks,and employees who will be on-site at one time. 13 (g)Technical schools with training related to the permitted and conditional uses in the Rollins 14 Road district with parking as required by chapter 25.70. 15 (h) Commercial recreation, including health clubs and gymnasiums, with on-site parking. 16 (i) Health services and medical clinics whose primary function is to support businesses in the 17 RR district. 18 10) Food establishments in multiuse buildings which do not meet the requirements of section 19 25.44.020(e)above. 20 (k) Motor freight terminals whose site development meets the following requirements: 21 (1)Provide on-site parking for all company vehicles dispatched from the site and for vehicles 22 of employees working on the premises; and 23 (2)Provide adequate on-site space for loading and unloading goods, equipment and materials. 24 (1) Office uses limited to supporting only a permitted or conditional uses on the same site and 25 that exceed twenty-five(25)percent of the gross floor area of buildings on a lot,but only where parking 26 is available on-site to code requirements. 27 (m)Outdoor storage of rental or leased equipment which is a primary use of a lot located in the 28 RR district between Easton Creek and Broadway, and which meets the requirements of section 5/75/2006 5 ROLLINS ROAD 1 25.44.065 below. 2 (n) Outdoor storage or treatment of materials which is not an accessory use to a permitted use, 3 but which meets the requirements of section 25.44.065 below. 4 (o) Retail sales and display areas as an accessory use to a permitted or conditional use,interior 5 to a building only, if the retail use will: 6 (1) Operate beyond the hours of six(6:00)a.m. to nine(9:00)p.m.; or 7 (2) Sell alcoholic beverages in containers. 8 Any such conditional use shall be conditioned on the retail use conforming to all of the other 9 requirements for retail sales and display areas of section 25.44.020 above. 10 (p)Veterinary hospitals where: 11 (1)All animal care activity,including necessary exercise and educational programs,is contained 12 within a structure; and 13 (2)The business is operated by a licensed veterinarian and all sanitary standards established by 14 the State and all local requirements as approved by the city engineer are met on the site;and 15 (3) The noise level is not increased at property line by more than 5 dBA L,o; and 16 (4) The business is conducted in such a manner so as to preclude any nuisance, hazard, or 17 commonly recognized offensive and obnoxious conditions or characteristics from odors detectable at 18 the property line or off the site. 19 (q) Animal shelter or animal rescue centers where: 20 (1) All animal care activity, including necessary exercise and educational programs, is 21 contained within a structure,except for aviaries which may be exterior to the structure,but which shall 22 be fully enclosed with mesh as commonly used in zoos; and 23 (2)Animal care is overseen by a licensed veterinarian and all sanitary standards established by 24 the State and all local requirements as approved by the City Engineer,are met on the site; and 25 (3) The noise level is not increased at property line by more than 5 dBA L10 ; and 26 (4) No animal is kept on the site longer than allowed in the conditions of approval,unless there 27 is a specific medical need for longer term care,and the maximum density established by the conditions 28 of approval is maintained; and 5/75/2006 6 ROLLINS ROAD 1 (5) An attendant is present on the site twenty four hours a day; and 2 (6)All activity on the site is conducted in such a manner so as to preclude any nuisance,hazard, 3 or commonly recognized offensive and obnoxious conditions or characteristics from odors detectable 4 at the property line or off the site. 5 (r)Living quarters in association with a permitted or conditional use,but only to be used by a 6 night watchman or to provide security for the site; 7 (s) Structures over thirty-five(35) feet in height. 8 (t)Any structure or structures that cover more than sixty(60)percent of the lot. 9 (u)Accessory uses which are necessary for the conditional uses under this section. 10 (v) Retail sales as an accessory use to a warehouse use wholly enclosed within a structure for 11 specialty providers with a single product line for the construction industry, such as but not limited to 12 plumbing fixtures, tile outlets,paint stores. 13 (w) Accessory uses related to a permitted use which requires outdoor treatment or processing 14 of materials shall meet the following additional requirements; 15 (1)Is adequately screened from view from the street with an opaque eight(8)foot fence; and 16 (2)Is not located in the front yard of the property. 17 (x)Any commercial or industrial use similar in nature to a permitted or conditional use in this 18 or the Inner Bayshore(IB)district. 19 20 25.44.040 Prohibited uses. 21 All uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited, including: 22 (a)Adult oriented businesses; 23 (b)Massage,bathing, or similar establishments; 24 (c)Automobile sales lots; 25 (d)Automobile wrecking,junk yards,storage or baling of scraps,paper,rags,sacks or metals; 26 (e)Conference and exhibition facilities; 27 (f)Hotels and motels; 28 (g) Living quarters and residential structures, except as specifically provided in subsection 5/15/2006 7 ROLLINS ROAD I 25.44.030(q); 2 (h)Outdoor storage or treatment of materials in required parking or in landscaping in the front 3 setback; 4 (i) Gasoline service stations; 5 0)Personal services; and 6 (k)Kennels. 7 8 25.44.050 Special requirements for the automobile sales and service overlay area 9 Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter,within the Automobile Sales and Service 10 Overlay Area designated in Ordinance No._as amended, the following use regulations apply: 11 (a)Permitted uses. Only the following uses are permitted in the Automobile Sales and Service 12 Overlay Area: 13 (1)Automobile dealerships and automobile sales lots,which include the following: 14 (A)A minimum site size of five(5)acres; and 15 (B) A floor area ratio of not more than 0.15. 16 (2) Automobile repair,both minor and major,which: 17 (A) Provide on-site storage for all cars being repaired on-site; and 18 (B) Provide on-site parking for all vehicles being serviced and for vehicles of all 19 employees working on the premise; and 20 (C) Have a floor area ratio of not more than 0.5 . 21 (3) Automobile rental, including rental of recreational vehicles and trucks, which meet the 22 following minimum standards: 23 (A) The use is the sole tenant and only occupant of any building or area on the site;and 24 (B) The site is a minimum size of seven-tenths(0.7)of an acre; and 25 (C) Parking is provided on site for storage of at least twenty-five(25)percent of the cars 26 rented monthly,based on an annual average for the site; and 27 (D) Parking is provided on site for all employees and customers; and 28 (E) The use meets all the other requirements of development in the district, including 5/75/2006 8 ROLLINS ROAD I peak hour trip generation at critical intersections as defined in the city's traffic analyzer. 2 (b) Conditional uses. The following are uses requiring a conditional use permit: 3 (1) Any exception to a performance standard listed in subsection (a) above for an automobile 4 dealership, automobile sales lot,or automobile repair,both major and minor; and 5 (2) All other uses that are permitted or conditional in sections 25.44.020 and 25.44.030 shall be 6 conditional uses in the Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area except as provided in subsection 7 (c)below. 8 (c) Prohibited uses. All uses not listed as permitted or conditional in this section shall be 9 prohibited in the Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area, including but not limited to: 10 (a)Adult oriented businesses; I 1 (b)Massage,bathing,or similar establishments; 12 (c)Automobile wrecking,junk yards, storage or baling of scraps,paper,rags,sacks or metals; 13 (d) Conference and exhibition facilities; 14 (e) Hotels and motels; 15 (f) Living quarters and residential structures, except as specifically provided in subsection 16 25.44.030(17); 17 (g)Outdoor storage or treatment of materials in required parking or in landscaping in the front 18 setback; 19 (h)Gasoline service stations; and 20 (i)Personal services. 21 22 25.44.055 Special requirements for the southern gateway entrance overlay area.. 23 Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, within the Southern Gateway Entrance 24 Overlay Area designated in Ordinance No.—as amended, the following use regulations apply: 25 (a) Permitted uses. Only the following uses are permitted in the Southern Gateway Entrance 26 Overlay Area: 27 (1) Office uses with a floor area ratio not to exceed 1.0; 28 (2) Automobile dealers and dealerships with a floor area ratio not to exceed 1.0;and 5/1512006 9 ROLLINS ROAD 1 (3) Commercial recreation facilities,other than theaters,with a floor area ratio not to exceed 1.0 2 and with all activity conducted inside a building. 3 (b)Conditional uses. Only the following uses are allowed with a conditional use permit in the 4 Southern Gateway Entrance Overlay Area: 5 (1)Gasoline service stations; 6 (2) All other uses that are permitted or conditional in sections 25.44.020 and 25.44.030 above 7 except as specifically prohibited in subsection (c)below. 8 (3) All permitted and conditional uses that include an approved gateway feature as defined by 9 the Planning Commission and located on a parcel of at least fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet shall 10 be eligible for up to a maximum of 1.0 additional floor area ratio,provided the Planning Commission 11 finds that the gateway feature included in the project complies with the adopted design guidelines.The 12 amount of the 1.0 bonus floor area ratio approved shall be dependent upon the sufficiency of the 13 proposed gateway feature in distinguishing the entrance to the Rollins Road industrial area which shall 14 be determined by the Planning Commission during the design review process. 15 (c)Prohibited uses. All uses not listed as permitted or conditional uses in this section shall be 16 prohibited in the Southern Gateway Entrance Overlay Area, including but not limited to: 17 (1)Adult oriented businesses; 18 (2)Massage,bathing, or similar establishments; 19 (3)Automobile wrecking,junk yards,storage or baling of scraps,paper,rags, sacks or metals; 20 (4)Conference and exhibition facilities; 21 (5) Hotels and motels; 22 (6) Living quarters and residential structures, except as specifically provided in subsection 23 25.44.030(q); and 24 (7)Outdoor storage or treatment of materials in required parking or in landscaping in the front 25 setback. 26 27 28 H 5/15/2006 10 ROLLINS ROAD 1 25.44.060 Use of drainage rights-of-ways. 2 Because of the importance of the Rollins Road drain as a detention basin to prevent flooding in 3 the industrial area and its importance in providing habitat for rare and endanger species no use which 4 will impact these functions of the drain will be considered and only the following uses, with a 5 conditional use permit, environmental review, full compliance with National Pollution Discharge 6 Elimination requirements, city encroachment permits approved by the city engineer, hold harmless 7 agreement in favor of the city,permits from Pacific Gas &Electric Company or its successor, and all 8 required State and Federal permits,shall be allowed within the drainage right-of-ways from the southern 9 boundary of Millsdale Industrial Park Number 5 Subdivision north to the city boundary: 10 (a)Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the drainage right of way: 11 (1)Publicly owned and operated drainage facilities and improvements; and 12 (2)Privately owned and operated electric transmission lines. 13 (b) Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted in the drainage right of way with a 14 conditional use permit; 15 (1) Supplemental parking for permitted or conditional uses in the district; 16 (2) Storage for operable vehicles including automobiles and trucks provided the following 17 requirements are met: 18 (A) Vehicles must be in operable condition and must be managed at all times by a single, 19 responsible person with access to the keys for all vehicles,; and 20 (B) Vehicles shall be moved by appointment only and shall not be moved during a.m.and p.m. 21 peak hour traffic periods as defined by the City Engineer; and 22 (C) Minimum site size of.7 acres; and 23 (D) Site has approved access to a public street; and 24 (E) No customers shall visit the site; 25 (3) Recreation vehicle and boat storage as long as vehicles are not moved during a.m.and p.m. 26 peak hour traffic periods as defined by the City Traffic Engineer; 27 (4) Outdoor storage related to immediately abutting uses which are permitted or conditional in 28 the district; 5/15/2006 11 ROLLINS ROAD 1 (5) Fencing; 2 (6) Uses similar in nature to those allowed in this section on a site with frontage on a public 3 street and which proposed use and siting meets all the requirements established by the city engineer. 4 (c) Prohibited uses. All uses not listed as permitted or conditional in this section shall be 5 prohibited in the drainage right-of-ways,including but not limited to long term airport parking. 6 7 25.44.065 Outdoor storage. 8 Outdoor storage in the RR district shall be subject to the following requirements: 9 (a) The storage area shall be paved and shall not be located in required parking, aisles, 10 driveways, or landscaping. 11 (b) Lots located north of Mills Creek or with lot fronts on Rollins Road. No outdoor storage 12 shall be placed in the front yard of any lot located north of Mills Creek or with a lot front on Rollins 13 Road. 14 (c)Fencing. All outdoor storage shall be fully enclosed by either an opaque or solid fence or 15 wall eight(8)feet in height or by buildings,or a combination of fencing and buildings. However,if the 16 outdoor storage area is located at the sides or rear of a building on a lot that is located south of Mills 17 Creek, and the outdoor storage area is not visible from a public street, the eight(8)foot fence or wall 18 may be of an open design. 19 20 25.44.070 Design review. 21 Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50) 22 percent of the front fagade or change to more than fifty(50)percent of any fagade facing a public or 23 private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the 24 Rollins Road Design District in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and shall be processed 25 as provided in chapter 25.57. 26 (a) A design review application in the RR district shall be reviewed by the planning commission 27 for the following considerations: 28 5/75/2006 12 ROLLINS ROAD 1 (1) Architectural design and siting of structures which supports the light industrial, 2 manufacturing and job creating land uses of the Rollins Road subarea as adopted in the North 3 Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan with the focus on creating positive streets for safe vehicular, 4 bicycle and pedestrian use interfacing with appropriately scaled development. 5 (2) Create an appropriate form, shape and scaled interface between the vehicular,bicycle and 6 pedestrian uses of the street and the buildings and their uses along the public realm,including attention 7 to the pattern of landscaping,physical identification of the site and building entrances;the design should 8 be architecturally compatible with the surrounding development and consistent with the design 9 guidelines and development of structures in the Rollins Road subarea. 10 (3) Throughout the Rollins Road subarea, except for the special considerations for the area 11 I designated for Auto Row, design of all structures should incorporate articulation on the building facade 12 including elements which emphasize appropriate scale and relate to human form,entrances should be 13 clearly announced and oriented toward the street,a variety of materials should be used,roof screening 14 elements should be incorporated into the architectural design, signage should be a part of the site and 15 consistent with the scale and design of the building;exterior lighting should be sufficient for safety but 16 not used as an architectural feature or to illuminate adjacent properties. 17 (4) At the north and south gateway areas into the Rollins Road area special attention shall be 18 paid to incorporation of gateway oriented architectural features,entry markers,street furniture,specially 19 scaled landscaping to announce the entrance to the Rollins Road subarea; these features shall be in 20 character with the purpose, scale and function of the Rollins Road area and should facilitate access by 21 vehicles,bicycles and pedestrians from adjacent mass transit locations.Meaningful gateway features are 22 required for design review approval in the Southern Gateway Entrance Overlay Area. 23 (5) On lots with any frontage on creeks, integrate the creek feature into the site and building 24 design, incorporate the creek amenity including interconnected public access and views into site 25 landscaping and planning, design access features particularly pedestrian and bicycle trails to be 26 interconnected and consistent with those on adjacent properties in order to promote and protect natural 27 features of the area to benefit those who work in and use the area while providing a safe environment 28 511512006 13 ROLLINS ROAD I for walking and bicycling;respect and protect natural habitat areas including seasonal wetland breeding 2 locations for special species under power lines and in natural drains. 3 (6) To achieve a unified and successful Auto Row in the Rollins Road subarea, develop a 4 unifying thematic design concept for the area built on a single approach to the transition space between 5 the public sidewalk and the private outdoor sales area using such concepts as using consistent fencing 6 material throughout the auto row area,unifying signage approaches which also reflect the architectural 7 style and materials of the development on each site and take into consideration the character of the entire 8 Auto Row area;focus on development at a scale which works at the pedestrian level as well as from US 9 101,develop a pattern of consistent landscaping,and encourage building facades which are articulated 10 structurally incorporate human scale elements and properly integrate large display window areas. 11 (b) When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the 12 commercial structures shall be included in the design review. 13 (c) The following are exempt from the provisions of this section: I4 (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the RR district 15 filed before 16 (2) Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection(1)above 17 shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design 18 review under subsection (a) above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would 19 extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the 20 approval was granted or sought in the underlying application would change a fagade. Changes to, 21 additions of,or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under 22 this subsection. 23 24 25.44.075 Building Regulations. 25 The following maximum lot coverage shall apply to all parcels located in the RR district: 26 (a) Lot coverage. All buildings and structures or portions thereof which are hereafter erected, 27 constructed, established or enlarged shall be limited to seventy(70)percent of the total area of each 28 property or parcel. 5/15/2006 14 ROLLINS ROAD I (b) Maximumfront setback and build-to-line. 2 (1) David Road and Rollins Road. The front wall of the fust story of any structure built on a 3 lot with a lot front on Rollins Road or David Road shall be set back at least twenty(20)feet from the 4 front property line; and at least sixty(60)percent of the structure shall be located at the front setback 5 line. 6 (2)Broderick Road, Edwards Court, Guittard Road, Ingold Road, Marsten Road, and North 7 Carolan Avenue. There shall be a minimum front setback of fifteen (15) feet from Broderick Road, 8 Edwards Court, Guittard Road,Ingold Road,Marsten Road,or North Carolan Avenue. 9 (3) Adrian Road and Adrian Court. The front wall of the first story of any structure built on a 10 lot with a lot front on Adrian Road or Adrian Court shall have a zero(0)foot setback;and at least twenty 11 (20)percent of the structure shall be located at the zero (0)setback line. 12 (c)Side setback. 13 (1) There shall be no side setback requirement for any structures constructed on lots in the 14 portion of the RR district between Easton Creek and Broadway, including properties with lot frontage 15 on Broadway. 16 (2) There shall be a minimum ten (10) foot side yard setback on all buildings and structures 17 constructed on all other lots in the RR district. 18 (d) Rear setback. There shall be no rear setback requirements. 19 20 25.44.080 Height limitations. 21 (a)The maximum height for structures in the RR district is sixty(60) feet. 22 (b) However, structures on lots in the RR district with lot fronts on either Nerli Lane or 23 Broadway have a maximum height of seventy-five(75)feet. 24 (c)Notwithstanding subsections(a)and(b)above,maximum heights are also subject to further 25 limitation by the Federal Aviation Administration. 26 27 25.44.090 Minimum lot size and street frontage. 28 511512006 15 ROLLINS ROAD I There shall be a minimum lot size of ten thousand(10,000)square feet and a minimum street 2 frontage of fifty(50)feet. No property in this district shall be divided or subdivided into a lot with less 3 area or less street frontage. 4 5 25.44.095 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 6 No variances for lot size and street frontage shall be granted to any property within this district. 7 8 25.44.100 Landscaping,creek access, and fencing requirements. 9 (a) Landscaping requirements. The following landscaping requirements shall apply to all 10 parcels located in the RR district: 11 (1) A minimum of ten(10)percent of the total area of each lot shall be suitably landscaped,and 12 the landscaped portions shall be properly irrigated and maintained. 13 (2) A minimum of sixty(60)percent of the front setback shall be covered with soft landscaping, 14 provided: 15 (A) If the area equal to ten (10)percent of the site is less than sixty (60)percent of the front 16 setback area, then all the required landscaping shall be placed within the front setback;or 17 (B) If the area equal to ten(10)percent of the site is more than sixty(60)percent of the front 18 setback area,then the remaining area of required landscaping shall be placed so that it is visible from 19 the public right-of-way. 20 (3) When fences are placed to enclose outdoor storage areas on any site,the required landscaping 21 shall be outside of the fence and visible from the public right-of-way. 22 (4) A landscaping plan and specifications,including irrigation, shall be submitted for approval 23 by the city arborist when construction plans are submitted to the building department for a building 24 permit. 25 (b) Fences. Fences up to eight(8)feet in height,as measured from the highest adjacent grade, 26 shall be allowed in this district, subject to the other requirements and limitations of this code, in 27 particular, chapters 11.12 and 25.78. 28 5/15/2006 16 ROLLINS ROAD I (c) Creek access. Any lot in the RR district with any lot frontage on Easton,Mills,and El Portal 2 Creeks shall be required to provide,as a part of the on-site landscaping plan,a paved,public access trail 3 along the top of the bank for the portion of the creek bank on the site. The design of the trail shall be 4 compliant with the Rollins Road Design District design guidelines and designed to the specifications 5 of the public works department. Each such trail segment shall connect directly to the termination of the 6 public access trail segment along the creek bank on each adjacent property; 7 8 25.44.150 Parking space requirements. 9 All uses shall be subject to the provisions of this code and such additional parking conditions as 10 may be required for permitted or conditional uses pursuant to this chapter. 11 12 Section 3. A new Section 25.08.077 is added to read as follows: 13 25.08.077 Animal shelter or animal rescue center. 14 "Animal shelter"or"animal rescue center"means a facility operated by a government agency, 15 society for the prevention of crueltyto animals,humane society,or rescue group providing services for 16 stray,lost,injured,or unwanted animals,including treatment,regulated under Division 14 of the Food 17 &Agriculture Code(sections 30500 to 32030). Such a use may include facilities for public education 18 and training of volunteers, as well as facilities for the keeping of animals for adoption on site for a 19 limited time. 20 21 Section 4. A new Section 25.08.137 is added to read as follows: 22 25.08.137 Boarding kennel. 23 'Boarding Kennel' means any kennel where more than the number of animals allowed for a 24 single site under title 9 of this code and owned by another person are temporarily boarded for pay or 25 other compensation of any kind; provided, however, this definition shall not apply to zoos, animal 26 shelters, animal rescue centers, or veterinary hospitals. 27 28 Section 5. A new Section 25.08.155 is added to read as follows: 511512006 17 ROLLINS ROAD 1 25.08.155 Building materials and garden supply store. 2 "Building materials and garden supply store" means a retail or wholesale establishment that 3 predominantly sells building materials,paint,wallpaper,glass,fixtures,lumber,nursery stock, lawn and 4 garden supplies,electrical,plumbing,heating,and air conditioning equipment and supplies,and building 5 and construction tools. 6 7 Section 6. A new section 25.08.666 is added to read as follows: 8 25.08.666 Veterinary hospital. 9 Veterinary hospital" means an establishment for the care and treatment of the diseases and 10 injuries of animals and where animals may be boarded during their convalescence;however,overnight 11 care of said animals is not a part of veterinary hospital except when necessary in the medical treatment 12 of the animal. 13 14 Section 7. This ordinance is to be published according to law. 15 16 17 Mayor 18 19 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day of 20 , 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_ 21 _day of ,2006, by the following vote: 22 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 23 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 24 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 25 26 City Clerk 27 U:\FII,ES\ORDINANC\rollinsroad5152006.ord.wpd 28 511512006 18 ROLLINS ROAD CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLJNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 6c �oN 90 MTG. �anmo�we°' DATE 6.5.06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY , DATE: MAY 17, 2006 APPROVE FROM: CITY PLANNER BY Ike SUBJECT: ACTION ON ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNCIPAL CODE ZONING MAPS BY RECLASSIFYING THE M-1 DISTRICT TO ROLLINS ROAD (RR) DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING THE AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE OVERLAY AREA AND THE SOUTHERN GATEWAY ENTRANCE OVERLAY AREA TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 2004. Action: City Council should hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance to amend the City's zoning map for the Rollins Road area, previously zoned M-1 and establish the Rollins Road (RR) zoning district designation including two overlay zones within the RR district: the Automobile Sales and Service overlay and Southern Gateway Entrance overlay. At the Council's May 15, 2006, meeting this item was set for public hearing at the Council meeting on June 5, 2006. The action was noticed in the San Mateo Times,published May 26, 2006, and notice of the public hearing was mailed to each property owner on May 26, 2006. General Plan Compliance: The Rollins Road zoning district and map are a part of the implementation phase of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan adopted by the City Council and amended to the Burlingame General Plan in September 2004. The boundaries of the district described in the map match the boundaries of both the existing M-1 (light industrial) zone which is being replaced and the Rollins Road subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The map is consistent with the plan because the boundaries and the overlay areas designated within the Rollins Road zoning district are consistent with the land use maps adopted in the Specific Plan and amended to the General Plan. The Rollins Road zoning district consists of all the area between the CalTrain tracks on the west, El Portal Creek which is the northern city boundry, US 101 on the west and Broadway on the south; about two-thirds of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Planning area. The Automobile Sales and Service overlay area consists of the properties with frontage on Adrian Road south of the properties with frontage on Adrian Court and the properties at the end of Edwards Court whose rear property lines front US 101. The Southern Gateway Entrance overlay area is composed of the properties at the southern edge of the Rollins Road area with frontage on Broadway and on Rollins Road north to the PG and E substation on the east side and to Whitethorn Road on the west side. The proposed map is consistent with the directives of the Specific Plan it is intended to implement. ACTION ON ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June 5„2006 CEQA Compliance: Negative Declaration ND533-P was prepared and adopted for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan in September 2004. Since the action to adopt the zoning map for the Rollins Road subarea is an implementation of that adopted plan and is consistent with the provisions of that plan, the action to adopt the map is determined to be covered by ND533-P. Planning Commission Action , March 18, 2006 After addressing several items referred by the City Council and Planning Commission, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Subcommittee of the Planning Commission, reported out to the Planning Commission for action their recommendations on a revised set of zoning regulations which included establishing two overlay zones within the Rollins Road area: Automobile Sales and Service Overlay and Southern Gateway Entrance Overlay. In their recommendation the Subcommittee noted that the Automobile Sales and Service overlay should be adjusted so that it included only those properties directly facing US 101 or with property frontage on US 101. This caused the properties with frontage on Adrian Court to be removed from the Automobile Sales and Service overlay area and reincorporated with the larger, light industrial subarea called the Northern Gateway. In these same recommendations, the Southern Gateway Entrance was revised so that it became a true overlay zone, with the core industrial uses underlying the specific uses called out in the plan to create an 'entrance' to the Rollins Road area. On March 18, 2006, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised regulations as proposed by the Subcommittee and recommended the Rollins Roads zoning district regulations, without change, to the City Council for approval. The Planning Commission is not required to vote on the amendment to the Municipal Code for the zoning map. However they did approve regulations for the two overlay zones, so while no formal action was taken by the Commission on the map, to implement their recommendations the attached map is necessary. BACKGROUND On March 29, 2006, the City Council studied the Rollins Road zoning district. At that time the amendment to the zoning map was discussed. The broad boundaries of the Rollins Road area are the same as the current M-1 zoning district. However, within the Rollins Road zoning district two overlay zones were created. An overlay zone is an area within a zoning district where preference is given to particular uses in a subarea of the district in order to promote implementation of the plan. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan promotes developing another auto row in Burlingame on the properties south of Adrian Court fronting US 101 along Adrian Road and extending to the properties at the end of Edwards Court which have rear site frontage on US 101. Originally the properties on Adrian Court, most of which have no frontage on Adrian Road and US 101, were included in the auto row overlay. During the review process it was suggested that the properties on Adrian Road, mostly small light industrial tenant spaces, would be better served if they remained a part of the light industrial area to the west(Northern Gateway subarea). With this change all industrial and heavy commercial uses would not be required to get a conditional use permit in the future. The zoning district map has been adjusted to reflect this change. Ultimately the Specific Plan will also need to be amended to reflect this change. The purpose of the Southern Gateway Entrance area was described in the plan as establishing a definable entrance to the Rollins Road area. Originally specific uses were allowed in this area that were not allowed in the adjoining light industrial area. After public hearings and recommendation by the Subcommittee, it was determined that physical entrance features could be incorporated into many types of light industrial or heavy 2 ACTION ON •ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN June 5„2006 commercial buildings, so those uses should not be excluded from the Southern Gateway Entrance area. Rather an overlay zone was created which will allow as conditional uses, the uses allowed in the larger, light industrial Southern Gateway subarea. This allowance of underlying light industrial uses in the Southern Gateway Entrance area also will require subsequent clarification in the Specific Plan. Attachments: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending the Burlingame Municipal Code and the Zoning Maps Incorporated in the Zoning Code by Reclassifying the M-1 District to Rollins Road (RR) District and Establishing the Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area and the Southern Gateway Entrance Overlay Area in the Rollins Road District with 'Exhibit A" Rollins Road (RR) Zoning District Map City Council Minutes, May 15, 2006 3 I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE ZONING MAPS INCORPORATED 3 IN THE ZONING CODE BY RECLASSIFYING THE M-1 DISTRICT TO ROLLINS ROAD (RR)DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING THE 4 AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE OVERLAY AREA AND THE SOUTHERN GATEWAY ENTRANCE OVERLAY AREA IN THE ROLLINS ROAD DISTRICT 5 6 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 7 8 Section 1. In September 2004,the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins 9 Road Specific Plan for the northern portion of the City. This ordinance is adopted to implement 10 the zoning change of the Rollins Road area in accordance with that Specific Plan. 11 12 Section 2. The zoning maps attached to Ordinance No. 539 as amended and referenced 13 in Section 25.12.010 of the Municipal Code are amended as follows: 14 The area currently zoned as M-1 is rezoned as Rollins Road (RR) District. 15 The area along the Bayshore Freeway as shown on the exhibit to this ordinance north 16 of Easton Creek is placed within the Automobile Sales and Service Overlay Area. 17 The area along the north side of Broadway as shown on the exhibit to this ordinance is 18 placed within the Southern Gateway Entrance Overlay Area. 19 This reclassification is shown on the exhibit to this ordinance. 20 21 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect 22 upon the effective date of the Rollins Road (RR) District regulations adopted by separate 23 ordinance. 24 25 26 Mayor 27 1, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that I the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15`' 2 day of May, 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3 day of , 2006,by the following vote: 4 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 5 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 6 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 7 8 City Clerk 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 - 2 - ti :G iii !!�i ■, � ■ � ``�_ � �.<' . ���l,������ • �� � �� :nG�1ii IJC17• ��� ® � ,III�IIt� mom -ru Asti ': ■'�■"■ ����111111 11111111111-1�=�� p: :p � .��IIIIIU I ■mo■111��■ . •_ __ __ -.- .• -- .:�. _ _ 111/1/1/I - ■"■"�■ I . �, �♦ �� �_ -i _ -_ __ . _ /1111/1\\ ��� ♦ �� �_ - 11111111/�� 1 ���i����_- � . 11111111\� ■ � � j�'li�� \� i_ C• -_ � i /111111//1/ `°, 1 ���`� �'��I����N�III�Ijj�11�/11111/ =: i C�� �� -■ ■ �� �i/111111111 C� i � ���� C ■■.■- ' s • __ __%='� '.= ;� /�: � ® � ■II■■111 — pC :Ismgo �� ► �� '-� p��11111111111C— _— -- —_ _• —�_=,r IUII�II►, i1�1�1�'�== == �1- ��=—_ = :�Iillllllll► ���'/�■ -- IBMI Ian 111' Rollins Road ' - -- -- � - -- -- n j niZoning District Mapm uuu m= -- COrdinance No. ilii)it == r to RR 1111111111111.= IIII 11111 111111=. Southern Gateway Entrance Overlay IMF Automobile Sales and ServiceOverlay _Illllli '_` i r �— —C 1111111. ®i, ' ■ �i� VIII 111'■11� • i - � �\111111 -- __ — �.. -- C'_ .� ►_� /� / �� X1/111111 CC momaC Cp CII --� ► �G C� �� gal 1111111 CC -- — _— �1/► /i �• /� •C � , .,, - Agenda Item # 6d BURLINGAME Meeting STAFF REPORT Date: June 5 200 SUBMITTED BY A/ APPROVED BY TO : HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE : MAY 167 2006 FROM : PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO MODIFY THE SANITARY SEWER USE REGULATIONS RECOMMENDATION : It is recommended that Council adopt an ordinance to modify the Sanitary Sewer Use Regulations by: • Adopt proposed ordinance. • Direct City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption . BACKGROUND: The purpose of the Sanitary Sewer Use Regulations is to protect the sewer collection system and the Wastewater Treatment Plant. By mandating regulatory controls through a pretreatment program , the City ensures that commercial and industrial users abide by the rules regarding usage of the sewer system . The pretreatment program is implemented by Wastewater Treatment Plant staff who perform inspections and monitor the waste streams and facility activities of businesses. DISCUSSION : Staff is recommending that definitions be added to the Sanitary Sewer Use Regulations Ordinance to reflect changes in the pretreatment program . These include "Commercial User" which more accurately identifies the type of discharge from commercial facilities having domestic type waste streams as opposed to industrial waste streams and "Control Authority" which designates the City as having the ultimate responsibility for the pretreatment program . Staff is also recommending changes regarding oil and grease limits as well as pH limits. The oil and grease limit would be removed in order to allow inspectors to target facilities causing backups in the collection system irrespective of the magnitude of oil and grease concentrations. This will enable the City to address most incidences of sewer overflows and spills caused by oil and grease blockages. pH is used to measure the alkalinity versus acidity of the waste stream . A pH of 7.0 is considered neutral . The ordinance change would establish a compliance range of 9 . 0 as an upper limit and 5 . 0 as a new more reasonable lower limit. This range will allow the treatment plant to discharge effluent into the Bay in compliance with State Water Board regulations and is compatible with most other Bay Area cities. BUDGET IMPACT: Approval of the ordinance has no financial impact. EXHIBITS : Ordinance c: Doris Mortensen , City Clerk S:W Public Works Directory\Staff Repo rtsWdopt_Ord Modify Sewer Use Regulations.doc I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 15.10 REGARDING SANITARY SEWER USE 3 REGULATIONS 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. This ordinance is intended to reflect changes in the pretreatment program 7 in the City to more accurately identify types of users,to allow inspectors to target facilities causing 8 back-ups in the collection system, and to better define the pH limit. 9 10 Section 2. Section 15.10.015(c) is amended to read as follows: 11 (c) "C" definitions. 12 (1) Categorical Pretreatment Standards. "Categorical pretreatment standards"means the 13 limitations on pollutant discharges to POTW's promulgated by EPA in accordance with Section 14 307 of the Act, that apply to specified process wastewaters of particular industrial categories. [40 15 CFR 403.6 and Parts 405-471]. 16 (2) COD or Chemical Oxygen Demand. "COD"or"chemical oxygen demand"means the 17 measure of chemically decomposable material in domestic or industrial wastewater as represented 18 by the oxygen utilized as determined by the appropriate procedure described in standard methods. 19 (3)Code of Federal Regulations or CFR. "Code of Federal Regulations"or"CFR"means 20 the Code of Federal Regulations published by the Office of the Federal Register,National Archives 21 and Records Administration. Whenever a reference is made to any portion of the CFR, or to any 22 other federal regulation,that reference shall include to all amendments and additions to that portion 23 of the CFR or regulation, now or hereinafter adopted. 24 (4)Combined sewer. "Combined sewer"means a sewer receiving both surface runoff and 25 sewage. 26 (5) Commercial user (COM). "Commercial user" or "COM" means any person who 27 discharges non-domestic wastewater and who provides a service or engages in the purchase or sale 28 of commodities. 1 1 (6) Community sewer. "Community sewer"means a sewer owned and operated by the city 2 and tributary to a treatment facility operated by the city. 3 (7) Compatible pollutant. "Compatible pollutant" means biochemical oxygen demand, 4 suspended solids,pH,and fecal coliform bacteria,plus additional pollutants identified in the city's 5 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Permit if the city's treatment plant is 6 designed to treat such pollutants and if fact, does remove such pollutants to a substantial degree. 7 (8) Composite sample. "Composite sample" means a flow-proportional or time- 8 proportional sample, which accurately represents the average pollutant concentration discharged 9 during a continuous time period.A composite sample may be obtained manually or automatically, 10 and discretely or continuously. For manual compositing, at least six (6) individual samples from 11 each sample point shall be combined and mixed to obtain one composite sample;flow-proportion 12 may be obtained either by varying the time interval between each discrete sample and the volume 13 of each discrete sample. 14 (9) Contamination. "Contamination"means an impairment of the quality of water of the 15 State by waste to a degree that creates a hazard to the public health through poisoning or through 16 the spread of disease. "Contamination"includes any equivalent effect resulting from the disposal 17 of wastewater, whether or not waters of state are affected. 18 (10) Contractor. "Contractor" means an individual, firm, corporation, partnership, or 19 association licensed by the state to perform the type of work to be done under the permit. 20 (11) Control authority. "Control authority" means the POTW. 21 (12) Cost effective. "Cost effective" means that total project costs, if financed over a five 22 (5)year period at the prime interest rate published in the Wall Street Journal plus two percent(2%) 23 at the time the project costs are being determined, do not exceed the total savings that would be 24 generated by the project during the same five (5)year period. Project costs shall also be 25 considered cost effective,if financing assistance is available to the discharger,from the city or any 26 other source, at a lower rate and the project costs, if financed over a five (5) year period at that 27 rate do not exceed the total savings that would be generated by the project during the same five 28 (5) year period. 2 1 (13) Critical user. "Critical user" means a discharger whose wastewater contains priority 2 pollutants, or who discharges waste that has the potential to cause interference, excluding 3 sanitary sewage. 4 5 Section 3. Subsection 15.10.040(b) is amended to read as follows: 6 (b) Any waste having a pH lower than 5.0 or having any corrosive or detrimental 7 characteristic that may cause injury to any person operating,maintaining,repairing,or constructing 8 the sanitary sewer system or any part thereof,or working in or about the sanitary sewer system, or 9 any damage to any part of the sanitary sewer system, or any waste with a pH high enough to cause 10 alkaline incrustations on sewer walls; or 11 12 Section 4. Section 15.10.050 is amended to read as follows: 13 Section 15.10.050 Limitations on wastewater strength. 14 No person shall discharge, cause, allow, or permit to be discharged into a public sanitary 15 sewer or any part thereof, any waste containing an excess in concentration of the following 16 substances: 17 Substance Maximum Allowable Concentration 18 Arsenic 0.08 mg/L 19 BOD 1300 mg/L 20 Cadmium 0.138 mg/L 21 Copper 2.0 mg/L 22 Cyanide 0.292 mg/L 23 Lead 0.365 mg/L 24 Mercury 0.010 mg/L 25 Nickel 0.445 mg/L 26 Phenol 7.8 mg/L 27 Selenium 0.106 mg/L 28 Silver 0.200 mg/L 3 I TSS 1200 mg/L 2 Total Chromium 2.532 mg/L 3 Zinc 0.386 mg/L 4 These limitations are subject to amendment at any time, and no permit granted under this chapter 5 shall constitute any vested right of any kind to continue to maintain concentrations at this or any 6 other level. 7 8 Section 5. A new Section 15.10.081 is added to read as follows: 9 15.10.081 Reclassification from significant industrial user. 10 At any time, the director may on the director's own initiative or in response to a petition 11 from the industrial user or POTW determine that the industrial user should not be not classified as 12 a significant industrial user in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(6)even though the industrial 13 user meets the definition of a significant industrial user, if the director determines the following: 14 (a) The industrial user has no reasonable potential for adversely affecting operation of the 15 POTW; and 16 (b)The industrial user has no reasonable potential for violating any pretreatment standards 17 or requirements. 18 19 Section 6. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 20 21 Mayor 22 23 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 24 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15`"day 25 of May,2006,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 26 of , 2006, by the following vote: 27 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 28 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 I ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 City Clerk 3 U:\FILES\ORDINANC\SEWERRULES2006-I.wpd 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITYAGENDA 8a oo ITEM# — — — -- BURLINGAME MAG. DATE _�Illlle_�,_ZQ STAFF REPORT O� <o TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY - DATE: May 31, 2006 APPROVED FROM: Crystal Duong (558-7204) BY SUBJECT: Library Board Vacancy RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council call for applications to fill an impending vacancy on the Library Board. The recommended deadline is June 23, 2006. This will allow enough time for interviews and an orientation for the new board member. The Mayor and Council should determine two-member committees to perform the interviews. BACKGROUND Our current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. The current commissioner will be invited to reapply if she wishes to serve again. All past applicants on the two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy. In addition, we will send a press release to local newspapers and a notice on the city's list serve. The following Board Member's term will expire as detailed below: Commissioner Term Expiration Terms Served Nancy Brock June 30, 2006 1 *Served out the remainder of David Carr's term Agenda Item # 9a Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: Junes 2006 1 A'W2.'t� SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL M§! DATE: MAY 23, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) FUNDING FOR RESURFACING CALIFORNIA DRIVE, HILLSIDE DRIVE AND ROLLINS ROAD RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution authorizing an application to be filed for Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funding for the California Drive, Hillside Drive and Rollins Road Resurfacing Projects. BACKGROUND: Burlingame has successfully secured an allocation of $278,000 in federal grant funds under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century Program 3rd cycle. The grant will be used together with $278,000 of City matching gas tax funds to finance a $556,000 resurfacing program in 2007. The project will include resurfacing California Drive from Dufferin Avenue to the Millbrae city limit, Hillside Drive from EI Camino Real to Vancouver Avenue and Rollins Road from Cadillac Way to Oak Grove Avenue. In order to receive STP funds, the City must comply with the following: Provide the matching funds (Gas Tax and Measure A Funds) Cover any cost overruns Build the project in accordance with the scope of work described in the grant application Submit the attached resolution, certificate of assurances and legal opinion Submit the program documents by July 14, 2006 to obligate the project EXHIBITS: Resolution, Certification of Assurances, and Opinion of Legal Counsel FISCAL IMPACT: Financing for the programming is available from the grant and gas tax/Measure A funds. Donald T. Chang Senior Civil Engineer SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\07 STP Authorization.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDING FOR CALIFORNIA DRIVE,HILLSIDE DRIVE, AND ROLLINS ROAD RESURFACING PROJECTS AND COMMITTING THE NECESSARY NON-FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT AND STATING THE ASSURANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO COMPLETE THE PROJECTS RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame has authority under the California Government Code §§ 34000 and following for the exercise of the powers of a city government; and WHEREAS, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA) (Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005)continues the Surface Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. § 133) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program(CMAQ) (23 U.S.C. § 149); and WHEREAS, the SAFETEA legislation will guide STP, CMAQ, and Transportation Enhancement Activities (TE) programming until a SAFETEA bill is authorized; and WHEREAS, pursuant to SAFETEA and the regulations promulgated thereunder, eligible project sponsors wishing to receive Surface Transportation Program or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program grants for a project shall submit an application first with the appropriate metropolitan transportation planning organization(MPO) for review and inclusion in the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program(TIP); and WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC) is the MPO for the San Francisco Bay region; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is an eligible project sponsor for Surface Transportation Program or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to submit a grant application to MTC for funds from the Surface Transportation Program in fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 for the following projects: 1 California Drive Resurfacing Project $ 103,000 Hillside Drive Resurfacing Project $ 72,000 Rollins Road Resurfacing Project $103,000 WHEREAS, MTC requires, as part of the application, a resolution stating the following: a. The commitment of necessary local matching funds of at least 11.47%; and b. That the sponsor understands that the Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funding is fixed at the programmed amount, and therefore, any cost increase cannot be expected to be funded with Surface Transportation Program or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds; and c. The assurance of the sponsor to complete the projects as described in the application, and if approved, as programmed in MTC's TIP; and d. That the sponsor understands that funds must be obligated by June 30 of the year for which the project is programmed in the TIP, or the project may be removed from the program; and e. That the sponsor has a certified pavement management system (PMS). NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to execute and file an application for funding under the Surface Transportation Program of SAFETEA in the amount of $!03,000 for the California Drive Resurfacing Project, $72,000 for the Hillside Drive Resurfacing Project, and $103,000 for the Rollins Road Resurfacing Project. 2. The City of Burlingame states the following: A. The City will provide the following amount of at least 11.47%of the project's costs in local matching funds: California Drive Resurfacing Project $103,000 Hillside Drive Resurfacing Project $ 72,000 Rollins Road Resurfacing Project $103,000 2 B. The City understands that the Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program funding for these projects is fixed at$278,000 total, and any cost increases must be funded by the City from local matching funds, and that the City does not expect any cost increases to be funded with Surface Transportation Program or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program funds. C. The project will be built as described in this resolution and if approved, as programmed for the amount shown in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC) Transportation Improvement Program(TIP) with obligation occurring within the time frame established below. D. The program funds are expected to be obligated by June 30 of the year in which the project is programmed in the TIP, and it is understood that if the funds are not so programmed, the project may be removed from the program.. E. The City of Burlingame is an eligible sponsor of projects in the Surface Transportation Program. F. The City of Burlingame is authorized to submit an application for Surface Transportation Program funds for the California Drive, Hillside Drive, and Rollins Road Resurfacing Projects. G. The City of Burlingame has a certified pavement management program. H. There is no legal impediment to City of Burlingame making applications for Local Streets and Roads Shortfall Program funds. I. There is no pending or threatened litigation which might in any way adversely affect the proposed projects, or the ability of City of Burlingame to deliver such projects. 3. A copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application. 4. MTC is respectfully requested to support the application for the projects described in the resolution and to program the projects, if approved, in MTC's TIP. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, 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 day of 2006,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK U:\FILES\RESO\teapplic4.pwd.wpd 4 Third Cycle STP/CMAQ/TE Program Certification of Assurances The sponsor indicated below hereby certifies that the project indicated below, for which Surface Transportation Program funding from MTC's Local Streets and Roads Shortfall Program is requested,meets the following project screening criteria. Please initial each. Sponsoring Agency: CITY OF BURLINGAME Project Name: CALIFORNIA DRIVE, HILLSIDE DRIVE AND ROLLINS ROAD RESURFACING PROGRAM 1. The project is eligible for consideration in the Surface Transportation Program, as identified in 23 USC 133 of the United States Code. 2. The agency is an eligible sponsor of projects in the Surface Transportation Program. 3. An application has been submitted for the project. 40 4. The project is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan(RTP). 5. The project is fully funded and results in an operable and useable segment. 6. For the funds requested,no costs have/will be incurred prior to the federal authorization of the funds. 7. The year of funding for any design, right-of-way and/or construction phases has taken into co ration the time necessary to obtain environmental clearance and permitting approval for the project. 8. The implementing agency has a certifieement Management System with MTC in accordance with Section 119 of Title 23,United States Code. n 9. Cost increases on the project are the responsibility of the project sponsor. 10. Cost savings from the project will be returned to the region. 11. The sponsor agrees to be available for any audit of STP/CMAQ funds, if requested. The sponsor agrees to abide by all regulations, statutes,rules and procedures applying to Third Cycle STP/CMAQ/TE Program, and to follow all requirements asted with the funds programmed to the TIP, including,but are not limited to the four items below: (�� 1. Environmental requirements: NEPA standards and procedures for all projects with Federal funds; CEQA standards and procedures for all projects programmed with State funds. 2. Federal Transit Administration(FTA) requirements, as outlined in FTA regulations and circulars for all projects with FTA funding 3. Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and Caltrans requirements for highway and other roadway projects as outlined in the Caltrans Local Programs Manual. 4. Federal air quality c nformity requirements, and local project review requirements, as outlined in the adopted Bay Are onformity the State Implementation Plan(SIP). �ertified By: S.nature FORGE BAGDON Date ' CITiYo� BURUNGAME iticogp ,900 ORATED JVNE� OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TEL: (650)558-7204 FAX: (650)342-8386 CITY HALL—501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 June 6, 2006 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metrocenter 101 - 8th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Re: Opinion regarding Eligibility for Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, and Transportation Enhancement Activities Third Cycle Funds for SAFETEA —California Drive, Hillside Drive, and Rollins Road Resurfacing Projects Dear Sirs or Mesdames: This letter is intended to meet the requirement of an opinion of counsel to accompany the application of the City of Burlingame for funding from the State Transportation Program(STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), and Transportation Enhancement Activities (TE)Third Cycle Program made available pursuant to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act(SAFETEA). It is the opinion of this office that: 1. The City of Burlingame is a general law city, incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of California, and pursuant to those laws, is an eligible sponsor of projects for the STP, CMAQ, and TE Third Cycle Program for SAFETEA. 2. The City of Burlingame is authorized to submit an application for STP, CMAQ, and TE Second Cycle Program funding for SAFETEA for the California Drive, Hillside Drive, and Rollins Road Resurfacing Projects. 3. I have reviewed the pertinent State laws, and there is no legal impediment to the City of Burlingame making application for these funds. Further, there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed projects or the ability of the City of Burlingame to undertake these projects. Sinc'rely, A E. ANDERSON City Attorney cc: City Engineer Agenda 9b Item # Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: June 5, 2006 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: MAY 23, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING BURLINGHOME SUBDIVISION SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 1 AND 2, CITY PROJECT NO. 81500 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution awarding the Burlinghome Subdivision Sewer Rehabilitation Project to McNamara & Smallman Construction Inc. in the amount of$3,915,826 including both Phase 1 and 2 of the construction. BACKGROUND: Bids were opened on May 23, 2006 and six bids were received. The lowest bid was determined on the total bid amount for the combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects. The City has the option to award both phases or elect to only award Phase 1. If both phases are awarded, the City reserves the right to delete or reduce the Phase 2 project later if project funding for Phase 2 is not available. DISCUSSION: Bids ranged from $3,915,826 to $5,660,900. The low bid is $ 3,915,826 compared to the Engineer's estimate of $4,497,589. Staff recommends awarding both Phase 1 and 2 at this time to take advantage of the low bid prices. The scope of work includes sewer rehabilitation in the Burlinghome Subdivision, the 1300 block of Capuchino Avenue and 1400 block of Balboa Avenue. The scope may be increased to include sewer rehabilitation in other areas by change order if there is adequate contingency funding remaining at the end of construction. The low bidder, McNamara & Smallman Construction Inc, has met all the requirements for the project, and has intensive experience in work of a similar nature in Contra Costa County, City of Berkeley, and City of Pleasanton in the past few years. Phase 1 construction is expected to occur between July 2006 and March 2007 and Phase 2 between March 2007 and December 2007. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Agreement and Bid Summary BUDGET IMPACT: Expenditures: Construction $3,915,826 Contingency(15%) 587,374 Construction Management 517,800 Engineering Administration 279.000 TOTAL $5,300,000 There is adequate funding from existing bond proceeds for the Phase 1 project.Funding for Phase 2 is expected to be secured through the issuance of new bonds in February 2007. Donald T.Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer c:City Clerk,City Attorney, Finance Director SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\81500award.stf.doc RESOLUTION NO. - AWARDING CONTRACT FOR BURLINGHOME SUBDIVISION SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 1 & 2 TO MCNAMARA & SMALLMAN CONSTRUCTION INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 81500 WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for bids for the - CITY PROJECT 81500 - CONTRACT FOR BURLINGHOME SUBDIVISION SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 1 & 2 WHEREAS, on MAY 23, 2006, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, MCNAMARA & SMALLMAN CONSTRUCTION INC. INC., submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of$3,915,826. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of MCNAMARA & SMALLMAN CONSTRUCTION INC., for said project in the amount of$3,915,826, and the same hereby is accep- ted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager be, and he hereby is authorized for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Mayor I. DORIS MORTENSEN, 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 day of , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk sAapubl i cworksd i r\proj ects\re sol uti onaward AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BURLINGHOME SUBDIVISION SEWER REHABILITATION PHASE I AND II CITY PROJECT NO. 81500 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and McNAMARA & SMALLMAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. hereinafter called "Contractor," WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 2006, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described.to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this agreement for the construction of said improvements, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Specifications entitled: BURLINGHOME SUBDIVISION SEWER REHABILITATION PHASE I AND II, CITY JOB NO. 81500. 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract consists of the following documents: this Agreement, Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, the prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law, the accepted Bid Proposal, the complete plans, profiles, detailed drawings and Standard Specifications, Special Provisions and all bonds, and are hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. AGREEMENT - 1 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of THREE MILLION NINE HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SIX DOLLARS ($ 3,915,826.00 ). This price is determined by the unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 5. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: Donald Chang, Sr. Civil Engineer CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: Bob Smallman McNamara& Smallman Construction Inc. 1756 Holmes Street Livermore, CA 94550 6. Interpretation. As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 7. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of three (3) pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be AGREEMENT - 2 deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, CONTRACTOR: a Municipal Corporation By By City Manager—Jim Nantell McNamara& Smallman Approved as to form: City Attorney—Larry Anderson ATTEST: City Clerk—Doris Mortensen AGREEMENT- 3 BID SUMMARY Date:5/23/2006 Burlinghome Subdivision Sewer Rehabilitation Phase I and II City of Burlingame Project No.81500 Engineer Estimate McNamara&Smaliman construction,Inc. Shaw Pipeline,Inc. Phase I Item Description Estimated Unit Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total No. Quantity Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Mobilization,Demobilization and NPDES 1 Compliance Not to exceed 3%of Total Bid 1 LS $ 45 000.00 $ 45 000.00 $ 105 000.00 $ 105 000.00 $ 25 000.00 $ 25 000.00 2 Construction Survey and Site Investigation 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8 000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,0 $ ".0" 0 000.00 $ 30 000.00 3 Sidewalk Reconstruction 880 SF $ 15.00 $ 13 200.00 $ 6.00 $ 5 280.00 $ 7.00 $ 6,160.00 4 Driveway Reconstruction 500 SF $ 16.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 10.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 8.00 $ 4,000.00 Curb and Gutter Reconstruction with Asphalt 5 Replacement 220 LF $ 35.00 1$ 7,700.00 $ 25.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 20.00 $ 4,400.00 6 Post Television Inspection 10,130 LF $ 2.00 $ 20 260.00 $ 1.00 $ 10 130.00 $ 1.50 $ 15 195.00 Replace 6"Sewer Main with 8"Sewer Main 7 by Pipe bursting 5,508 LF $ 85.00 $ 468 180.00 $ 118.00 $ 649 944.00 $ 103.00 $ 567 324.00 8 New 8"PVC Pipe-Open Cut 1,713 LF $ 165.00 $ 282 645.00 $ 140.00 $ 239 820.00 $ 145.00 $ 248 385.00 9 New 10"PVC Pipe-Open Cut 2,909 LF $ 185.00 $ 538 165.00 $ 180.00 $ 523 620.00 $ 147.00 $ 427 623.00 10 Hand-Dig to Install 8"Sewer 200 EA $ 250.00 $ 50 000.00 $ 200.00 $ 40 000.00 $ 200.00 $ 40 000.00 11 Replace Existing Sewer Lateral in easement 139 EA $ 300.00 $ 41 700.00 $ 50.00 $ 6,950.00 $ 550.00 $ 76 450.00 12 Replace existing lateral in street 18 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 21 600.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 36 000.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 37 800.00 Replace Existing Sewer Lateral and Extend 13 to New Sewer Main 48 EA $ 2.000.00 1$ 96 000.00 $ 2.000.00 $ 96 000.00 $ 2.500.00 $ 120 000.00 Replace Existing Sewer Lateral and Extend 14 to New Sewer Main by Hand-Di Oen-Cut 2 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 15 Replace Existing Lateral Cleanout 205 EA $ 425.00 $ 87 125.00 $ 100.00 $ 20 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 41 000.00 16 Install complete sewer cleanout 1 EA $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 17 Install 36"Sewer Manhole in easement 8 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 28 000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 28 000.00 18 Install 48"Sewer Manhole at Street 20 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 80 000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 20 000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 70 000.00 19 1 Install Type II manhole at easement or street 19 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 47 500.00 $ 1.000.00 $ 19 000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 57 000.00 Install Special Concrete Junction Box in 20 easement 1 EA $ 10 000.00 $ 10 000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 21 Install Drop Manhole 2 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 10 000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 22 Abandon Existing Manhole 13 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 15 600.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 300.00 $ 3,900.00 23 Remove Existing Manhole 26 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 39 000.00 $ 100.00 S 2,600.00 $ 400.00 $ 10 400.00 Abandon Existing Sewer Main and fill with 24 slurry concrete 3 435 LF $ 14.00 $ 48 090.00 $ 1.00 $ 3,435.00 $ 2.00 $ 6,870.00 25 Storm Drain Bubble Box 10 EA $ 1,00000 $ 10 000.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 400.00 $ 4,000.00 26 Asphalt Concrete Surface Repair 40 Ton $ 105.00 E 4.200.00 1$ 150.00 1$ 6 000.00 E 150.00 $ 6,000.00 27 Sewer Main Smoke Test 1 LS $ 4 000.00 $ 4 000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5 000.00 $ 8 000.00 $ 8,000.00 28 Sewer Main Sa Re air 3 EA $ 3!000! E 9,000.00 1 S 5,000.00 $ 15 000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 7,500.00 29 Relocate Storm Drain Line 2 EA 1$ 4,000. E 8,000.00 1$ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 1$ 3,000.00 1$ 6,000.00 30 Relocate Water Main 2 EA $ 5 000.00 $ 10 000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 E 3.000.00 $ 6,000.0 0 SUB TOTAL BID ITEMS Nos.1 through 30: $ 2,017,365.00 $ 1,68$,678.00 $ 1,876,307.00 Phase II Item Description Estimated Unit Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total No. Quantity Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Mobilization,Demobilization and NPDES 1 Compliance Not to exceed 3%of Total Bio 1 LS $ 35 000.00 $ 35 000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 20 000.00 $ 20 000.00 2 Construction Survey and She Investigation 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 30 000.00 $ 30 000.00 3 Sidewalk Reconstruction 2,880 SF $ 15.00 $ 43 200.00 $ 6.00 $ 17 280.00 $ 7.00 $ 20 160.00 4 Oriveway Reconstruction 500 SF $ 16.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 10.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 8.00 $ 4,000.00 Curb and Gutter Reconstruction with Asphalt 5 lReplacement 720 1 LF $ 35.00 1 $ 25 200.00 $ 25.00 $ 18 000.00 $ 20.00 1$ 14 400.00 6 Post Television Inspection 13,897 LF $ 2.00 $ 27 794.00 $ 1.00 $ 13,89T00 $ 1.50 $ 20 845.50 Replace 6"Sewer Main with 8"Sewer Main 7 by Pie bursting 9,704 LF $ 85.00 $ 824 840.00 $ 105.00 $ 1,018,920.00 $ 96.00 $ 931 584.00 8 New 8"PVC Pi -Open Cut 3,643 LF $ 165.00 $ 601 095.00 $ 140.00 $ 510 020.00 $ 148.00 E 539 164.00 9 New 10"PVC Pipe-Open Cut 550 LF $ 185.00 $ 101 750.00 $ 180.00 $ 99 000.00 $ 150.00 $ 82 500.00 10 Hand-Dig to Install 8"Sewer 100 LF $ 250.00 $ 25 000.00 $ 200.00 $ 20 000.00 $ 200.00 $ 20 000.00 11 Replace Existing Sewer Lateral in easement 183 EA $ 300.00 $ 54 900.00 $ 50.00 $ 9,150.00 $ 550.00 $ 100 650.00 Replace existing lateral AND Extend to New 12 iSewer Main in Street 50 1 EA $ 2.000.00 1$ 100 000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 100 000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 125,000.00 13 Re lace existing sewer lateral in street 35 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 42 000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 70 000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 87 500.00 Replace Existing Sewer Lateral and Extend 14 to New Sewer Main by Hand-Di Oen-Cut 4 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 12 000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 12 000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 12 000.00 15 Replace Existinql Lateral Cleanout 273 EA $ 425.00 $ 116 025.00 $ 100.00 $ 27 300.00 $ 225.00 $ 61,425.00 16 Install 36"Sewer Manhole in easement 32 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 112 000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 32 000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 112 000.00 17 Install 48"Sewer Manhole at Street 22 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 88 000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 22 000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 77 000.00 18 Install DropManhole 5 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 25 000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 10 000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 20 000.00 19 Ilnstall Type II manhole at easement or street 25 1 EA $ 2,500.00 1$ 62 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 25 000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 75 000.00 20 Abandon Existing Manhole 14 1 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 16 800.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 300.00 $ 4,200.00 21 Remove Existing Manhole 38 1 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 57 000.00 $ 100.00 $ 3,800.00 $ 400.00 $ 15 200.00 Abandon Existing Sewer Main and fill with 22 slurry concrete 3,480 LF $ 14.00 $ 48 720.00 $ 1.00 $ 3,480.00 S 2.00 $ 6,960.00 23 Storm Drain Bubble Box 10 EA It 1,000.00 $ 10 000.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 400.00 $ 4,000.00 24 Asphalt Concrete Surface Repair 40 Ton $ 105.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 150.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 150.00 $ 6,000.00 25 Sewer Main Smoke Test 1 LS $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 10 000.00 $ 10 000.00 26 Sewer Main Sag Repair 3 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 15 000.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 7,500.00 27 Relocate Storm Drain Line 2 EA S 4 000.00 S 8 000.00 E 2 000.00 S 4 000.00 $ 3 000.00 E 6 000.00 28 Relocate Water Main 2 EA $ 5 000.00 $ 10 000.00 $ 3 000.00 $ 6 000.00 E 3 000.00 $ 6 000.00 SUB TOTAL BID ITEMS Nos.1 through 28: $ 2,480,024.00 $ 2,062,247.00 $ 2,419,088.60 TOTAL S 4.497,389.00 $ 1,916,826.00 $ 4,295,396.50 page 1 BID SUMMARY Burlinghome Subdivision Sewer Rehabilitation Phase I and II City of Burlingame Project No.81500 Phase I Mitchell Engineering J.Howard Engineering,Inc. KJ Woods Construction,Inc. JMB Construction,Inc. Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount $ 50 000.00 $ 50 000.00 $ 53 000.00 $ 53 000.00 $ 57 750.00 $ 57 750.00 $ 73 997.00 $ 73 997.00 $ 104 274.00 $ 104 274.00 $ 39 000.00 $ 39 000.00 $ 20 000.00 $ 20 000.00 $ 30 000.00 $ 30 000.00 $ 9.00 E 7,920.00 $ 15.00 $ 13 200.00 $ 8.00 $ 7,040.00 $ 30.00 $ 26 400.00 $ 17.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 25.00 $ 12 500.00 $ 10.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 35.00 $ 17 500.00 $ 47.00 $ 10 340.00 $ 50.00 1$ 11 000.00 $ 30.00 1$ 6,600.00 $ 64.00 $ 14 080.00 $ 2.00 $ 20 260.00 $ 2.00 1$ 20 260.00 $ 1.00 1$ 10 130.00 $ 1.19 $ 12 054.70 $ 48.00 $ 264 384.00 $ 83.00 $ 457 164.00 $ 120.00 $ 660 960.00 $ 80.00 $ 440 640.00 $ 250.00 $ 428 250.00 $ 145.00 $ 248 385.00 $ 180.00 $ 308 340.00 $ 190.00 $ 325 470.00 $ 275.00 $ 799 975.00 $ 157.00 $ 456 713.00 $ 190.00 $ 552 710.00 $ 200.00 $ 581 800.00 $ 81.00 $ 16 200.00 $ 180.00 $ 36 000.00 $ 50.00 $ 10 000.00 $ 150.00 S 30 000.00 $ 998.00 $ 138 722.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 139 000.00 $ 200.00 $ 27 800.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 278 000.00 $ 1,136.00 $ 20 448.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 27 000.00 $ 400.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 36 000.00 $ 1.056.00 $ 50,688.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 120 000.00 $ 500.00 $ 24 000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 96 000.00 $ 1,770.00 $ 3,540.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 4 800.00 $ 9,600.00 $ 418.00 $ 85 690.00 S 500.00 $ 102 500.00 $ 100.00 $ 20 500.00 $ 300.00 $ 61 500.00 $ 780.00 $ 780.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 5,033.00 $ 40 264.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 36 000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 48 000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 24 000.00 $ 5,164.01 $ 103 280.20 $ 4,750.00 $ 95 000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 90 000.00 $ 4,000.00 1$ 80 000.00 $ 2,717.00 $ 51 623.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 76 000.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 85 500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 57 000.00 $ 7,384.00 $ 7,384.00 $ 13 750.00 $ 13,750.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20 000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000,00 $ 6,232.00 $ 10 464.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 12 600.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 10 000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 797.00 $ 10 361.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 13 000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 13 000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 26 000.00 $ 797.00 $ 20 722.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 39 000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 39 000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 39 000.00 $ 5.00 $ 17 175.00 $ 10.00 $ 34 350.00 $ 2.00 $ 6,870.00 $ 40.00 $ 137 400.00 $ 3,846.00 $ 38 460.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 25 000.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 18 000.00 $ 133.00 $ 5,320.00 $ 105.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 800.00 $ 32 000.00 E 11 934.00 $ 11,934.00 $ 15 000.00 $ 15 000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 1000000 $ 10 000.00 E 7 025.00 E 21 075.00 S 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 4!000!00 $ 12 000.00 $ 7,822.00 1$ 15 644.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 1$ 5,000.00 $ 1000000 $ 7,822.00 1$ 15,644.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 1$ 10 000.00 $ 20 000.00 $ 2,379,321.20 $ 2,089,122.00 $ 2,074,000.00 $ 2,514,641.70 'error on hardcopy bid - Phase II Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount $ 40 000.00 $ 40 000.00 $ 25 000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 55 211.00 $ 55 211.00 $ 61 151.00 $ 61 151.00 $ 72 099.00 $ 72 099.00 $ 39 000.00 $ 39 000.00 $ 20 000.00 $ 20 000.00 $ 30 000.00 $ 30 000.00 $ 9.00 $ 25 920.00 S 15.00 $ 43 200.00 $ 8.00 $ 23 040.00 $ 30.00 $ 86 400.00 $ 9.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 25.00 $ 12 500.00 $ 10.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 35.00 $ 17 500.00 $ 55.00 $ 39 600.00 $ 50.00 $ 36 000.00 $ 30.00 $ 21 600.00 $ 64.00 1$ 46 080.00 $ 1.00 $ 13 897.00 $ 2.00 $ 27 794.00 $ 1.00 $ 13 897.00 $ 1.19 $ 16 537.43 $ 45.00 $ 436 680.00 $ 83.00 $ 805 432.00 $ 138.00 $ 1,339,152.00 E 80.00 $ 776 320.00 $ 136.00 $ 495,44&00 $ 145.00 $ 528 235.00 $ 180.00 $ 655 740.00 $ 190.00 $ 692 170.00 $ 179.00 $ 98 450.00 $ 157.00 $ 86 350.00 $ 190.00 $ 104 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 110 000.00 $ 81.00 $ 8,100.00 $ 180.00 $ 18 000.00 $ 50.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 150.00 $ 15 000.00 $ 984.00 $ 180 072.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 183 000.00 $ 200.00 $ 36 600.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 366 000.00 $ 1,121.00 $ 56 050.00 $ 2.500.00 $ 125,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 25 000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 100 000.00 $ 908.00 $ 31 780.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 52 500.00 $ 400.00 $ 14 000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 70 000.00 $ 987.00 $ 3,948.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 14 000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 2000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 424.00 $ 115 752.00 $ 500.00 $ 136 500.00 $ 100.00 $ 27 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 81 900.00 $ 4,899.00 1$ 156 768.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 144 000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 192 000.00 E 3 000.00 $ 96 000.00 $ 4,946.00 $ 108 812.00 $ 4,750.00 $ 104 500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 99 000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 88 000.00 $ 5,232.00 $ 26,160.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 31 500.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 25 000.00 S 4 000.00 $ 20 000.00 $ 2,295.00 $ 57 375.00 $ 4.000.00 $ 100 000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 112 500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 75 000.00 $ 797.00 $ 11 158.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 14 000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 14,000M $ 2,000.00 $ 28 000.00 $ 797.00 $ 30 286.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 57 000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 57 000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 95 000.00 $ 5.00 $ 17 400.00 $ 10.00 $ 34 800.00 $ 2.00 $ 6,960.00 $ 40.00 $ 139 200.00 $ 3,846.00 $ 38 460.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 25 000.00 $ 1 800.00 $ 18 000.00 $ 133.00 $ 5,320.00 $ 105.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 800.00 $ 32 000.00 E 11 934.00 $ 11,934.00 $ 15 000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 13 000.00 $ 13 000.00 $ 10 000.00 $ 10 000.00 $ 3 802.00 $ 11 406.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 12 000.00 $ 4,458.00 1$ 8 916.00 E 1 000.00 $ 2 000.00 $ 1 000.00 1 2 000.00 $ 5 000.00 S 1000000 $ 4,458.00 $ B 916.00 $ !,!202020!2020 $1 22:2.19120!202. $ 1 000.00 $ 2 000.00 $ 10 000.00 $ 20 000.00 $ 2,116,207.00 $ 2,644,011.00 $ 2,904,000.00 $ 3,120,268.43 *error on hardcopy bid $ 4,494,628.20 $ 4,733,137.00 $ 4,978,000.00 $ 5,654,800.13 page 2 Agenda Item # 9c Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: June 5, 2006 1 , 14v, SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: MAY 18, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1616 WILLOW AVENUE, LOTS 4 AND 5 AND PORTION OF LOT 6, BLOCK 3, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 4 SUBDIVISION, PM 06-03 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council concur with the Planning Commission and approve the subject lot line adjustment with the following conditions: • Developmental approvals are not part of this action. • A new sewer lateral for Parcel A shall be installed as shown on the plan in conformance with City of Burlingame standards. The existing sewer lateral crossing Parcel B to Willow Avenue shall be removed and abandoned at the sewer main pipeline. • The lot line adjustment shall be recorded and a copy of the record shall be sent to the City. • A Geogrid type driveway shall be installed at the ingress and egress point of the property to minimize damage to tree roots. • An independent certified arborist is required to be on site for any digging below grade for the two trees closest to Newhall Road. The arborist shall also be on site for any cutting of tree roots of two inches in diameter or larger. BACKGROUND: At their meeting of March 13, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the attached lot line adjustment and recommended Council approval with the conditions listed above. Staff will ensure that the lot line adjustment is recorded. EXHIBITS: Lot Line Adjustment; Staff Memorandum; March 13, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes c: 'tV__ rk, Applicant Vic or V AssistAnt E ineer S:W Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\06-04.doc BURLINGAME MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE: MARCH 6, 2006 RE: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1616 WILLOW AVENUE, LOTS 4 AND 5 AND PORTION OF LOT 6, BLOCK 3, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 4 SUBDIVISION , PM 06-03 Planning Commission Action: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the attached lot line adjustment with the following conditions: 1. Developmental approvals are not part of this action. 2. New sewer lateral for Parcel A shall be installed as shown on plan and in conformance with City of Burlingame standards. The existing sewer lateral crossing Parcel B to Willow Avenue shall be removed and abandoned at the sewer main line. 3. The lot-line adjustment shall be recorded and a copy of the record shall be sent to the City. Back round: This application is requesting to subdivide the three existing lots into two lots in the attached plan. This lot line adjustment will result in the elimination of one parcel by moving one lot line and removing one lot line. The purpose of this lot line adjustment is to develop one lot with the existing house and garage to remain on the other lot. A parcel map is not required to adjust the existing lot lines to form two (2)parcels from three (3) existing parcels. The current Subdivision Map Act Section 66412 Map Act Exclusions (d) states: "A lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, if the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency, or advisory agency. A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the local general plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances. An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose conditions or U:WI CTOR\Projects\Private\PM 06.03.wpd exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to the local general plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property fees prior to the approval of the lot-line adjustment, or to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. No tentative map,parcel map, final map shall be required as a condition to the approval of a lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded. No record of survey shall be required for a lot line adjustment unless required by Section 8762 of the Business and Professions Code." The proposed Lot A will have 100 feet of street frontage and a total lot area of 12,596 square feet. The proposed Lot B will have 56.45 feet of street frontage and a total lot area of 6,754 square feet. The Planning Department has reviewed this map and these parcels meet all zoning requirements. There are no public utilities nor public easements that will be affected and this application can be approved by the Commission. The Commission action does not need to be forwarded to Council except on appeal. Vic or Vo , Assista Engineer Attachments: Plan U:\VICTOR\Projects\Private\PM06.03.wpd City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 13, 2006 Coordinator's December 5, 2005,memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's,memo shall be met; 12) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame;and 14) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the suggested changes. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 5. 1616 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO RECONFIGURE LOT LINES (GARY AND JOYCE TOOTHMAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER, BGT LAND SURVEYING, LAND SURVEYOR) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report March 13, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report and reviewed criteria for subdivision maps. Commissioners asked about the minimum lot size for the area? 5,000 SF. Does that mean that the larger of these two lots,about 12,000 SF,could be divided in the future? Yes,if the structures on the lot were demolished and a map prepared; providing the two lots resulting could be developed without any exceptions to the zoning code. Appears that the driveway proposed off Newhall will pass over the roots of some big Oak trees; will this be a problem in the future? CA suggested that the Commission asked the applicant if there is another way to gain access to the garage. Commissioner noted that modifications could be made to the driveway,problem if they are required to use the existing curb-cut. CA noted could add a condition that the Oaks need to be preserved and that to do that the curb-cut could be removed or relocated. Any new structure or curb work which might affect the trees is reviewable;condition should require review of any paving or construction of a driveway to protect the oaks. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Gary Toothman, 1616 Willow Avenue. Proposing a new driveway off Newhall, submitted a survey from an arborist who did 6 inch deep exploration around the roots, said based on 6 inch deep survey no problem with base rock. Could driveway come off Willow and be shared with new lot? Not possible because of the location of the garage for the new development on the Willow lot. Can the utilities and driveway be separated so there will be no trenching through the tree roots? Will work on surface, and provide a pervious surface. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: Should add a condition that any request for a cub-cut or driveway shall come before the Planning Commission for review;don't like idea of shared driveways,they never work and cause future problems;Mayne Tree says can do the driveway,need to have the City Arborist oversee;agree that if the plans are sent to the City Arborist,and if the site is tested deeper for roots,applicant need not come back to the Planning Commission, it is in the mutual interest of the property owner and city to preserve these trees. Am interested in a treatment for the driveway which will preserve the Oak trees for a long time,longer than 10 years, does the letter from Mayne identify that kind of treatment? CA suggested that perhaps the driveway could come back as an FYI to the Commission,and then if the Commission did not agree,it could be put on a regular agenda. Not adverse to dividing the property, if the report says no driveway because roots are more extensive, then find a solution. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 13, 2006 C. Osterling noted that there are several options to protect these tress,In this case have an opportunity to be creative,see the sections and detail,the City Arborist can review,so moved to recommend the parcel map to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on the motion: limited action if the lot split is already approved, how then require access to accommodate new site? CA suggest that Commission could approve the lot line adjustment but hold off on recording the action until the Planning Commission has reviewed the arborist's report to be sure that a driveway can be installed without damaging the Oak trees. The maker and second of the motion agreed to amend the motion with the provision that the Commission recommend to Council action on the lot line adjustment but that the map shall not be recorded until the Planning Commission has reviewed and approved a more detailed arborist report which defines how the driveway can be installed without damaging the roots of the large Oak trees in the vicinity of the proposed'new driveway on the larger lot. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the lot line adjustment map to the City Council for approval with the condition that the map shall not be recorded until the applicant has prepared a detailed arborist's report addressing the installation of the driveway in the vicinity of the large Oak trees providing for the long term protection of these trees, and the report has been reviewed by the City Arborist andreviewed by the Planning Commission. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. 6. 1504 ALTURAS DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DEREK & AMY CHUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND GEORGE SUN, SUN ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report March 13,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. George Sun,architect,represented the project and was available to answer questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal stated that he had no objections to the changes proposed and moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 13, 2006, sheets A2.0, A2.1, A3.0 and A4.0 and date stamped April 14,2004, sheets A1.0,A1.1,A5.0,topographic map, C-2 and L1.0; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 17, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's February 21, 2006 and November 17, 2004, memos, the Recycling Specialist's February 22, 2006 and November 17, 2004, memos, and the City Engineer's November 17, 2004 memos shall be met; 4) that the 24"Weeping Willow tree located in the front of Lot#I is approved for removal by the City Arborist as per Code Section 11.06.060(c); 5) that the 43" Coastal Live Oak located on Lot#2, immediately adjacent to Lot #1, shall not be removed and the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures ,prior to any grading or demolition on the site. The tree protection measures,as defined in the applicant's arborist report by the Green Jeannie(date stamped January 6, 2004)which has been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist, shall be maintained on site 8 Agenda Item # 9d BURLINGAME Meeting STAFF REPORT Date: June 5, 2006 SUBMITTED BY WVAPPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: MAY 24, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY WIDE STORM DRAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS MASTER PLAN City Projects No. 80720 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution for the City Wide Storm Drain Improvements Master Plan. BACKGROUND: In 2004, staff and Council reviewed city wide facility needs for storm drain infrastructure improvements. A storm drain master plan was reviewed by Council at the October 26, 2004 study session. Staff met with the council Finance Subcommittee in November, 2004 and February, 2005 to discuss financing options. DISCUSSION: Frequent flooding in residential, commercial, and industrial areas from system overflows and high tides cause property damage, sewer overflows, creek levee erosion, and curb and gutter ponding. The master plan addresses long range needs to reduce flooding in the City's storm drain system. Improvements include all five water sheds. Following are the 2004 costs of providing the improvements to reduce flooding impacts and resultant property damage. Easton Creek $ 7,000,000 Burlingame / Ralston Creeks $ 9,000,000 Sanchez / Terrace Creeks $10,000,000 Mills Creek $ 1,000,000 EI Portal / Trousdale Creeks $ 500,000 Pump stations, bridges, culverts $ 8,500,000 and curb and gutters Storm Drain Improvements Total $36,000,000 BUDGET IMPACT: Funding for these future projects will be approved on an annual basis through the City budget process. If Council decides to pursue a future ballot measure, it is necessary that the City has a Council-approved Master Plan. The general obligation bonds will fund these storm drain improvements. EXHIBITS: Resolution for Acceptance of Storm Drain Master Plan Storm Drain Master Plan Report Doug B I nd Jane Gome Seni ngineer and ProgWn Manager c: Jim Nantell,City Manager;George Bagdon,Director of Public Works; Larry Anderson,City Attorney;Meg Monroe,City Planner; Doris Mortensen,City Clerk S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80720 Accept Storm Drain master plan 6-5-2006.SR-2.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CITYWIDE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT MASTER PLAN RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, during the past six years, the City has studied the stormwater demands and needs in the City; and WHEREAS, a stormwater master plan has been prepared to guide stormwater improvements during the coming years; and WHEREAS, this plan will be an important resource for planning and ensuring that public health and safety is protected, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED: 1 . The Citywide Storm Drain Improvements Master Plan is approved. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, 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 day of , 2006- , and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 1 CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9e MTG. "TED JUNE6� DATE June 5,2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT BY DATE: June 5,2006 APP VED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER MEDIATION SERVICES CONTRACT FOR FY 2006-07 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a funding agreement with the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center(PCRC) for fiscal year 2006-07 in the amount of$15,559 and authorize the City Manager to execute documents. BACKGROUND: The City of Burlingame contracts with the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center to provide mediation and conciliation services to residents, landlords, tenants,businesses and other persons needing these services. The services include: • Information and referral services. • One party assistance in conflict situations. • Conciliation services as a neutral third party. • Mediation services to resolve conflicts between two parties. • Recruitment and training of community volunteers. A complete listing of all services is included in the attached funding agreement document. The adopted budget contains $15,500 in the Other Non-Departmental account for this purpose. The request from the agency is $15,559. The city budget can absorb the additional $59.00 given the value of the service to the community. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Authorizing The City Manager to Execute Agreement with the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center to Provide Conciliation and Mediation Service in FY 2006-2007 Agreement for the Provision of Community Mediation Services-FY2006-07 S:\Funding Agreements with Agencies\Peninsula Conflict and Resolution Center\FY 06-07 Agreement.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH THE PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER TO PROVIDE CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION SERVICES IN 2006-2007 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City wishes to continue to provide a ready means by which its citizens can obtain ready, low cost, effective mediation and conciliation services to resolve conflicts that may arise between neighbors, landlords and tenants, consumers and business, and other persons; and WHEREAS, this service provides cost savings to the City in resolving disputes without the need for extensive City involvement while enhancing the community with better relations between citizens; and WHEREAS,the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center has provided this service to the community on a professional and able basis, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A is approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the agreement for and on behalf of the City. 3. The City Clerk is directed to witness the Manager's signature on behalf of the City. MAYOR I,DORIS MORTENSEN,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 day of , 2006,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: 1 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 ILC J PeNiVAStAIa Goh fli& R2SOItAfiOVA Ge 1A AMAR 1 3 2006 � Gm owerin people. BLAddivl relationski s. Recluciv� violev< 1' 91' 1' 9 I' 9 CI;Y'Or BURLINGAI�E MANAGER'S OFFICE March 8, 2006 James Nantell, City Manager City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Jim, The Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center(PCRC)is writing to ask the City of Burlingame to renew its contract for conflict resolution services in 2006-2007. We appreciate the longstanding relationship between Burlingame and PCRC and we hope that it will continue to be a mutually beneficial partnership. A proposed contract is enclosed. The contract fee for fiscal year 05-06 was $14,961. We are suggesting $15,559 as the fee for 05-06, a figure that reflects a 4% cost of living increase based on the National Consumer Price Index. While we are aware of the fiscal constraints that face cities in the Bay Area, we at PCRC do all that we can to make sure that we provide our services in a cost effective and efficient manner and that they meet a real need in the communities we serve. In addition to the contract, I have enclosed an outline of some additional services that PCRC provides to cities to enhance their internal processes and also their abilities to engage their communities. I hope that Burlingame will consider using PCRC as a resource for these activities that go beyond the contract for mediation services to individuals. I would also like to draw your attention to the portion of the contract entitled "What the City Will Provide" (Section II of Exhibit A). We consider our work to be a partnership with cities and we rely on city staff to help us spread the word about PCRC to the community. 2006 is PCRC's 20'anniversary year.For 20 years,we have been a resource for communities throughout San Mateo County for support in resolving disputes peacefully and building skills for collaboration. We will be celebrating our history later this year and hope you will join us. As this is a milestone year, PCRC will engage in a reassessment of how we structure city contracts and other support for our mediation services. This process will likely include soliciting input from some of our contract cities. I hope that the City of Burlingame chooses to continue to partner with PCRC in order to help build safer and stronger communities. Please contact me by phone or email if you have any questions. Sincerely, 9J er ullock iate Director -16605.Ampkle-tt Blvd.,#219•Save JVlateo,CA 94402.650-513-0330 Fax 650-513-0335 www. percwe-6-ov9 A non pro fit commuviitY resource servivv y Sav1 Allot—Co"nty si"ce 1986 PevAiVlSLAIa GOVX flicf ReSOILAtiOVI Cet1fev` C--m oweNiv� people. BLAildin ve�atiovis��i s. ReJtAcivl violevice. C' 91' 1' 9 p 9 Agreement for the Provision of Community Mediation Services The Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center(PCRC), a 501(c)(3)public benefit corporation, wishes to provide conflict resolution services for the City of Burlingame (City). The Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center is an independent contractor, organized in accordance with the laws of California and is capable of performing the conflict resolution services described in this agreement. PCRC and Burlingame agree as follows: 1. SERVICES. The PCRC shall provide the services described in Exhibit A, attached to and made a part of this agreement. 2. FUNDING. Funding by the City shall be in advance and shall not exceed$15,559 PCRC shall provide documentation to specify how the funds requested shall be spent, including such details as the City deems appropriate.Additional documentation may be requested by the City. 3. CONTRACT TERM. This contract shall commence on July 1, 2006 and shall terminate on June 30, 2007 unless terminated before that time, as described in Paragraph 6 of this agreement. 4. PROGRAM REPORTS. A performance report shall be submitted to the City on a quarterly basis. This report shall include a description of all program activity related to this contract for the particular quarter. 5. BREACH OF CONTRACT. The City reserves the right to waive any and all breaches of this contract, any such waiver shall not be deemed a waiver of all previous or subsequent breaches. In the event the City chooses to waive a particular breach of this contract, it may condition said waiver on payment by PCRC of actual damages occasioned by such breach of contract. PCRC shall make every effort to resolve the breach quickly and amicably. 6. TERMINATION. In the event the PCRC is unable to fulfill its responsibilities under this contract for any reason whatsoever,including circumstances beyond its control,the City may terminate this contract. Either party to this agreement may terminate this contract without cause by giving 10 days written notice to the other party. 7. INTEREST OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS. No members, officer or employee or agents of the City, no member of the City Council, and no other public official exercising any function or responsibility with respect to this program during his/her tenure, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or a related subcontract or the proceeds thereof. 8. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES. It is expressly understood that PCRC is an independent contractor and that no agency, employee or other relationship is intended to be or is established by this contract. -1660 S.,AmphlettBlvd.,#2'19'Scm)Mateo,CA 94402'650-513-0330'Fax 650-513-0335www. percwe6.0V9 A PAPApNo fit COMMuvAify t^esONNce serving Scm AAciteo Co"""y since 1986 9. INSPECTION OF PROGRAM. It is understood that periodic review of PCRC's program may be necessary and the right to do so is reserved by the City. 10. ASSIGNABILITY. PCRC shall not assign in this agreement and shall not transfer any interest in the same, without the prior written consent of the City. 11. HOLD HARMLESS AND INSURANCE. PCRC agrees(1)to hold harmless and indemnify the City and its officers and employees from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage and expense arising from performance of this contract, including claims, loss, liability, damage and expense caused or claimed to be caused by passive negligence of the City or its officers or employees. (2)to defend (City),its officers or employees there-against;provided however that this provision does not apply to claims, loss, liability, damage or expense arising from (a)the sole negligence or willful misconduct of(City) or(b)the active negligence of(City). General liability and automobile liability insurance shall provide the following minimum benefits: (1) general liability, including comprehensive form, personal injury, broad form property damage, contractual and premises/operation in limits of $1,000,000. aggregate,bodily injury and property damage combined; (2) automobile liability in limits of$1,000,000,bodily injury and property damage combined. Additionally, workers compensation insurance in at least the minimum statutory amounts shall be maintained. All liability insurance policies shall specify(City),its elective and appointed boards, commissions, officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. A certificate of insurance shall be provided to(City)prior to performance pursuant to this contract. It shall include policy endorsement verifying City's additional insured status. Further, any changes in insurance, required herein must be approved in writing by the City Attorney's Office. 12. NONDISCRIMINATION. General: No person shall, on the basis of race, color,national origin, religious affiliation or non affiliation, marital status, medical condition, sex, age, handicap, sexual orientation or political affiliation be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits or be subjected to discrimination, under this agreement. Employment: PCRC shall ensure equal employment opportunity based on objective standards of recruitment, selection, promotion, classification, compensation, performance evaluation and management relations, for all employees under this agreement. PCRC's personnel policies shall be made available to the City upon request. 13. PROJECT REPRESENTATION. PCRC and the City hereby designate the following agents to act as project representatives and receive all notices in the matters dealing with the performance of work, under this agreement. PCRC: Jennifer Bullock, Associate Director CITY: James Nantell, City Manager 14. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. In the event that differences relating to this contract, or to the relationship between the contracting parties, should arise during the term of this agreement, both parties will pursue resolution using an interest-based, non-adversarial approach and utilizing the services of a neutral third party mediator if direct negotiations are not successful. 15. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. Additional provisions, if any, are contained in Exhibit A, attached to this document. In witness thereof, this agreement has been duly executed by the parties named above. PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER 1660 South Amphlett Blvd, Ste. 219 San Mateo, CA 94402 (650)513- 330 By Date J er ullock, Associate Director CITY OF Burlingame James Nantell, City Manager 501 P 'mrose Road Burli ame, C/A 94010 / By ted' Date `�< EXHIBIT "A" I. What PCRC will provide Services to be provided to the City of Burlingame through this contract are described below. A. Information Services All of the services in this category are unlimited and free of charge. 1) Information and Referral:A resource person is available by telephone, to assist residents who have specific questions relating to a conflict. Through this conversation the resident may clarify issues of concern,be given specific information about common practices related to landlord-tenant and community issues and receive a referral to an appropriate agency/resource. 2) Information and Assistance: A resource person assists the concerned caller to de- escalate feelings, clarify issues and underlying needs, develop possible solution options, and begin to design an approach to dispute resolution. 3) Promotion of Use of Conflict Resolution Services:As resources permit, PCRC staff and volunteers will make presentations and develop press releases and media coverage. PCRC will provide brochures and other printed materials to be kept in public areas where community members are likely to seek resource information. Member cities are also expected to promote the use of conflict resolution services through city staff and in the community. B. Mediation Services for Individuals 1) One Party Assistance:A resource person assists a caller to think through a conflict situation,including clarifying issues and interests of involved parties, exploring approaches to dealing with the situation and solution options and assisting with the selection of an approach to resolution. A follow-up call is arranged to determine the outcome of the situation, with the understanding that mediation would be the next step if negotiation is unsuccessful. 2) Conciliation: Conciliation is the resolution of a conflict through the intervention of a neutral third party, without the disputing parties coming together in a face to face mediation. A resource person works with a resident, clarifying issues of concern, explaining approaches to seeking resolution, and gaining agreement by the party to pursue mediation and case intake. A case development process,involving contacts with both/all involved parties,is initiated and during that process, a resolution of concerns is achieved, to the satisfaction of the involved parties. 3) Mediation: Mediation through PCRC involves a face-to-face meeting between disputing parties who contact PCRC directly or who are referred by city staff or community agencies. With the assistance of a panel of trained volunteer mediators, parties work through a non-adversarial problem solving process and attempt to develop a mutually acceptable resolution to the issues of concern. There is a two- fold focus: development of a satisfying and durable agreement and the preservation of an effective relationship in situations where the parties will continue to be in contact with each other. 4 Through this contract, the City is subsidizing the provision of private mediation services to those who reside or work in the City.These services assist with conflict situations between individuals.The types of conflicts may include:landlord/tenant disputes, issues between two neighbors (either owners or renters), consumer disputes, roommate problems, conflicts between friends, plus some domestic or family issues. PCRC also provides mediation services in more complex situations that involve multiple parties and/or multiple issues. For example:workplace disputes;intra-or extra- organizational conflicts, multi-neighbor disputes or public controversies.See C. Additional Conflict Resolution Services. C. Additional Conflict Resolution Services If the City,residents or local organizations use the additional conflict resolution services described below, this contract provides a 10% discount off of PCRC's standard fee schedule. 1) Training:PCRC offers orientations to city staff about the mediation program and its services as part of the basic contract. In addition, PCRC can train groups in theory and practice of interest-based conflict management,negotiation, communication, and facilitation skills.Training session are tailored to the particular needs of the group and have proven useful to city departments heads, front-line staff, commission members, co-workers, community service providers as well as other groups. 2) Conflict Assessment/Consultation:PCRC can assist cities, as well as local community organizations/groups to assess specific conflict situations, analyze concerns of stakeholders and develop strategies for pro-active and interest based conflict resolution.The conflict assessment process usually involves third party neutral contact with stakeholders to gather input and provide information about interest-based conflict resolution. An assessment report can be prepared and provided to the group. 3) Mediation Services for Complex Situations: PCRC's staff and volunteers provide the same high quality of mediation services in multi-party,multi-issue, complex disputes as we do for individual disputes.This may follow a conflict assessment/consultation as above in 2 and requires a more advanced level of mediation training and experience. Examples of complex mediation situations include:workplace conflict between supervisor and supervisee;workplace issues affecting a whole team;a neighborhood issue involving multiple households;a public controversy in which the City or other institution is involved. 4) Conflict Resolution System Design:PCRC can assist organizations in building internal conflict resolution capacity, i. e. the development of policies and procedures for interest-based dispute prevention and early resolution. This service is tailored to the unique needs of the individual group, but is based on recognized and proven design principles. 5) Design and facilitation of Community Forums,Public Conversations,Dialogues: Through the Civic Engagement Initiative, PCRC is developing expertise in managing public discussions. Working with local representatives, PCRC will assist with the design and facilitation/recording for a wide variety of group sessions in which 5 members of the public are encouraged to participate in dialogue about issues that affect the health and well-being of the community. 6) Facilitation of planning sessions for Committees,Departments,Councils: PCRC will assist with the design and facilitation of planning sessions for elected, appointed and civic groups who are coming together to plan for the future. D. Administration of a Community Mediation Program: In collaboration with the contracting city, PCRC will administer a mediation program responsive to the needs of the community. PCRC may solicit input from city staff about unique areas of concern to a city and appropriate approaches to program implementation, improvement and promotion. E. Recruitment and training of community volunteers:PCRC will develop and maintain a pool of trained volunteer mediators, case developers and facilitators to serve the conflict resolution needs of the community. These residents of local communities will become skillful in the interest-based approach to conflict resolution. PCRC volunteers complete a minimum of 25 hours of training, according to regulations that govern programs receiving support from the California Dispute Resolution Trust Fund. PCRC will offer on-going skill development opportunities to volunteers to improve and enhance their conflict resolution skills. II. What the City of Burlingame will provide: A. Funding in the amount of$15,559 for Fiscal Year 2006-07.This fee is full payment for the services defined above. Payments will be made upon receipt of invoice. B. Support for the program from city officers and staff members, demonstrated through public statements, publicity, and referrals through city departments to the mediation program. C. At least one article or ad placed in a city run publication to promote the use of PCRC services among residents and businesses in the city. A PCRC staff person will work with a city contact person to develop this material. D. Assistance in scheduling appointments for PCRC representatives to make outreach presentations to groups of city staff, civic organizations and other relevant groups.This assistance should result in a minimum of 2 presentations in the city per year. E. No cost use of city-controlled public meeting space, as needed and as available, for training sessions, meetings and mediations. This use will be subject to the existing rules and regulations that govern the use of these spaces. III. Agreement by both parties,in concept. Both PCRC and the City recognize that this is an ongoing program. If the Community Mediation Program meets the terms of this agreement to the City's satisfaction, and in the absence of unexpected financial constraints, it is expected that the City will consider funding the Community Mediation Program, on an annual basis, as negotiated between the two parties. P2V1iVASLAICt CoVAfliCt R2S0ItA+i0V1 C2v +e_tA PCX Cvnt'owe,-in 9 people. 13tAilcliviq P-elofloviskips. ReJLAcivig violence. ( ) "Add-On" Training Packages These training packages are available if a city chooses to supplement its basic contact amount. Once the service is contracted for,implementation and scheduling will be done at the convenience of both the city and PCRC. In each case, PCRC staff would tailor the session to meet the needs of the group of trainees. 1) Training in facilitation skills for City Boards and Commissions-$1000.00 for a 6 hour session for up to 30 participants Highlights: • Tools for managing group interaction • Listening skills for group settings • Tips for successful deliberation • Meeting management tools (agenda,group agreements, decision-making) • Tools for improving public input processes References from the City of San Mateo could be provided. 2) "Skills for Dealing with an Angry Public' a training for front line city staff--$500 for a 3 hour session with up to 20 participants Highlights: • Tips for managing people with high emotions • Techniques for helping an angry citizen"feel heard" • Tools for helping people in conflict • Practice opportunities using realistic scenarios 3) "Skills for a Facilitative Leader": a workshop for city staff who are moving into leadership roles--$2000 for an 11 hour training,up to 20 participants Highlights • Enhancing effective communication skills • Tools for managing group interaction • Meeting management tools (agenda, group agreements, decision-making) • Conflict resolution techniques • Practice opportunities in pairs and small groups References from the City of Redwood City could be provided. 1660 S.AvnphlettBlvd.,#219•SanAActteo,CA 94402.650-513-0330•Fax 650-513-0335•www. percwe6.ot-9 A nonprofit covnvnE41AHY resource serving San MCtfeo County since 1986 ��� CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9f D0 MTG. D ADAATED.n,NE69 DATE June 5,2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT BY DATE: June 5,2006 AP OVED Y SUBMIT FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROMOTIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR FY 06-07 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the promotional services contract with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce for FY2006-07 and authorize the City Manager to execute documents. BACKGROUND: The City of Burlingame contracts with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce to provide promotional and information services to businesses, visitors and residents. The services include: • Distribution of materials and information to businesses and residents about Burlingame programs, events and activities. • Referral services to businesses and residents about Burlingame City government. • Sponsor and coordinate community events involving merchants, businesses and the public. • Promotion of business, community and economic development activities. A complete listing of all services is included in the attached funding agreement document. The city budget contains $29,300 in the Non-Departmental account for this purpose. Disbursements are made monthly to the Chamber. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Agreement with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce to Provide Information and Promotion Services in 2006-2007. Funding Agreement for Promotional Activities—Chamber of Commerce S:\Chamber of Commerce\Council Agenda Report FY06-07.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH THE BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND PROMOTION SERVICES IN 2006-2007 RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City needs an ongoing public information service that can respond to inquiries from business, visitors, and residents about the public and private services available in the community; and WHEREAS,the City also needs a ready source of information and coordination of community events; and WHEREAS,there is also a need for local promotion of community events; and WHEREAS,Government Code sections 40100 and following allow the City to appropriate money to publicize and advertise the City; and WHEREAS,the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce has provided these services to the community on a timely, professional basis, NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A is approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the agreement for and on behalf of the City. 3. The City Clerk is directed to witness the Manager's signature on behalf of the City. MAYOR I,DORIS MORTENSEN,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 day of , 2006,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: 1 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 2 AGREEMENT PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES—CHAMBER OF COMMERCE This Agreement is made and entered into as of the 1" day of July, 2006, by and between the City of Burlingame, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as "Chamber"),with reference to the following Recitals: RECITALS: WHEREAS, City desires to promote its advantages as a business, educational, cultural, recreational and residential center, and to disseminate information relative thereto, and to properly respond to inquiries made from time to time relating to the various activities of City; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: AGREEMENT: 1. Duties of Chamber. In exchange for the consideration specified in paragraph 3 below, Chamber shall perform the following promotional activities on behalf of City: a. Distribute materials and information to residents and businesses about Burlingame relating to the activities described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. b. Answer public inquiries about community facilities, events, organizations, businesses, and other community informational needs, through availability on a"walk-in"basis, as well as through mailings, telephone and e-mail. C. Provide referral services to citizens and businesses to appropriate City or government offices, including without limitation, the City Business License Bureau (located in the Water Department), Burlingame Recreation Department, Planning Department, Public Works Department, Police Department and Fire Department. d. Coordinate community events involving merchants and businesses requiring City services as needed and help promotion by City. e. Sponsor/coordinate/advertise special events and activities involving businesses and the public, including the following: (1) Produce Burlingame Art & Jazz Festival S:\Chamber of Commerce\Funding Agreement FY 06-07.doc I (2) Assist with the December Merchant Holiday Open House and Tree Lighting Ceremony (3) Assist the Recreation Department with advertising the Burlingame Millbrae Golf Tournament (4) Conduct seasonal Farmers Market (5) Sponsor Broadway Holiday Cheer event f. Produce/distribute materials about Burlingame, as follows: (1) Burlingame/Hillsborough Street Map, including providing 1000 copies to the City of Burlingame g. Promote business, community and economic development through the activities described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. h. Assist City with the continuation of the currently operating commuter shuttle service between the Broadway Caltrain station and the business area East of the Bayshore Freeway. i. Promote the retention and relocation of businesses to City by participating (in conjunction with City) in the activities of San Mateo County Economic Development Association. J. Maintain and operate an office open to the general public for discharging the obligations of Chamber under the terms of this Agreement (including, without limitation, promoting the residential and business attributes of City to the public). k. Employ competent personnel to carry on the promotional activities enumerated herein. 1. Work to develop a partnership with the City of Burlingame's business improvement districts that include the exploration of: (1) Creating a"Buy Burlingame" campaign (2) Use of a joint website to promote Burlingame businesses 2. Certain Political Activities Prohibited. The Chamber shall not support, endorse or oppose any candidate for municipal, county or school elections in San Mateo County. The Chamber may conduct candidate debate forums or similar events of a public information nature. S:\Chamber of Commerce\Funding Agreement FY 06-07.doc 2 3. Consideration. a. General Promotional Activities. City shall pay Chamber, in the manner specified below, the sum of Twenty-nine Thousand, Three Hundred Dollars ($29,300) for general promotional services performed by Chamber hereunder for the period commencing July 1, 2006, and ending June 30, 2007. The foregoing sum shall be paid in twelve equal consecutive monthly installments commencing July 1, 2006. Chamber shall send to City on the first (1St) day of each month a written invoice describing in a summary manner the services for which Chamber is to be paid. Invoices dated the first day of each month shall be paid no later than the fifteenth day of each month. 4. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned by Chamber without the written consent of City. 5. Notices. All written notices and demands which either party may serve on the other may, as an alternative to personal service, be served by registered or certified mail. Any such notice or demand so served shall be deposited in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid and addressed to the party at the address specified below: City: City Manager City Hall 501 Primrose Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Chamber: Chair, Burlingame Chamber of Commerce 290 California Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Either party may change such address by notice in writing to the other party, and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. 6. Relationship of parties. It is agreed the Chamber is an independent contractor and all persons working for or under the direction of Chamber or its agents, servants and employees are not agents or employees of City. 7. Termination. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2006 and shall terminate on June 30, 2007, unless extended by the parties in writing. 8. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. S:\Chamber of Commerce\Funding Agreement FY 06-07.doc 3 9. Entire Agreement. The terms of this Agreement are intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement and may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior or contemporaneous agreement. This Agreement constitutes the exclusive statement of its terms and no extrinsic evidence whatsoever may be introduced in any judicial proceedings involving this Agreement. 10. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation between the parties hereto to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the unsuccessful party to such litigation shall pay to the successful party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the successful party, all of which may be included as part of the judgment rendered in such litigation. 11. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement should be invalid or unenforceable the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby, and every provision hereof shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 12. Headings. The title and headings of the various sections hereof are included for purposes of reference only and are not intended to place any construction on the provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. CITY OF BURLINGAME: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: By By Jim Nantell, City Manager Georgette Naylor, President Attested: By By S:\Chamber of Commerce\Funding Agreement FY 06-07.doc 4 EXHIBIT A DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME 1. Burlingame Demographics 2. Essential information for new Burlingame residents, including, without limitation, information materials for Burlingame Newcomers Club for all new Burlingame residents contacted by the club. 3. Community Event Information including: a. Art In The Park b. Broadway Festival (when applicable) c. Burlingame Art and Jazz Festival d. Concert In The Park Series e. Concerts at Kohl Mansion f. Public Elementary School, Public and Private High School Events g. Burlingame Night— S.F. Giants h. Burlingame Millbrae Golf Tournament i. Burlingame Avenue Area&Broadway BID's. j. Merchant Sidewalk Sales (April & August) k. December—Merchant Holiday Open House and Tree Lighting 4. Public Transportation Information(Samtrans, Caltrain, BART and Burlingame Trolley) 5. Historical Information—Burlingame 6. Churches, parks and schools in Burlingame 7. Wedding/Meeting Sites Information 8. Clubs and Organizations Information 9. Hotel and Restaurant Information S:\Chamber of Commerce\Funding Agreement FY 06-07.doc 5 10. Realtor Information 11. Burlingame Business relocation assistance 12. Burlingame Business Economic Profile 13. Publication handouts include: a. Burlingame/Hillsborough Street Map - including providing 1000 copies to the City of Burlingame b. San Mateo County Convention&Visitors Bureau County Image c. Burlingame Golf Center d. Burlingame Recreation Department Brochures (3 per year) e. Social Service Resources 14. Provide direction or resource information to meet unique or uncommon requests S:\Chamber of Commerce\Funding Agreement FY 06-07.doc EXHIBIT B ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES PROMOTING BUSINESS, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1. Promotion of special community meetings, seminars and special events 2. Promotion of community events and services 3. Information to Burlingame Elementary Schools about Burlingame 4. Chamber Membership Advertising and Promotional Budget promotes Burlingame in coordination with the Business Associations and Business Improvement Districts 5. Prepare publicity releases for Community Events 6. On-going business economic development programs: a. Hotels b. Office Buildings c. Providing SCORE counselor in Chamber office for business counseling 7. Chamber Representation at San Mateo County PROGRESS SEMINAR to study regional issues 8. Response to City of Burlingame requests regarding all business issues 9. Chamber/Business Annual Report— Independent Special Edition Insert 10. Promote the annual county business trade show 11. Burlingame Trolley S:\Chamber of Commerce\Funding Agreement FY 06-07.doc 7 STAFF REPORT 6URLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9g MTG. DATE 5 June 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMATTED BY b<40-� DATE: May 30, 2006 APPR D� FROM: Director of Parks& Recreation (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: ACCEPT LOW BID FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESTROOM AND SNACK SHACK AT BAYSIDE PARK—City Project#81090 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting McNabb Construction, Inc. as the low responsible bidder on this project. BACKGROUND: Lower Bayside Park has four baseball/softball diamonds that are used for youth leagues, adult softball programs, recreational sports camps and many local and regional tournaments. Additionally, this park, which sits atop a former landfill site, hosts a large number of soccer programs and special events, and is used as the parking area for many participants of the Dog Park. There is a restroom/storage building next to the main entrance and a snack shack building at ball diamond#1. This Project will replace the existing restrooms and snack shack buildings and address three issues: 1. Bring the restroom facilities into ADA compliance; 2. Locate the facility central to each of the park's athletic fields; and 3. Allow for the planned widening of Airport Blvd. McNabb Construction, Inc., submitted a bid of$433,340, the lowest of three bids submitted on the project. The other two bidder's were ProVen ($533,840) and John Plane ($624,553). The architect's estimate for the project was $450,000 (including a 5% contingency). McNabb has been in business for ten years and has constructed many similar restrooms for city parks within the Bay Area. After reviewing McNabb's bid and materials submitted, Project Architect Callander Associates recommends awarding of the contract to McNabb. ATTACHMENTS: Award Recommendation from Callander Associates Resolution accepting McNabb Construction, Inc. as the low bidder Copy of McNabb Construction, Inc.'s Bid Sheet BUDGET IMPACT: $490,000 for this project is in the Capital Improvement Project budget. RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESTROOM AND CONCESSION BUILDING AT BAYSIDE PARK CITY PROJECT NO. 81090 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City publicly advertised for bids on the construction of a new building to house restrooms and concessions at Bayside Park,and the City received sealed bids as called for in the advertisement on May 3, 2006; and WHEREAS, McNabb Construction, Inc. is the apparent, responsible low bidder on the project with a proposal that meets the specifications required by the City, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that: 1. The City Council hereby awards the contract for Bayside Park Restroom and Concession Building [Project No. 810901 to McNabb Construction, Inc. in the total amount of$433,340.00. 2. The City Manager is directed to execute the agreement with McNabb Construction, Inc. contained in the award for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame, and the City Clerk is directed to acknowledge the Manager's signature on behalf of the City. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, 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 day of ,2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK U:\FILES\RESO\MCNABBconstruction.p&r.wpd b Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Via First Class Mail May 24, 2006 (650) 558-7307 Fax (650) 696-7216 Mr. Randy Schwartz, Director Department of Parks and Recreation 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: RESTROOM AND CONCESSION BUILDING PROJECT/award recommendation Dear Randy: With your concurrence, I suggest that the City award a contract to McNabb Construction for the Bayside Park Restroom and Concession Building. From. the materials submitted to date it appears that the alternate building vendor proposed by McNabb Construction can provide a structure substantially equivalent to the specified structure. A determination of equivalency and a summary of any required changes will be made during the submittal review phase of the project according to the methods prescribed for Substitutions (Section 1000, General Requirements paragraph 4.2.). Sincereiy, 0'. )AVI� A. Mark Slichter, ASLA, Principal Attachments: Restroom and Concession Building-City of Burlingame letter of May 181h,2006 from McNabb Construction,Inc.,w/ attachments, 17 pages 04071 AvvardRecommendation.doc L copyrighted 2006 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture,Inc. 311 Seventh Avenue 11 180 Sun Center Drive,Suite 104 Landscape Architecture Peter E.Callander,ASLA,Principal San Mateo,CA 94401-4259 Rancho Cordova,CA 95670-6167 Urban Design A.Mark Slichter,ASLA,Principal T 650.375.1313 T 916.631.1312 Land Planning Brian G.Fletcher,ASIA,Principal F 650.344.3290 F 916.635.9153 Park and Recreation Planning Erik Smith,ASLA,Principal wvvw.callanderassociates.com www.callanderassociates.com Environmental Planning Benjamin W.Woodside,ASLA,Principal Thuisday, May 18, 2006 8132 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4600 p.02 McNabb Construction, Inc. dba DK Enviromnental May 18, 2006 Mark Slichter Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 311 Seventh Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401-4259 RE: Restroom and Concessions Building -- City of Burlingame Dear Marr; I received your letter dated May 10, 2006. I passed a copy on to our restroom subcontractor/supplier for this project. Attached are two letters that I received back from them, I believe that this Information that I am providing answers all your questions and concerns about the restroom that we bid on the referenced project. We have completed two restroom/concessions projects that included Romtec buildings, one for the City of Concord and one for the City of Oakland. We have installed three new Super Secure restrooms for the City of Antioch. We have installed The Public Restroom Company's restrooms for the City of Davis and the City of San Bruno. The public Restroom Company restroom/concessions building we would be providing for this project meets the specifications in our opinion and hopefully in yours and the City's after review of this Informatlon. If you or the City has any cluestlons with regards to any aspects of the building design or engineering please do not hesitate to contact me via fax, email or my cell phone, I look forward to working on this project If it is awarded. I would like to have a decision on this as soon as possible as this is the time of year when there are numerous projects out to bid and I can not afford to pass up bidding on good projects if this one is not going to happen. Slnc5rely, Dave McNabb McNabb Construction, Inc, Cell 925-595-3305 cc: Tim Richmond & The Public Restroom Company (both via fax) 3286 Gloria Terrace, .Lafayette, CA 94549 Phone (925) 935-4200 Fax (925) 952-4600 Thursday, May 18, 2006 8.32 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4600 p.03 The Public Restroom Company Experts for 90 years!n Public Restroom DeViin/Construetlon www.restroomdesign.com VIA EM .IL: davenicnabb@ltotmall,com May 17, 2006 Mr. Dave McNabb McNabb Conetiuction 3286 Gloria Terrace Lafayette, CA 94549 RE: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND RESPONSE TO CALLANDAR ASSOCIATES LETTER MAY 10,2006 I will respond to his comments by category as follows: GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES AND FOUNDATION/METHANE GAS VENTING DESIGN The Public Restroom Company has just completed approval of our foundation and metliane gas venting system for a similar park situation on similar land fill at the Brisbane Marina, Mr, Greg Schirle reviewed and approved our design. The soils engineer of record, Earth Investigations Consultants of Pacifica, California,provided in their review of our engineering submittal for the gas collection system and the soils loading commented in their conclusions "we judge the appropriate foundation for the building is a mat foundation either the same or similar to the foundation that the building is delivered on. A mat foundation can be capable of spanning local soft areas. Also, it can settle differentially while still offering structural support, When properly prepared, the site will readily provide the necessary support fol the expected 230 lbs per square foot dead loads imposed by the mat. We recommend that a limited bearing capacity of 1000 psf for allowable loads. The inat should be designed so that it can span all unsupported distance of 6 feet over localized weak or soft areas." In conjunction with their recommendations, we are furnishing Geotech style grid mat, over excavated sub soils and placement of lightweight fill (80 lbs per cubic foot psf)to stiffen the impact of the building on the site soils. This technique has also been used at matey other sites I have been responsible for building public restroom buildings upon. The Public Restroom Company will bear the full cost of this engineering requirement and re-submittal to the County for plan inspection. ON-SITE COUNTY REVIEWS The Public Restroom Company takes full responsibility for the inspection procedures established by the County in accordance with their approval of the mat engineered slab foundation and s venting system for this building. ! i 638 Isbell Road, Suite 440,Rono, Nevada 89509 Phone 888.868-2080 Fax 888.888.1448 i Thursday, May 18, 2006 8.32 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4600 p.04 The Public Restroom Company EXPerts for 30 years In Public Restroom 0e51911/Construction www.tOstmomde5lgn.com Mr. Dave McNabb McNabb Construction Page Two PARTING LOT—STABILITY The Public Restroom Company has been noticed and clearly understands that the parking lot is "indeterminate". It is The Public Restroom Company's intention to provide adequate protection for the existing parking lot to make certain that all concentrated loads are dealt with properly in a sound engineering fashion. We will filrnish to the City Engineer proper evidence of our ability to spread the concentrated loads from the crane, PLAN REVIEW COMIVIIENTS Since the City of Burlingame Building Department previously had the responsibility for reviewing the Romtec submitted building plans and Commenting. Please be advised that the building we are proposing will limit the City of Burlingame Building Departments responsibility for plan review. The only items concerning the permitting of this building are local planning, local fire marshal, and any sub-grade utility installation which is perfonned ou site. The building that is constructed off site has the legal responsibility for review by the State of California Department of Housing Commercial Codes Division. The building will be inspected off site by their engineers, the engineering calculations will be approved by an appointed State Engineer in Sacramento, and when the building arrives,it will bear the insignias of full compliance with state building codes in accordance with the latest revisions. The state will certify to the local building department by both approved plans and subsequent letter certification and insignia that the building is in fact built and has been nispected in accordance with the approved submitted plans. I will make certain that each and cvcry comment listed in the plan review comments of June 30, 2005 are addressed in writing and attached to the State Engineered and approved plans for this project for the full review of anyone the City of Burlingame wishes to utilize. ELECTRICAL CONSIDERATIONS We have been notified that the plans were prepared with the assistance of an electrical engineer. We accept fill responsibility for meeting the requirements of plan review for electrical energy compliance, said compliance with the concession and coatroom as well as exterior lighting requirements of the City of Burlingame. SUMMARY I believe these comments address the request of Callander Associates letter of May 10, 2006. I have listed hereafter each and every place that the submitted building di Cfers from the specified Romtec Building, l have attached to this letter a breakdown of the differences in the building and an explanation where necessary of why we are suggesting advantages from The Public Restroom Company approach. 1 639 Isbell Road, Suite 440, Reno, Nevada 89505 Phone 888.888-2060 Fax 888.888-1448 F r Thursday, May 18, 2006 8;32 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4600 p,05 The Public Restroom Company Frtpertx for 30 yeeis In Public Restroom Design/Construction www,rostroomd@slgn.com Mr. Dave McNabb McNabb Construction Page Two I hope this submittal and response to the May 10 letter will be considered appropriate and in full and complete conununication of. I have attached to this correspondence all of the previous communication between our company, the City Park Department, and Callander Associates. Sincerely, C"." ck Kaufman President CK Enclosures l 639 Isbell Road, Butte 440, Reno, Nevada 89909 Phone 888.888.2080 Fax 688-888.1448 Thursday,May 18,2006 8:32 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4800 p.06 The Public Restroom Company Experts/or 90 years In Publlo Raaboom D88101construedon www.reshoomuaslgn.wrn April 21,2006 Mr.Tim Richmond City of Burlingame Dept.of Parks&Recreation 950 Burlingame Ave Burlingame,CA 94010 RE: BAYSIDE PARR RESTROOM&CONCESSION BUILDLVG Doer ecntlomm, Wlvle I have not seen the final set of plane for this building,it is likely I will see the same kind of building plan that we visited on Paradise Park for the city of Paradise,California last week. I have attached to this currespondence my comments on that project as they relate to the Rumtec Company. The Public Restroom Company would verymuch like to bid on this project and since we do all masoluy block and concrete/steel building systems,I am certain our advantages will be clear. I have enclosed our current literature,a set of plans that we are currently building for Brisbane Marina in which there is a gas collection system,and photographs of existing sites we have completed. Our partial list ofneighboring clients is also attached. As you both know,I was President of Restroom Facilities Ltd.from inception through 2002 and have owned my Aim,The Public Restroom Company since. Our current backlog of over 514 million attest to the acceptance of our new all concrete and steel product,quality of workmanship,on time delivery at cost,and vandal resistance design and construction. I would greatly appreciate being considered in a written addendum as an"or equal'to the Romtec Building. As you both know many contractors are unwilling to make the choice for the client. Even though you allow"or equal'status,often times the contractors will 01Ily select the project vendor specified. Thank you in advance for your consideration ucerely, Chuck Kaufman President CY/mh Cc: Marls Slichter,Callander Associates Attachments 639 Isbell Road,Sulte 440,Reno,Nevada 89509 Phone 838.888.2060 Fax 888-888.1448 Thursday, May 18, 2006 8;32 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4600 p.07 The Public Restroom Company Experts for 30 years In Public Rse&oom oaslgn1constructlon www restroomdeslgn,com ROMTEC VS, THE PUBLIC RESTROOM COMPANY A COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND FEATURES 1. CONCEPT: Bath RoMtec and The Public Restroom Company (TPRC) have a similar concept in terms of design. That concept is to not have to reinvent the design wheel every time a client needs a restroon-i building. The concept of standardized floor plans, elevations, details and finishes has been adopted by both companies. 2. METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION: The Romtec building is basically a partial erector set as a truck load of materials arrives at the site for the general contractor to erect. Tllis is not much different than the contractor erecting his own materials on site to build a restroom building. The Romtec building has pricing issues for the general contractor. When Romtec bids to a general, the contractor may assume Romtec supplies all the parts. Then when the package arrives the shortage, not figured in the pricing, becomes a problem. Usually at the conclusion of a project for a first time Romtec contractor the decision is made not to buildanother one. This method is like a site contractor as the issues of vandalism during construction, weather, and site disruption affect the construction process. Conversely, The Public Restroom Company buildings are brought to the site complete, plumbed, wired, and painted on a foundation ready for crane transfer from the delivery truck to the customer supplied building pad. The entire erection process on site is limited to just a few days for a small specialized construction crew. This process virtually eliminates the attractive nuisance of on site vandalism and creates a kind of"instant restroom". 3. FOUNDATION: The Romtec building requires an on site constructed foundation. The TPRC building is delivered to the site with a mat engineered foundation physically attached to thu rest of the completed building. The Romtec building uses traditional concrete foundation technology while The Public Restroom Company's building uses unique state of the art concrete technology. The unique features of the TPRC: slab is that it is non-absorbent to a depth of almost '/4 of an hich. 'Ellis penetration protection for urine and other liquid matters keeps the restroom from smelling and facilitates easier cleaning by the client maintenance staff. Since the technology used in TPRC's slab is mechanical and not a coating, the absorption barrier will last :for the entire useful life of the building, 4. MASONRY BLOCK WALLS: The Romtec block system requires on site erection. The process involves "dry stacking block". The problem with the system is that as split faced blocks are guillotined apart to create the split faced 839 Isbell Road, 5ulte 440, Reno, Nevada 89509 Phone 888.888.2060 Fax 888-888-1448 I I I Thursday, May 18, 2006 8132 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4600 P.08 The Public Restroom Company Experts for 30 yews In Public Re5treom Design/construction WWW.restWomdestgn.corn Romtec vs. The Public Restroom Company Page Two block look, the ending edges of the block become very uneven, Without a mortar joint to smooth out these irregularities,horizontally, sharp edges occur. Thus the Romtec building when it is finished has many slurp edges on the block exterior which creates a physical potential liability for individuals falling toward the building. Conversely, the TPRC system uses conventional mortar joints that round off the uneven edges and provide more safety. 5. ROOF SYSTEM: The Romtec roof system is erected on site by the Gcneral Contractor. The TPRC roof design includes a completely welded steel tube system starting at the 7 foot 4 inch elevation point on the block wall. The steel 6" x 4"tubular cap beam is the bottom of the roof truss system. The entire roof after being welded together, surfaced with the roof finish material and painted is then picked up by an overhead crane and placed on top of the previously constructed wall frame system and welded to wall plates imbedded in the concrete block wall in the factory, This integral system meets and cxcccds scismic zone 4. Since the metal prep and painting is done in plant, the integrity of the painting system is far superior to that performed on site. This fire retardant 2 hour roof system also has open gable ventilation. The TPRC steel gable wall is fitted with 1/8"woven stainless steel wire cloth to provide maximum flow through ventilation for the restroom. The Romtec gable system is closed, The only ventilation available in the Romtec building is the floor vents located around the lower portions of the block wall. Unfortunately, during the summer months, wane air zisos and cannot escape. The TPRC system is a much unproved concept for ventilation and also for safety. Since the elderly having a heart attack inside the building or a child or a woman sufferhig attack inside the building can be audibly heard through the Dirge gable vent screening, safely is improved. 6. FASCIA/RAKE: The Public Restroom Company fascia/rake detail is not wood but steel. Furnished in either tubular style or a heavy duty wrapped steel fascia, this system maintauis its integrity for life. Traditional wood fascia and rake systems suffer the innpact of the ultraviolet from the slur and chip or deteriorate with time. Frequent painting is required and once the wood pores are open to the weather, the deterioration increases nipidly The steel rake fasci:j systern is far superior, SKYLIGHTS: The 1Ronitec system still includes skylights as a means of providing natural light to the building. The TPRC system does not use skylights as these are often attractive nuisances and a target for vandals for both spray painting and rock throwing, They are not only unnecessary in a small building of this type but they are also a source of solar heat gain for the interior of tine resLToom. TPRC does not recommend them, i 639 Isbell Road, Suite 440, Reno, Nevada 88508 Phone 888-888-2060 Fax 688-888-9448 Thursday,May 18,2006 8:32 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4800 P,09 The Public Restroom Company E•xPerte for 30 years M Public Restroom Dealgn/ConsWctlon W W W.restroomdestga.com I Romtec vs.The Public Restroom Company Page Three 8. EXTERIOR BLOCK SITE SCREENS: The Romtec building shows an"L" shaped exterior concrete block site screen. TPRC does not believe in providing this screen as an"L"shaped configuration. The three walled"L"shaped exterior site screen(building and 2 site screen walls)form an outdoor toilet without a door. When the restroom building is locked,this becomes useable as an outside toilet. Any park maintenance staff member will tell you this technique is a. nightmare for them. Conversely,when TPRC utilizes a multiple occupant floor Plan,we provide an integral corridor or a single site screen thus deterring the use of this area as an outdoor bathroom. Further,when we do provide a site screen we raise the block off the foundation at least one course in both directions so as to provide an area for washout. 9. DOORS: The Romtec doors are 18 gauges materiel foam filled standard duty commercial doors. Unformnately,these are not heavy enough for park applications,dent easily,and are a source of constant replacement. The TPRC door system is 14 gauges or approximately 60%heavier than the 18 gauges door system Romtec supplies. We also would not recommend solid doors for the men's and ladies restrooms and would'instead substitute stainless steel gates. The stainless gates provide constant ventilation to the restroom even when the gates are locked. Because they are gates,there is also not a surface for placement of graffiti messages. The door hinges utilized by Romtec are conventional light duty "Sommer"spring loaded Butt hinges that are very unsafe. Any TPRC door system will utilize a conventional self controlling heavy duty door closer instead of the free swinging"Bommer"hinge system. Finally,the door handles used by TPRC are a Z stainless steel shape which is unbreakable or very vandal resistant, The door handles offered by Romtec are light duty and easily broken off by a baseball bat. The door handles by TPRC are also impregnated with a silver ion anti-bacterial system which kills bacteria upon contact for life. Since patrons often do not wash their hands,this is a sbong added feature, 10.TOILET PARTITIONS: The Romtec system includes either a metal, polyethylene,or phenolic conventional non vandal resistant partition system. Because of the vandal resistance required of public restroom buildings,TPRC only utilizes concrete block toilet partitions,raised nominally 12"above the finisbed floor for safety,visibility and wash out purposes. Only the doors and pilaster on the TPRC toilet partition system are solid phenolic. The solid phenolic doors will not bum,are very difficult to scratch,cut or mar,and have through color thus greatly reducing maintenance requirements. The door systetn is mounted or our own custom fabricated stainless steel continuous spring loaded hinge which will support the weight of a 350 lb person. Thera is no ring stroloaded toilet Partition system at this time, 639 Isbell Road,Suite 440,Reno,Nevada 89609 Phone 888888.2080 Fax 888.888-1448 Thursday, May 18, 2006 8;32 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4600 P'10 The Public Restroom Company ExPerta for 3o years In Public Reatrcoin Design/Construction i www,restroom design,com Romtec vs, The Public Restroom Compony Page Four 11 . INTERIOR WALL FINISM The Romtec system requires the general contractor to paint with traditional paint on site. The TPRC building first provides two courses of block filler to smooth out the roughness of the precision interior block. We then provide one coat of sealer and two final coats of owner chosen color coats with an optional anti graffiti clear coat as the final finish. The system is designed to allow removal of graffiti and make certain that the porous masonry wall does not soak up odors. There are no comparisons between the two alternative systems, 12. EXTERIOR FINISH: Romtec's offering is whatever the contractor wishes to do on site for painting. TPRC offers both an anti graffiti exterior system 40 mils thick, non sacrificial, or a sealed block only designed to prevent water from absorbing into the surface. 13. PLUjIMING: Romtec utilises a 14 gauges stainless steel low consumption fixture as does The Public Restroom Company, The difference is drat our flush valves are fully concealed behind the wall while the Romtec flush valves are surface mounted. Surface mounted flush valves are more easily vandalized or removed. TPRC furnishes and installs a custom fabricated valve combo with a pressuro reducing valve, an inline pressure gauges for water at the pressure reducing valve, before the pressure reducing valve and after the pressure reducing valve. All plumbing drai ns for both vent and water piping and have high and low Point drains for easy evacuation of the system. Finally, The TPRC building contains a hose reel, optional, % connmereial hose and ball isolation valve. 14. ELECTRICAL: The panel furnished by Romtec is not a bolt in breaker panel system NQOD style square D. The durability of a non bolt in breaker panel system has lifecycle isaues. TPRC uses NQOD panels in all of ourspecified work covers. with bolt in breakers, spec g,'atu switches, lights and outlets with stainless steel i 639 Isbell Road, Suite 440, Reno, Nevada 89309s Phone 888.888.2060 FRX 888.888-1448 r C i f Thu sday, May 18, 2006 8.32 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4600 P11 The Public Restroom Company Experts for 30 years In Public Restroom Design/Construction www,restroom deafgn,com VIA FACSIMILE: 630-344-3290 April 28, 2006 Mr. A. Mark Slichtcr,ASLA, Principal Callander Associates 311 Seventh Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401 RE: BAYSIDE PARK RESTROOM Dear Mark, 111 accordance with your recommendation, staff visited the site today and verified that we can in fact deliver our buildings to this project without issue of trees. If the parking lot is damaged, we will repair and/or replace the affected areas or provide trench plates to secure the site from impact of our heavy equipment required to install the buildings. I have 110 concern about lifting the buildings in to place safely. The sitc work system for our structures will greatly minimize the impact and attractive nuisance of a traditional constntction project. I have spoken with our engineer concerning the soils. We do require 1000 lbs per square foot of beRring as a minimum. We will follow your plans for the site installation. If Tile site constructed building works in accordance with your plans, the mat engineered slab version, our building, will perform even better on the site. Your engineer should verify this to you. Finally, I agree in accordance with the next to the last part of your letter, that we will bare full responsibility for compliance with the plans and specifications, permit approvals, and any additional cost associated with the approval of an alternate including site issues. T look forward to your approval of our company to bid on this project. Sincerely, Chuck Kaufinan President a CK/1111 I 639 Isbell Road, Suite 440, Reno, Nevada,89509 Phone 888-888.2060 Fax 888-888-1448 I Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:32 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4600 p,12 The Public Restroom Company Experts for 30 years In Public Restroom Desigwconstruction wwvr.restroarndesidn.corn VIA FACUMUE. 650-696-72,16 April 28, 2006 Mr. Tim Richmond Burlingame Parks &Recreation Dept. 850 Purlingame Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: RESPONSE TO A. MARK SLICHTER'S LETTER DATED APRIL 26Th IBAYSIDE PARK RESTROOM Dear Tim, The Public Restroom Company is the most technically competent design btuld specialty restroom firm in the Nation. J nin certain of the conunents ui this correspondence and have talked with the County Health Exaininer. The concession facility for this building does not meet current County Health Codes. The County has no recollection of approving this plan. In addition to the Concession issues, there is one Other code violation fnr the clilnking fountai.ii. The eh1i111<ing fountain must be recessed in rtn alcove as shown in our draNving attached. i i In the attached plan 1 have corrected all of the concession deficiencies and the dunking fountain issue. I have also deleted the outdoor bathroom (when the building is locked) and the entry site screens become a 3 walled bathroom enc lop.iue. The use of a single site screen as show on our drawing removes the use of this space as a bathroom and the subsequent mess for the park maintenance staff to clears tip. I am very fajniliar with the Romtec product and Restroom Facilities Ltd. I ani certain that The public Restroom Company will deliver to the City of Burlingame a building which is far superior workmanship, has strong life cycle cost/maintenance advantage, ventilation and public safety, and final cost. Tn accordance with your wishes, I will visit the site and delivery I is not an issue. 1. DELIVERY The issues of weight are the same for The Public Restroom Company as they are for Romtec. A conventional tractor trailer delivering Romtec materials could weigh 80,000 lbs. Our tracks and trailers travel down the road with the sante restrictions for weight as the Romtec frocks and trailers. Road limits determine what we can ship, therefore, the building would be broken down into sections light enough to handle the site. With our flexible constiltctions_vsteni, we could bre�uc the building fof Bayside Pak into 4 pieces, 3 pieces or 2 pieces depending 639 Isbell Road,Sulte 440, Reno, Nevada,89509 Phone 888-688.2060 Fax 888-888.1448 Thursday,May 18,2006 8:32 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4600 p,13 The Public Restroom Company Experts Por 30 years In Public Resaoom aealgniConatluotlon Tim Richmond www.restroandestgn.coin Burlingame Parks&Recreation Dept. Page Two on my field visit to the site this weak and 32 years of experience. There would,in fact,be far less disruption to the site from our installation as there would be from site constructing a building. In literally 3—4 clays,we would be on the site, install the building and leave. 2, SOIL CONDITIONS• J am very familiar with the soils surrounding San Francisco Bay. In a couple of weeks,we are installing a building of about the same weight at the Brisbane Marina for the Town oflirisbane. I have installed two restrooms at Oyster Point Marina. In addition,I have installed more than a dozen land fill sites with gas collection systems and Gcotcch fabric for soil stabilization. Our firm has technical expertise in designing around the traditional problems associated with poor soils. The most important impact of poor soils stability is our mat engineered concrete slab. Because our building has to be transported from the.factory to The site on a prefabricated mat engineered slab.The resulting stability of the platform the slab provides us is a great advantage on a site with poor soils. In fact,on the Brisbane site,6'of required soil re-work was eliminated down to slightly over 12"because of the concept of mat engineered slab foundations and the"boat"affect, I am certain that over time,the mat engineered slab system we provide as a platform for our buildings would be a tremenduus advantage to the Park Department. The net bearing of the buildings final weight on the soil would be lessened with The Public Restroom Company approach ill comparison to the Romtec approach. First,we use special light weight blocks. Second,our block walls are only 4"thick instead of 8"thick thus reducing the bearing weight requirement by half. Concerning the 2n6 item of your letter on page two,the parking lot is another issue that should be a non issue. The way you deal with point loading on unstable parking lot conditions is with trench plates. If after review of the soils reports and my personal visit to the site,I believe that trench plates are required,we will provide them. This is traditional construction practice on sites like Bayside Park. In paragraph 3 you state that the floor plan and the concession operator's wishes are reflected in the bid doerunents. With all due respect,Mark,I do not believe the Health Code Regttuements for the concession facility are shown on the plans. Jn order for a concession facility in Californian to be approved for construction on a building permit,the following are,required: 839 Isbell Road,Suite 440,Reno,Nevada,89509 Phone 888-888-2060 Fax 888.668.1448 Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:32 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4800 p,14 The Public Restroom Company Experts for 30 years M Puhllc Restroom Dsalgn/con6tructi0n Tim RiclRichmondwww.res no amdeslgn.coin Durlingainc Paiks & Recreation Dept. Page Three i. 16 lineal feet of stainless steel wire shelving, NSF approved, ii. Floor mop sink Tndirect waste drain in the .floor tinder rhe 3 compartment sinks for drainage of the 3 compartment sink. iv. A floor sink for draining the refrigerator/.freezer condensate. ` . A floor sink for ice matter. A screened window with a 21.4 square inch maximum opening for food service. Vd. A screen door on the inside of the mail door to enter the concession room. viii. Cove based floors. ix, 'file or epoxy floors with .6 co-efficient f ction for skill resistance. X. Water beater with a minimarn I I kw service rate. 3. CONCESSION FLOOR FINISH: I cannot determine from the specifications what the general contractor building ilnis building is to do for the floor finish in the concession area. If your client is providing open food, (coffee, soda pop, etc) special floor finishes are required. I looked through the specifications under both architectural and paint finishes and could not find what treatment is to be perforrn.ed on the floor 4. ROLL UP CURTAIN WINDOW FOR CONCESSSION: An open roll up window counter shutte, is not acceptable under the current licalth codes for the county. The window needs to be screened and a serving area of no more than 214 square inches needs to be provided, The concession counter wi.ntluw Rumtec supplies does not meet this requirement. In surninary, concerning the concession area, I am certain that the information provided in the bid documents, if provided to the County Health Departinent, would not allow a pen�.�it to be issued. We Have built too many concession rooms for public parks and thoroughly understand the requirements for County Health Permits. I sincorely hope you do .not take this statement as challenging Mirk. I simply am considered an expert as our business and this is why so many Landscape Architectural Finns choose our company to do their design development work for park bathrooms, concessions, showers etc, j I I waist to be a contributor and not a spoiler. Yet .] am certain that all the comments of this letter are valid. I am certain we can save money for your client; provide a complete I facility without change orders, and do so quickly with the least disruption on site and Mr. 639 Isbell Road, Suite 440, Reno, Nevada, B95o9 Phone 888-888-2080 Fax 888.888-1448 I Thursday, May 18, 2006 8;32 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4600 P'15 The Public Restroom Company Experts for 30 years In Public Restroom Des lewonsrructlon Tim Richmond w, wwrestro om deslgn,com Burlingame PaTkS c' Recreation 'Dept. Page Four without damaging tl,c existing site improvcnimts, I will telcprlorlc you this afternoon to discuss flus letter. Sincerely, Chuck Kaufman President CK/n-I Attachment. Preliminary Floor Plan and Sitc Pad Preparation Plan 639 Isbell Road,Suite 440, Reno, Nevada,89509 Phone 888.888-2060 Fax 888.888-1448 Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:32 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4600 p 16 a If — r — -4— ——————— ——— L QQ 11WI& SI ELF 1 STMNLEss sma L 9Y T'sr—J COUNTER TOP Lt.I_CC Cf�l•1.1-1.� �_J Ilul L.LL.L_L.tCL."LLLLL_ ___ _-_ .J L L I Y LL�-LF.L.LLLLLJ-LI_L.LLI..I. I .. 3 0 Lu.r.."I•T1LE fLQOR.i.i LL. ( 0 I STORADEI `L �L 6j_L �pNCC3alON I I C ''I . l I'LLLLLLLLIL.L' � �L` ........... I `t �3N3 Zi�9Z ZNA—ZCx9Z 1 i L I ELECTRONIC � __ �/ I LQCIf SYSTEM WH � LLSIM O � I �1 \rr�----•-- 4dONITOR l V I -----, MECH �. I - -----�; / I - ---- -------- OM IT' I I ' � I '- -- -L--- -- i --- � — ------------s--- � rte,. MODEL RT-2MS-312-C1-5-DF FLOOR PLA14 i PROJECT: PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLAN °ATS 04/28/08 BAYSIDE PARK MAX114UM PER60NAN HOUR: BURLINGAME, CA80 This is a Preliminary Dealgn Drawing Only PROJECT/: THE PUBLIC RESTROOM COMPAIf�Y 8 FlobellRd.UITO 40 DESIGN CONSULTANTS-CONSTRUCTION-INSTALLATION Ph 89&888.2080 099-888•1448 COPYRIGHT©2008^-DO NOT REPRODUCE-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION . I r - r Ivryq"��.1•ia1I +' �iij�yr s r a 'T� tRkrr iN.dr'•it.'kms��.v.:�l.o-w.a�til �iri�:LrriC4, iC Yr' a r7Tr`r li � i ir�►r. J �r•t ♦y.Ai r �43 ey��'r •�r' ��-,� r � , r ,b,�q, �c IIIIIIII JA O�}+1�,e1+I I i 1� ��I�zA+b,��•y�.�� •9. 9 j PlFli•}r�1 f t SITE PAD PREP.BY t aIa�'�jil�• ► I..I I �yj k t a , CONTRACTOR 1 /I -��• a 1- c R I:• I_ MR •r► r .i,, Er Oar i��� '`l t't, IT•�j S +•��T �-S �. ��,rt �e�,`i'i'._1-.�i��'~iY .0. R.���'��r•.r.'►F—� riM�i�: F E�� �r1s 1' •.7 I�V-11 11 11FjIC,.11 11 �1Cgp= �U;F���II 11=TM ff�''pp11iiIIf-11 - c�wr�+.caRra - I J�I�'I O i"h• a i�}., .1 rt .t-fa a ar.3-.t.t.:. w:- r ar, 1� r c � •-• - SITE PREP PrAN 1' li + 180' only •� 0 Mob IFOW1111M/• • '•\ • •' • • Thursday, May 18, 2006 8132 AM Dave McNabb 925-952-4600 p,18 The Public Restroom Company Experts for 30 y®ars In Public Restroom DeslgnlConatructfon www.restrpcmdestgp.corn May 17, 2006 Mr. A. Mark Slichter,ASLA Principal Callander Associates 311 Seventh Ave. San Mateo, CA 94401 RE: RESTROOM AND CONCESSION BUILDING,BURLINGAME, CA Dear Mr. Slichter, The Bayside Park bid provided certain features and construction techniques in an erector set type building provided by Romtec Industries. The low bidder for this project utilized The Public Restroom Company as its supplier. Our firm has previously worked with McNabb Construction on a project identical to this where a Romtec building was specified. Since McNabb Construction has previous experience with the Romtec product, he was well aware of the advantages of our building system to both himself as a general contractor and to the owner. The purpose of the following description of comparison is not to defame the other product or to praise The Public Restroom Company. It is instead to suggest that there are technical differences between the products that may have benefit to the City of Burlingame. Since The Public Reetroom Company's mission statement inuludcs safety, super clean, and user friendly, one could expect that the advantages we are sharing in the attached comparison would bring some of these benefits to the City. Finally, "any item mentioned in our schedule that is considered undesirable by the City or by Callander Associates,will be eliminated and the specified component will be installed at no cost change to the proposal". If, for example, the City wants skylights even though we can demonstrate there undesirable qualities for park restrooms,we will install the skylights at no additional cost. The choices will be solely the City of Burlingame and Callander Associates. The Public Restroom Company bid this project with full knowledge of every bid specification listed and has offcrcd to guild the "or equal"with the components specified in the Romtec bid proposal. While we await your initial review,we stand prepared to provide full construction documents with about g days notice after award and will hold a personal meeting to discuss each and every point in the subiiiittal at your office, t cerely, (��huk Kaufxila21 i President f 639 Isbell Road,Sulte 440,Reno,Nevada 89509 Phone 888-888-2060 Fax 888-888-1448 t .r PROPOSAL RESTROOM AND CONCESSION BUILDING BAYSIDE PARK CITY PROJECT NO. 81090 J 2006 e' TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA: Pursuant to the foregoing Notice to Contractors, the undersigned bidder herewith submits its proposal on the Bid Form, Designation of Subcontractors, and Statement of Experience Qualifications, Non-Collusion Declaration, and Statement under Public Contract Code Section 10285.1 attached hereto and made a part hereof, and binds itself on award by the City of Burlingame under this proposal to execute in accordance with such award, a contract, of which this Proposal and the Notice to Contractors, Instructions to Bidders, Special Provisions, Standard Specifications, and Plans and Specifications are hereby made a part of this Proposal and all provisions thereof are hereby accepted. The bidder further agrees that in case of its default in executing the contract, and providing the required bonds and insurance, the cash, check or Bidder's Bond, accompanying its proposal and the money payable thereon shall be and remain the property of the City of Burlingame, as provided in the Instructions to Bidders and the Special Provisions. COMPANY NAME: b<+ Z)K Cn✓r✓L��M�K (Corporate Seal) Signature — Address CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. Af�t'Ile C14 7-Q,. // 15 CONTRACTOR'S TELEPHONE NO. Nature of firm (corporation,partnership, etc.) and 91;R - 93 5 - Y-12 0O names of individual members of the firms, or names and of titles of officers of the corporation: Fax no. - 95d - %(40 If Corporation, organized.under the Name Title laws of the State of N t Na Title Name Title DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS (Public Contract Code Sections 4100 and following) TO BE EXECUTED BY BIDDER AND SUBMITTED WITH BID PROPOSAL RESTROOM AND CONCESSION BUILDING BAYSIDE PARK CITY PROJECT NO. 81090 As a bidder on the above-entitled project, the undersigned hereby designates the subcontractors that will perform work or labor or render services to the Contractor in or about the construction of the project in an amount in excess of one-half(1h)of one percent (1 %) of the Contractor's total bid or $10,000 whichever is greater. The undersigned understands and agrees that should it fail to specify a subcontractor for any portion of the work as above stated, it agrees that the undersigned is fully qualified to perform that portion of the work itself, and that it shall perform that portion itself. Penalties for failure to comply with this provision are provided in the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act commencing with Section 4100 of the Public Contract Code. The undersigned agrees that it shall not, without written consent of the City Council, make any substitution, assignment or sublet to or of the following list of subcontractors which is made a part of this proposal and then only after compliance with the provisions of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. [ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY] NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR ADDRESS OF WORK TO BE DONE BY SUBCONTRACTOR SUBCONTRACTOR / / NU 39Y-49 / v ./ Oeja /ecNi C FlelclY,e /771 S�o�t�.,� � It-213 ��Yr NiZaf — ,fir✓;ops A/� � S�Soi NAME OF BIDDER �//'/�X" ( d�JS'J� UQTiCn /h l Signature STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE QUALIFICATIONS TO BE EXECUTED BY BIDDER AND SUBMITTED WITH BID PROPOSAL RESTROOM AND CONCESSION BUILDING BAYSIDE PARK CITY PROJECT NO. 81090 The following statement as to experience qualifications of the bidder are submitted in conjunction with the Proposal, as a part thereof, and the truthfulness and accuracy of the information is guaranteed by the Bidder. — The bidder has been engaged in the contracting business, under the present business name, for / t' years. Experience in work of a nature similar to that covered in the proposal extends over a period of ;;?0 years. The bidder, as a contractor, has never failed to satisfactorily complete a contract awarded to it, except as follows: N/A — The following contracts have been satisfactorily completed in the last three years for the persons, firm or authority indicated, and to whom reference is made: Year Contract Amount Location For Whom Performed Tvoe of Work _ C " v5fr/� � Yl� r / Gc-y� " i '' + v�CC vUCJ d r �cC3 'Yo. .� .�C AM dG ic�✓l 01 n a?U n c n zf�i 333 `f The following is a list of plant and equipment owned by the bidder, which is definitely available for use on the proposed work as required: Q3gntity Condition Location Name, Type. Capacity -L QI' 7 4!e7A T `.. �� -7 l/FT _ c �L vim- v NAME OF BIDDER: Signature: NON-COLLUSION DECLARATION (PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 7106) TO BE EXECUTED BY BIDDER AND SUBMITTED WITH BID PROPOSAL RESTROOM AND CONCESSION BUILDING BAYSIDE PARK CITY PROJECT NO. 81090 I, J1 ✓,aly./hIeI24 declare under penalty of perjury that I am// (sole owner, partner, president, etc.) of AV/y��b the party making the foregoing bid; that the bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false or sham bid, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding; that the bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the bidder or any other bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other bidder, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract or anyone interested in the proposed _ contract; that all statements contained in the bid are true; and, further, that the bidder has not, - directly, or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company, association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or _ agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham bid. I declare under penalty of perjury that /the foregoing is true and correct and this was executed on the date shown below at (City, State) Dated: /3 A) NAME OF BIDDER: - Al _ Signature ^� � ^ PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10285.1 STATEMENT TO BE EXECUTED BY BIDDER AND SUBMITTED WITH BID RESTROOM AND CONCESSION BUILDING BAYSIDE PARK CITY PROJECT NO. 81090 In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 10285 . 1 (Chapter 376, Stats. 1985) , - the bidder hereby declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the bidder has , has not �/ been convicted within the preceding three years of any offenses referred to in that section, including any charge of fraud, bribery, collusion, conspiracy, or any other act in violation of any state or federal antitrust law in connection with the bidding upon, award of, or performance of, any public works contract, as defined in Public Contract Code Section 1101 , with any public entity, as defined in Public Contract Code Section 1100, including the Regents of the University of California or the Trustees of the California State University. The term "bidder" is understood to include any partner, member, officer, director, responsible managing officer, or responsible managing employee thereof, as referred to in Section 10285 . 1 . NOTE: THE BIDDER MUST PLACE A CHECK MARK AFTER "HAS" OR "HAS NOT" IN ONE OF THE BLANK SPACES PROVIDED.] The above Statement is part of the Proposal. Bidders are warned that making a false certification may subject the certifier to criminal prosecution. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and this was executed on the date shown below at I'Al, - (City, State) Dated: a NAME OF BIDDER: Signature PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10162 QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE EXECUTED BY BIDDER AND SUBMITTED WITH BID PROPOSAL In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 10162, the Bidder shall complete, under penalty of perjury, the following questionnaire: Has the bidder, any officer of the bidder, or any employee of the bidder who has a _ proprietary interest in the bidder, ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation? // No ✓ Yes If the answer is yes, explain the circumstances in the following space: I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing regoing is true and correct and this was executed on the date shown below at �-u t� 17c t (City, State) Dated: -� �f/ NAME OF BI ERIMA j Signature RESTROOM AND CONCESSION BUILDING BAYSIDE PARK CITY PROJECT NO.81090 Bidding Sheet May 3, 2006 ITEM SPEC EST. UNIT NO. REF ITEMDESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT PRICE TOTALS 1. Project Start-up 01000 a. Temporary construction fencing L.S. L.S. $,mac+ $ 51-0ce _ 01500 b. Bonding and mobilization L.S. L.S. $ z� — _ 01528 c. Health and safety plan L.S. L.S. $ ,3S Ao s-3—SO — 02310 d. Construction staking L.S. L.S. $ v?/00 $-22joo- — 2. 02230 Clearing and Grubbing L.S. L.S. $21-10-0e $ o"2/D0D 3. 02310 Earthwork and Grading 02310 a. Rough grading 5,800 S.F. $ /� 02310 b. Soil ofthaul 140 C.Y. $ 4. 02630 Pipes and Fittings 02630 a. Sanitary sewer line farther 270 L.F. than 5' from building — 02630 b. Cleanout farther than 5' 3 EA $ 00 $ /Lh from building 5. 02668 Water Service Piping _ a. Potable water line 150 L.F. $-L42- $A� 6. 03300 Site Concrete 03300 a. Concrete pavement 1,975 S.F. $ 03300 b. Concrete curb 1 L.S. $ jyoo 03300 c. Concrete curb and gutter 1 L.S. $_/y&L $ 11Y00 7. 13120 Restroom and Concession Building* 13120 a. Restroom and concession L.S. L.S. S2L C00 $ OOU building 8. 13850 Combustible Gas Monitor 13850 a. Combustible gas monitor L.S. L.S. $ 7ov0 $ 7006 - 9. 16520 Site Electrical 16520 a. Site Electrical L.S. L.S. $ 1.2500 $ /.,7500 nn TOTAL BID ITEMS 3//1-9 S 3 O BIDDING CONTRACTOR'S NAME / '��/ �AI� Od �i Inc, - CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NUMBER 7,23// 3� EXP. DATE3 I' 7 *Restroom manufacture may be of the type specified, an alternate manufacture, or `stick built' (fabricated by contractor). Refer to Section 13120 for approval of alternates. 13 El BURL i MAME Board of Trustees Minutes April 18, 2006 I. Call to Order Secretary Toft called the meeting to order at 5 :30pm. II . Roll Call Trustees Present: Nancy Brock, Bruce Carlton, Deborah Griffith, Pat Toft Trustees Absent: Katie McCormack Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder III. Warrants and Special Funds The Trustees approved the warrants for April 18, 2006. M/ S/ C (Brock/ Griffith) IV. Minutes The Trustees approved as written the minutes of the March 28, 2006 meeting. M/ S/ C (Carlton/ Griffith) V. Correspondence and Attachments Emergency Contacts - This handout provides Burlingame residents with specific information on how to contact the proper agency during emergency and non-emergency situations. VI . From the Floor No one from the public attended the meeting. VII . Reports A. City Librarian's Report - Highlights of Report 1 . Library Budget - The City Council will review the final budget May 31 st at 6:OOpm in the Lane Room. 2 . Usability Study Results - Some subtle changes were made to make the on-line catalog more user friendly. Future changes are being planned but some of the suggestions require software changes which have to be addressed by the vendor or be incorporated into future releases of the product. 480 Primrose Road Burlingame • California 94010-4083 Phone (650) 558-7474 • Fax (650) 342-6295 ' www.burlingame.org/library _ 3. Personnel Issues Linda Santo has returned to full time status. The Circulation Department has hired 5 new pages which will decrease the shelving back log. B. Foundation Report The Foundation hosted a very successful book club exchange event on April 2nd for 55 attendees from the peninsula and San Francisco. The spring book sale will be held Friday April 21 st through Sunday April 23rd. Foundation President, Stephen Hamilton, has invited all Foundation Board members to join him in a special session to talk about the mission and future goals of the Foundation April 29th. VIII. Unfinished Business Library Budget - Budget issues were previously discussed during the City Librarian's report. IX. New Business A. Revised Behavior Policy - The Trustees unanimously approved the revised Burlingame Library Behavior Policy. M/ S/ C (Griffith/Carlton) B. Scholarship Fund for Hannah Van Niekerken - The Trustees unanimously approved a $500 donation to the Hannah Van Niekerken scholarship fund. Hannah is the 11 year old daughter of the library's staff member Tracy Hammond who passed away in March. M/ S/C (Grifffith/Carlton) C. Training Expenses - The Trustees unanimously approved the City Librarian's request to allocate $ 1 ,600 to fund travel expenses for two staff members to attend the Innovative User's Group Conference training this spring in Denver. M/S/C (Griffith/Brock) X. Announcements A. Author's Luncheon - Trustee Griffith suggested having a sponsored ticket drawing for staff and/or patrons. Proceeds would benefit the Library. B. Reader's Services & Genealogy Databases - Since the cost for the entire county to purchase one of the genealogy databases is very expensive, Pat Harding, Library Services Manager, is researching the possibility of purchasing a genealogy database for Burlingame libraries only. The Reader's Advisory database is also under consideration for purchase by the Library. C. Financial Reporting - The Trustee and Revolving Fund reports are distributed to the Trustees on a quarterly basis. The City Librarian will give a detailed review of these funds to the Trustees at the May 16th meeting. Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2 April 18, 2006 XI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:30pm. The next meeting will be held May 16, 2006 in the Conference Room at 5:30pm. M/S/C (Griffith/Carlton) Respectfully Submitted, Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3 April 18, 2006 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION MAY 4, 2006 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Grandcolas. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Grandcolas, Carney, Ellis, Lahey, and O'Connor Absent: Commissioners Lauder and McQuaide Staff: Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz, Superintendent Richmond, and Secretary Harvey Guests: Jennifer Pfaff, Thomas Hornblower(2100 Easton Drive) MINUTES — The minutes of the April 6, 2006 Beautification Commission meeting were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Director Schwartz, to Michael Stallings, 1512 Alturas Drive and to William Dugoni, 1511 La Mesa Drive, informing them that agreement between property owners for the removal of the City-owned Red Oak tree at 1511 La Mesa Drive had been reached and that, if no further appeals from adjacent property owners were received by April 25, 2006, a permit would be issued to the view owner for the removal of the tree and stump at his cost. Copy of Internet information, submitted by Chairperson McQuaide, regarding Recommended Plants for Homes of Allergic People Tree Evaluation Report, submitted by Supervisor Disco, for six Pittosporum trees located at 2100 Easton Drive. What is the Urban Forest information sheet. FROM THE FLOOR- Jennifer Pfaff read a letter to be submitted by her to the Commission regarding her concerns of the "trend" of trees being removed from private and City properties that are under new development only to be replaced with smaller specie trees. She believes that larger specie trees (with less invasive roots) could be chosen for the City planter strips and private properties and that the lack of uniformity of the tree planting in City planter strips looks "trashy". She is also concerned about the many City planter strips that have no trees and believes property owners should not be able "opt out" of having a tree planted in the City-owned planter strip fronting their homes. Vice Chair Grandcolas thanked Ms. Pfaff for her comments and then changed the order of the Agenda to conduct the hearing for the tree removal request at 2100 Easton Drive. NEW BUSINESS— Request for the Removal of 6 City-Owned Pittosoorum Trees at 2100 Easton Drive Due to Allergies - Superintendent Richmond stated that Mr. Hornblower of 2100 Easton Drive requested the removal of these City owned trees because he suffers from an allergic reaction to the flowers and since there was no precedent for this type of request being considered, this item was referred to the Commission for consideration. 1 NEW BUSINESS— Reauest for the Removal of 6 City-Owned Pittosaorum Trees at 2100 Easton Drive. Due to Allereies - (Contd.)— Superintendent Richmond noted that Chairperson McQuaide provided for the Commission, Internet information regarding non-allergenic plants that could be planted for those individuals with allergies, noting a "Pittosporum" tree (of a different variety that exists at 2100 Easton Drive) as one of the non-allergenic plants listed in the report. He also directed the Commission's attention to the Tree Evaluation (submitted by Supervisor Disco)that indicates all six trees to be healthy and structurally sound. Superintendent Richmond stated that Mr. Hornblower's father chose these trees when they were planted by the City in 1994. Following a brief discussion amongst the Commission, Vice-Chair Grandcolas asked Mr. Homblower to address the Commission. Mr. Hornblower commented that the six Pittosporum trees that are planted around 2100 Easton Drive are planted closer than what the City's list states spacing should be between this type of tree. He remarked that it is the fragrance from the blooms that causes him to have bad headaches and pressure in his head, adding that he is very sensitive to fragrances. He stated that the trees bloom 2-3 times each year and that, this year, the blooms were on the trees from January to April causing him to have an ongoing headache for 3 months. He continued that he is concerned that as the trees grow to be 25-40' tall, with a 25' canopy, the potency of the fragrance will be that much more overpowering. He concluded his comments stating that because he suffers so with these headaches, it would be worth it for him to pay for the cost of removal and replacement and asks that the trees be replaced with Gingko trees because they don't produce any flowers or that the trees be given "haircuts" when they have the flowers. Vice-Chair Grandcolas asked if he had ever tried clipping off the flowers. Mr. Hornblower responded that he had not. Commissioner Carney asked Mr. Hornblower if he had ever been tested for allergies. Mr. Hornblower responded that he had never been tested for allergies, but that he knows it is the fragrance and avoids plants or fragrances that have a white flower (honeysuckle or jasmine), adding that over the counter remedies as suggested by the doctor have not worked to alleviate the symptoms. He noted that before the Pittosporums were planted he would not get headaches but only have "itchy eyes" from a previously existing Acacia tree, but now he has the headaches when the Pittosporums are in bloom. Commissioner Lahey commented that she would like to come up with a positive solution and understands that fragrances come from plantings around surrounding homes, but is concerned about setting precedent if removal were to be approved because people plant many different kinds of plants in their yards and where do you draw the line. Commissioner O'Connor asked staff. if the homeowner would be willing to bear the cost of trimming the buds prior to flowering, could that be done. Superintendent Richmond responded that a permit could be issued for the work to be performed on the City tree(s). Mr. Hornblower stated that he is concerned about setting precedent and cost as well; but that, removal and replacement would only be a one time cost where as trimming the buds 2-3 times a year would not only cost more in man hours, but would also be cost prohibitive. Commissioner Ellis commented that there are Pittosporums on both sides of the street, creating the look of a grove and that those trees bloom also. 2 NEW BUSINESS — Request for the Removal of 6 City-Owned Pittosoorum Trees at 2100 Easton Drive, Due to Allergies - (Contd.)— Mr. Hornblower responded that it is the "potency" of the blooms that are so close to his yard and home and that the trees across the street are far enough way. Commissioner Carney suggested that the item be tabled so the Commission could obtain more information before making a determination. The Commission discussed removal and replacement and other alternatives such as: root treatments or spraying to inhibit blooming and/or trimming the buds. Vice-Chair Grandcolas suggested that if removal were approved the Commission could consider planting with "female" varieties; eliminating potential problems that could be caused due to flowering. Following the discussion, Commissioner O'Connor moved that this item be tabled to the June P Commission meeting, and asked that staff investigate and report back to the Commission regarding the cost of removal and replacement of the six Pittosporums as well as alternative information on suppression methods that could be used as a remedy; seconded, Carney. Motion carried 5—0—2 (absent/Lauder and McQuaide). City Streets with No Trees Superintendent Schwartz stated that the Council has asked the Commission to investigate potential options for street (blocks) in the City that have few or no trees in the City planter strips. Director Schwartz suggested the Commission discuss potential areas for planting such as residential, business, Rollins Road, and determine a concept that might include prioritizing, fundraising, community information/input. He stated that most recently he and Superintendent Richmond have met with a business owner on Howard Avenue who is interested in tree planting fronting the Howard Avenue businesses that could be funded by those business owners. The Commission briefly discussed several options including tree planting themes as part of the centennial celebration in 2007. Following the discussion, the Commission asked that this item be placed on the June agenda for further discussion. OLD BUSINESS— P.G.&E. Pruning Practices in the City of Burlingame— Committee Report Director Schwartz reported that he has arranged for a meeting with the P.G.&E. representative for May 12v', from noon to 2:00 pm, to discuss methods of alternative pruning and goals, and to conduct an on-site visit to selected locations where trees have been recently pruned. Director Schwartz asked that any Commissioner's who are able, are invited to attend. He noted that Representative Erin Parks has already spoken to P.G.&E. crews about altering their pruning techniques. Commissioner Lahey volunteered to attend the meeting. REPORTS— Suoerintendent 1. Merit pesticide application completed on all but a few trees with a history of heavy aphid infestation; more of the product is on order. 2. Sycamore tree removed at 215 Chapin Lane. A major root on s/w side was main support of tree. Wall at property line made it impossible to ramp or move the sidewalk. Pictures are available. 3. Pines on Pepper have been removed as announced at last meeting. 4. Tree planting is in progress. 3 REPORTS —Suaerintendent - (Contd.) 5. 11 Accolade Elms were ordered, three as replacements for Locusts that were removed at the Depot. The Accolades could not be shipped because of a fungus discovered on them. We now anticipate a fall delivery. 6. Karlene resolved the problems with Mrs. Bilsey from 112 Howard. There was a misunderstanding of what her phone request had been. A site visit by the Supervisor was offered, but she was satisfied with her conversation with Karlene. 7. City Manger, Randy, and I met with a DBID member, who expressed an interest in tree planting along the business area of Howard Avenue, i.e. cutting out planting squares/planting trees. Commission may wish to consider and offer recommendations for this project. 8. Annual plantings installed at City Hall, ECR/Burlingame Avenue, SP Circle. 9. Adopt-a-Planter group will be planting on Burlingame Avenue this coming weekend. Ellis — Commissioner Ellis noted that the Deciduous Pear trees planted on the Westside of California Drive are looking very nice. Grandcolas - Commissioner Grandcolas reported a potential illegal removal of a protected tree on the 700 block of Walnut. Superintendent Richmond stated that staff would investigate. Commissioner Lahey excused herself from the next agenda item and left at 7:15 pm. OLD BUSINESS - Lona Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive The Commission discussed the Community Forum that was held on April 4 and commented that the information meeting was well attended with around 30 people, that there were many different points of view but that generally the group seemed to want to retain a tall, grandeur look on Easton Drive and even suggested replanting with Eucalyptus trees. There were some concerns about parking; that if trees were planted in-between the existing trees, residents would not be able to park on the planting strips as is now the practice. Most who were in attendance, seemed to be interested in continuing the process and looking forward to more meetings for further input. There being no further business, Vice Chair Grandcolas adjourned the meeting at 7:25 pm. Respectfully submitted, i i E Karlene Harvey Recording Secretary 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 22, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the May 22, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. IL ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi (arrived at 7:07 p.m.) Staff Present: City Planner,Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the May 8,2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. C. Cauchi arrived. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, commented that she was sorry that her complementary comments about the job Commissioner Auran did as Chair for the last year were not included in the May 8,2006,minutes. She felt that he did an exceptional and even handed job. In addition she wanted to be sure that her comments made this evening regarding the implementation of the design review guidelines were included in the minutes. She feels that the design review guidelines work well for a remodel of an existing structure but not so well when the structure is to be replaced and all limits are pushed to the maximum or beyond;concerned that real estate advertisements are noting that houses are 'dozers' by substituting computer generated simulations for pictures of the existing structure as was done for 1212 Balboa in an advertisement sent out by Stanley Lo,Green Banker. Do not feel that a house should be called a remodel and allowed to keep all its currently nonconforming setbacks if all of it but one wall is removed, should be required to meet all current building envelop requirements. 1453 Balboa is an example. CP Monroe noted that there are clear definitions in the code for new construction and for a remodel and suggested that when it was convenient for her, staff would be happy to review them with Ms. Giorni. There were no further comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1125 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A--APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND AND CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (GOKHAN KAHRAMAN, KAHRAMAN LLC, APPLICANT; ARr]IE GAPESIN, DESIGNER; SALMA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006 Commissioners asked: ■ concerned with interpretation of eligibility for design review,changing more than 50%of the White -� Dove Jewelry fagade,this proposal will remove an existing active retail site and replace with a blank wall, this was not the intent of the commercial design guidelines, will not be pedestrian friendly; ■ clarify the number of customers expected on site in five years, commercial application indicates a maximum of 55 customers expected on site,however the proposed floor plans show 60 seats in the dining area and 8 seats at the bar; please revise the commercial application or floor plans accordingly; ■ clarify number of employees,numbers in commercial application do not appear to be consistent with staff report; ■ on-site parking space is incorrectly labeled, should note that it is only for use by 1123 Burlingame Avenue, not 1125 Burlingame Avenue; ■ plans need to more accurately show what is happening on the building elevations,this building relies on the details, for example downspouts and leaders are not shown, a lot of details missing from the building elevations, should be added, details contribute to the overall appear of the restaurant; ■ will the exterior be repainted; ■ provided details for the new clearstory windows; ■ concerned with the quality of the information shown on the plans, hard to tell what is being proposed; ■ provide details of proposed window type and window trim; ■ provide details of all materials proposed including awnings, like what has been done with the building at 1100 Burlingame Avenue; ■ clarify if there will be an exhaust fan or other mechanical equipment over the kitchen, if so please show on roof plan and building elevations,will the vents be screened; ■ location of property on vicinity map on plans is incorrect,please revise; ■ will there be outdoor seating in the public right-of-way,outdoor seating would liven up the sidewalk; and ■ project includes removing the existing tile base along Burlingame and Lorton Avenue, suggest a different material along the base to make the facade more attractive. CA Anderson noted that although this project is not subject to commercial design review, the proposed changes to the facades can be addressed because a finding has to be made for the conditional use permit that the proposed project is compatible with aesthetics, mass,bulk and character of the existing and potential uses in the area. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 2. 1409 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ADD TRUCK RENTAL TO AN EXISTING CAR RENTAL FACILITY (ADAM RUDD,ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR,APPLICANT;HARVEY HACKER ARCHITECTS,ARCHITECT; ALICE HONERLAH, PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: --� ■ provide more detailed landscape plan, include automatic irrigation for all landscaping on-site; ■ provide size of trucks in rental fleet, 24'back up space may not be enough for the rental trucks; 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006 ■ at time of site visit there were no customers on site and the front door was locked,the vehicles on the lot were employee vehicles and two vehicles were parked in the driveway,clarify where employees will park and how it will be designated on-site; ■ it appears that several rental trucks are currently being stored at 40 Edwards Court, does that applicant have an agreement with the property owner at 40 Edwards Court,is this an overflow site for rental trucks;there maybe a lot of pressure at this site,can the site accommodate all vehicles and trucks it needs to; and ■ what is the intended use of the a.c. paving area south of parking stalls 4 and 6. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissionerprior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 3a. 1800 RAY DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR PERMIT EXTENSION FOR AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(DAVID AND HOLLY PARRY,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; STEWART ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (65 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN �3b. 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, SUITE D, ZONED C-2 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO EXPAND AN EXISTING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (TIM MULLEN, FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, APPLICANT; WESLEY FUKUMORI, ARCHITECT;GREEN BANKER,PROPERTY OWNER)(49 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:RUBEN HURIN C. Deal moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners' comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Commission discussion: Commission asked what the filing fee is for an extension to a planning approval; CP Monroe noted that the fee is about$200 plus noticing costs. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:32 p.m. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4-5. 1145 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO APPROVEL DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND FOR REDUCTION OF PARKING SPACES ON-SITE FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD&ASSOCIATES,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;STEVE AND COURTNEY LOVE,PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal recused himself because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the dais and left the Council chambers. Reference staff report May 22,2006,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Steve Love, property owner, was available to answer questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C.Auran moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 2,2006,sheets 1-2, 4 and 6-7, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,first or second floors,or garage,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;4)that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 5)that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;6)that all air ducts,plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined,where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;7)that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 13,2005,memo,the City Engineer's,Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's May 16,2005,memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 19, 2005, memo shall be met; 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;9)that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 10)that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure,interior or exterior,shall require a demolition permit;and 11)that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and -� Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006 Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstain). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias. 6. 1124 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE TO ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS (STEVE MENDENHALL,APPLICANT;CANDIDA- RENE ORDONEZ,PROPERTY OWNER)(67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report May 22,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. She noted that is item is a code enforcement item based on a complaint about construction without a building permit. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration.There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Steve Mendenhall, 1120 Illinois Avenue, Sacramento, represented the project noting that they made the improvements to the garage to provide a decent life for his father-in-law because of his needs created by Alzheimer's disease and the issues his mother-in-law has caring for him. The father-in-law has been away for a year, after they were told to stop work on the garage,living with a daughter, she is now selling her house and he needs to move back to this property;the father-in-law will sleep in the house, and be in the garage and rear yard during the day,his mother-in-law can watch him from inside the house through the sliding glass doors. Commissioners asked: can a bedroom inside the house be converted to meet his needs? How is he kept in the yard inside the gate? Has this problem been discussed with the neighbors? How important is the shower?Applicant noted that it would be more difficult to observe his father-in-law inside the house and he would need to be taken frequently to the bathroom; in the garage the door to the bathroom can be left open so he can see the bathroom,he uses the shower two or three times a day; the gate is kept locked and he cannot open it; and they have not discussed this situation with the neighbors. Commission noted that with this application there is no legal on-site parking,how many cars are there in this household? Applicant noted that there are two cars,one used by the daughter and one shared by the two grand daughters,there is one parking space in front of the gate in the driveway and one parking space at the curb in front of the house.Commission expressed concern with how this space does not become a second unit in the future?Applicant noted that there is no cooking element in the garage;and that his father-in-law must be monitored all the time. Commission noted then it does not matter if he is inside the house or out. Applicant noted that it is easier for his father in law to be in a single room environment. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion:Is the commission limited on how they can condition a use permit?CA noted are not allowed to tie the duration of a use permit to a single person or the sale or rental of the property,may link a use permit to a given period of time, for example 3 years. Concerned that there is no record of the toilet being in the garage before this work was discovered, how do we know it was installed according to code. CP noted that this use permit would address that,if approved,would need to get a building permit and insure that the toilet is installed to current CBC requirements. Commissioner noted that in the past 16 years can recall two similar requests but in both cases the use was in free standing accessory structures and not converting the covered parking. Seems that there are other ways to address the needs of this individual without using all the required on-site parking,particularly since there is space in the house where he sleeps at night; sympathetic to family's needs but concerned with work done that adds a full bath and closet, looks �. like an apartment; agree that there are other options for care on-site and do not want to burden the neighbor with a second unit;looks like plans show work done on the house at some time;CP noted not aware of work 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006 being done on the house now;concerned with garage conversion which leaves the site without any covered parking; view from the sliding glass doors is limited, the gates cannot be seen; better to modify inside. -� C. Deal moved to deny the application for the reasons stated noting that this request goes too far by providing no on site covered parking and asking for a variance for all on-site parking where there is an easy resolution to remodel the inside of the house for the father-in-law. The motion was seconded by C. Oren. Comment on the motion: have sympathy for the medical condition and realize that this is an expeditious solution, but not for the neighborhood and it's parking problems, there is another way to modify the first floor which is within the design guidelines of the city. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1465 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRIAN ROCHE, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission noted that comment #9 in the Chief Building Official's memo is incorrectly stated, should state "provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers". There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jack McCarthy, designer, 5339 Prospect Road #311, San Jose, was available to answer questions. The Commission made the following comments: ■ concerned with the flat roof design at the top of the roof,do not want to see a roof curb,could design without a curb, or if designed with a roof curb, it should not be visible from below; ■ garage eaves extend in to setbacks along side and rear property lines,not allowed under the building code,please revise to comply; ■ proposed design has the appearance of a tract house,house lacks character and charm;embellishment is all proposed at the front elevation and is not carried to the rest of the house, typical of a track house,should review residential design guidelines,they explain what is appropriate for Burlingame; ■ house is too big, very massive and bulky, second floor mimics the first floor, too boxy; ■ should study the siting of the house on the lot, a house of this size and scale would make it work better if the house was shifted to the center of the lot,need to separate from the house on the right; ■ porch is too small,concerned with foam molding around the door,front entry and windows,do not see these materials on other homes in the neighborhood, traditional wood trim should be used throughout; ■ concerned with the stucco band around the house, need to find a better solution to create a band; ■ the keystone over the archway and living room door is too crowded; ■ concerned with how the concrete balustrade is shown,is this the way it is going look when installed, looks too heavy; please clarify drawings with accurate to scale representation of balustrade; ■ provide detail of how the upper dormer on the front elevation works,it appears that there are some details missing; 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006 ■ concerned with the small windows on the front elevation,they are not integrated well into the fagade, are placed around the corner from larger standard size windows,smaller windows are typically seen on a Tudor style house,can be an interesting detail but it is not appropriate in the proposed design; �- ■ concerned with amount of blank walls on the left side elevation,need more than just a belly band to break up the massing; ■ concerned with the blank wall on the second floor on the rear elevation, looks odd to have a projecting dormer without windows; ■ detailed notes need to be added describing the type of window and window trim to be used; ■ gutters and downspouts need to be accurately shown on building elevations,as drawn there appear to be no gutters; ■ there are a lot of different options available to make this house blend into the neighborhood better; ■ there are not enough windows in the dining room, suggesting adding a bay window or similar feature; ■ concerned with the gas vent fireplace without a chimney along the right side of the house at the front, creates an awkward projection with a vent on the side, should consider adding a false chimney to make it look better; ■ concerned with the choice of trees, scale of trees proposed at the front are too small, landscape architect should choose a tree from the city's street tree list, all trees should be evergreen; ■ Crape Myrtle tree does not do well in Burlingame,it should be replaced with another tree from the city's street tree list, suggest using Bay Laurel; ■ may want to consider a remodel and addition rather than a new house; ■ this project will need a serious redesign, there are too many concerns with this project; ■ concerned with the amount of paving proposed,should reduce paving areas and also consider using a pervious material for the driveway and patio areas, would help to recharge the groundwater, this N.— much paving may have a negative affect on the groundwater system and may overload the storm drain system; ■ may be going a bit too far to request pervious paving materials,should leave up to applicant;revised plans should differentiate pervious and impervious paved areas; and ■ concerned that there is no clear design style, need to pick a clear style. Public Comments: Patricia Gray, 1616 Adeline Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Rosita Munoz, 13460 Roblita Road, Los Altos;Matthew O'Brien, 1469 Balboa Avenue. Letter from Donna Cerna, 1457 Balboa Avenue, dated May 22, 2006, submitted for the record. Not necessarily concerned with this particular house,but more concerned with what is happening on every block,there are so many large houses being built,suggest there should be a moratorium on demolition of houses,also suggest that a study be done of what has been occurring in the City with regard to residential construction within the last five years; concerned that the city is losing modest housing for working class families, modest houses are being torn down and replaced with housing for millionaires,seeing a social change in Burlingame,people working and teachers who used to live on this block are gone because they can't afford to live here,there is a shortage of housing for school teachers, police, nurses, etc., middle class people are being removed, we need to do something to keep diversity in the city; there is a lot of remodeling going on, not for families, but by developers who are doubling the size of houses for a profit. Concerned that the front porch is being lost,the architectural design is not clear,concerned that the enclosed patio at the front can only be accessed from the inside of the house,living room is set back 21 feet,but patio is a lot closer to the street,was this area exempt from floor area and setbacks? Concerned with two story flat walls,proposed house will be four feet closer to the house on the right which is a single story bungalow,most of the living space will face the new windows, �,. this is the long side of the house,will have an impact on the house to the right; concerned with noise from the utility rooms,they would be less of an impact along the left side of the house adjacent to the driveway; 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006 roof plan would be clearer if it were done as a separate drawing,not on the site plan as shown;did not see a comment from the City Arborist regarding the Acacia tree,it does not appear to be a Black Acacia,would like to see an arborist report submitted;plans indicate that the windows will be wood prime sash with stucco mold with simulated divided lite grills,want to make sure proposed windows meet the design requirements of true divided liter;property owner has a business relationship with the designer of the next project on the agenda,wished property owner used that designer. Live in Los Altos Hills and also owns a house in Palo Alto, Los Alto Hills used to be 'rural', because it cost more to build here it encouraged rich people to live here, concerned that developers are taking modest houses off the market,people who sell their house after owning it for 20 years will make a profit, don't think city needs to encourage more profit; school are important, but concerned that too much value will eliminate basic aid; will not serve Burlingame well if character is allowed to change. Asked if second floor is allowed to extend beyond the declining height envelope;yes,there is a window enclosure exemption and it applies here. Concerned that this is another big house, roof ridge cut off to comply with height requirement, feel that the house does not fit in with the natural architecture of the neighborhood; concerned with amount of paving for long, narrow driveway without landscaping along the fence. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: some difficult issues were brought up tonight by several residents, there are Planning Commission subcommittees established to think through the affordability issues,would encourage that residents also speak to Council members about these issues. C. Auran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: concerned that the style is not clearly defined, neighborhood is made up of many houses built in the 1920's, would challenge the designer to propose a style which can be identified and is consistent with the styles in the neighborhood. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the comments made. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. 8. 440 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ROBERT MORTON JONES, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN &ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Cauchi recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the project site. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description,noting that historical information was submitted about the site by Jennifer Pfaff. Commission asked if this site is historically significant and how that would affect review of the proposed project. CA Anderson noted that as part of this process, staff will determine if this project is categorically exempt by CEQA,but that the Commission should move forward with the design review at this time. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Robert Morton-Jones,property owner and James Chu,designer, were available to answer questions, worked hard to save enough money to purchase this house, like this 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006 neighborhood because it is family oriented,spoke to adjacent neighbors and the had no objections with the proposed project,two remodels have occurred at this house,house is in poor condition,there is mold on the walls,bathroom is old,kitchen is original and not useable, attached garage is nonconforming since it is on property line,existing indoor barbeque is a fire hazard;was just informed of the historical information today, willing to sell the existing house to the City for$1;tried to keep the character of the existing house by using horizontal siding, salt box design; also keeping the existing 45-inch cedar tree in the rear yard. Designer noted that an addition to the existing house was considered,but found too many problems with the house, submitted measurements of the existing house for reference. The Commission made the following comments: ■ nice to see that the proposed design is derivative of the original design,massing is handled well and is compact; ■ the fascia on the gables on either side of the front entry appear to be too heavy; ■ concerned that there is no bed wall provided in bedroom #1, shifting the game room towards Plymouth Way would eliminate a window in the bedroom and create room for the bed,increase the size of the yard and allow for room under the stairs for mechanical equipment; ■ there are some errors on the front elevation which need to be corrected, first floor roof over porch, recess is not shown; ■ if other Commissioners agree,would like to see a larger porch and a different material used for the chimney other than wood siding, such as a stone or brick veneer; ■ proposed house is substantially more than the existing house,proposed house is located close to the sidewalk along Bloomfield Road, create more space between the sidewalk and house; should consider moving the house back a few feet along Bloomfield Road and leave the minimum required 9'-6" clear area for driveway, may have to loose landscape strip along the fence at the game room; ■ would like to see an arborist report submitted for the existing tree to remain along the proposed new driveway,some rooting area for this tree will be lost,this tree will require protection fencing during construction,there should be automatic irrigation provided for this tree,would like to see in arborist report; ■ pervious paving around this tree may not help that much,amount of groundwater recharge through pervious paving is minimum after 3-4 years because the gaps tend to seal over time especially in areas with a lot of clay in the soil; visually,pavers are better since less concrete is visible; ■ window above the front entry in the second floor hall is too small,will not let much natural light in, should increase the size of this window; ■ considered adding a base(water table)to the house to break up the mass,a material other than wood siding to differentiate it from the rest of the house; and ■ could also consider eliminating the game room which would reduce the number of bedrooms to four, then only a one-car garage would be required which could be accessed from Bloomfield Road,this alternative would eliminate the long driveway from Plymouth Way,reduce the amount of paving on site,reduce the impact on the adjacent house on Plymouth Way and create a larger useable yard; for this alternative must factor in the existing 45-inch cedar tree and the 5 foot public utility easement along the rear property line. Public Comments: Elrae Bilsey, 112 Howard Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. House next door at 631 Plymouth Way is owned by United Methodist Church of Burlingame and provides housing for the Senior Pastor, concerned with removing this house, house was designed for the 1939 San Francisco World's Fair, after the Fair it was taken by barge from Treasure Island to 440 Bloomfield Road, it was an �- experimental house when it was built,house has not sustained any damage from earthquakes,the house is old and needs refurbishing; Burlingame is known as the "Carmel of the North", however there are no 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006 monster houses in Carmel,have no problem with living in a big house,house should be compatible with the neighborhood; when moved to Burlingame bought old house, fixed it up and have lived here for 35 years; —� existing house next door on Plymouth Way has three windows facing the new driveway, maintaining the existing trees will be critical to provide screening and privacy, over the years both property owners have worked together well to keep the trees pruned to insure privacy for each other,would like to maintain that relationship with new owner; concerned with size and length of driveway, may become a problem in the future;called the Burlingame Historical Society for more information about this house,also contacted Judith Bekenheim who has written books on the 1939 Expo. Proposed plans indicate double glazed wood casement windows, note should be added to indicate windows will be simulated true divided lite windows; it's unfortunate that the front of the house is proposed along the long side of the lot, makes the house look bigger. Applicant noted that he will work with the Senior Pastor to maintain the trees along that side of the lot,will have arborist report address impacts to the existing tree along the proposed driveway. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:for clarification,Commission can conduct the design review on the proposed design and staff will apply CEQA to this project to address the historical issues;CA noted that the project will not return for action until CEQA review is complete. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked and when the CEQA review has been completed. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: Commission wanted clarification regarding the suggestion to move the house back further along Bloomfield Road,is this a suggestion or direction to the applicant? CA noted that there needs to be a motion to reconsider the original motion. Chair Brownrigg made a motion to reconsider the original motion. This motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to reconsider. The motion passed on a voice vote 6- 0-1 (C. Cauchi abstain). Commission discussion:would like Commission to direct application to move the house back an additional 2'-9" along Bloomfield Road, this would provide a 9'-6" driveway width at the game room, the landscape strip along the sidewalk at the game room would have to be eliminated. Concerned with moving the house further back, house will be closer to the neighbor on Plymouth Way; Commission pointed out that the existing house is located on property line, so this would be a better situation for the neighbor. Chair Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar with direction to move the house back an additional 2'-9"along Bloomfield Road,when the revisions have been made and plan checked and when the CEQA review has been completed. This motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar with direction to move the house back an additional 2'-9"along Bloomfield Road,when the revisions have been made and plan checked and when the CEQA review has been completed. The motion failed on a roll call vote 3-3-1 (Cers. Auran, Osterling and Brownrigg dissenting, C. Cauchi abstain). Chair Deal made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar with the original motion when the revisions have been made and plan checked and when the CEQA review has been completed. It will be at 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22,2006 the designer's discretion to move the house further back along Bloomfield Road. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked and when the CEQA review has been completed. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi abstain). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. C. Cauchi returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias. 9. 1524 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MICHAEL BROWNRIGG AND MARTY BURCHELL,PROPERTY OWNERS)(70 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:RUBEN HURIN C. Brownrigg passed the gavel to Vice Chair Deal and noted he would abstain from this action because he owns the property, stepped down from the dial and left the chambers. Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Asked if C.Brownrigg could present the project. CA noted that C. Brownrigg cannot be present in the chambers for the item, although he may comment on the request and leave if he wishes. Vice Chair Deal opened the public comment. Randy Grange,TRG Architecture,205 Park Road,presented the project noting several issues with the property,this is a remodel of a Tudor,tried to stay within the Tudor revival style of this house and others on the block;in 1980 there was a previous second story addition which was not consistent with the style,that will be removed and add a new steeper roof and dormers to bring back the Tudor style and the increase the interior space available,total square footage added with this remodel is 451 SF,along with making both the first and second floor space more useable;the height is 31'-9" with the increase only a small triangle, at the center of the lot, the ridges parallel to the street are lower than the 30 feet allowed;the declining height exception on the right side is the result of the architectural style and would be greater if this were a Colonial and is caused in part by the down slope on the lot which lowers the point of departure for calculating the declining height,the existing driveway is 7.5 'wide at its narrowest point,as a part of the 1980's remodel a deck at the rear extended this 7.5'portion,the deck is replaced with structure for the same length, so not really extending the nonconforming length of the driveway, could not fix without removing the wall of the house. Commissioners asked about whether the proposed water table was wood trim with stucco below,could it be made with a stone band or base with a stone chimney and by the front door? Are the bays wood? Yes all bays are wood. Is there a planter on the front below the bay?No that is a sill. Lot is heavily vegetated,will any trees be removed? No. There were no further comments from the floor. The Public Comment was closed. C. Vistica moved to place this item on the consent calendar with the findings made in the comments and noting that the T-4"driveway width is an existing condition not being increased.The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006 Comment on the motion: the use of stone or brick should be left to the designer,don't feel that a landscape plan is needed,the lot is heavily vegetated and no trees are going to be removed,should do a tree protection plan during construction to insure that all work stays within the noted construction area and all trees survive. Vice Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when any changes have been made,reviewed by staff and there is space on the agenda. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg abstaining)voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. C.Brownrigg returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dial. Vice Chair Deal returned the gavel to Chair Brownrigg. 10. 2105 ROOSEVELT AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DENNIS AND JULIE CARLSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;JOHN STEWART,STEWART ASSOCIATES,DESIGNER) (59 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos and Julie Carlson, property owner, represented the project. Architect noted that this is a simple addition to a simple house. Commission noted the following: ■ concerned about the left side elevation towering over the house down slope,need to break up the massing; ■ should remove the cultured stone at the front entry,works along the based, veneer should wrap; ■ concerned about the tower on the front, does not work well with the bay, detail needed, it has a skinny proportion; ■ need to provide detail on the wrought iron work, more detail would improve it and should extend around to the left side and same railing at the rear; ■ single story is simple in detail, but with a second story need more detail; ■ emergency egress windows all should be labeled; ■ chimney cap is adequate if fireplace is gas; ■ would like to see design like the house up the block, less boxy; ■ would like to see a landscape plan that adds large size shrubs and small trees to break up the massing; ■ since the roof is flat needs to look as if there is no curb at the top or roof needs to be extended to a peak; ■ need detail about down spouts and put in larger leader head box; ■ give the front porch more emphasis with increased detail; and ■ like idea of keeping it simple, don't want it to be sparse. Comment from public: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,shrubs could help to screen the left side of the house;don't like the look of the tower element on the front; the front entry could be improved by deepening the side porch; would be better if the stone were removed and replace with shrubs instead. There were no further public comments. The public comment period was closed. C. Auran moved to place this item on the consent calendar when all the changes have been made to the plans, reviewed by the staff, and there is space on the agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 22, 2006 Comment on the motion: needs a lot of treatment to the wall on the east side,maybe better to bring back on action; can removed from consent calendar if not satisfied; a number of these comments are serious and need to be addressed. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to set this time to the consent calendar when the changes have been made and reviewed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-1 (C. Vistica dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of May 15, 2006. CP reviewed the planning related actions at the May 15,2006,council meeting. Noting that the Council upheld the Planning Commission on the appeal at 1416 Balboa Avenue, however, expressed concern about the opportunities for exceeding the 30 foot height limit offered by a special permit,thought that the special permit would encourage certain styles of architecture which are dependent on taller roofs, such as Tudor. Also noted that the Council introduced the proposed Rollins Road zoning regulations and new zoning map for public hearing on June 5, 2006. Commissioners discussed subcommittee assignments briefly, chair noted that he would update the assignment list and make it available to everyone. In response to a letter sent to the Beautification Commission on which Planning Commission was copied, some Commissioners noted that a certain uniformity of tree species along the streets in certain neighborhoods was beneficial and wondered if the Beautification Commission had discussed this. Staff noted that there is a clear division of responsibility with the Planning Commission reviewing planting plans on private property and the Beautification Commission responsible for policy regarding street trees and trees on public property. - FYI: 1416 Carlos Avenue- changes to approved design review project. Commission reviewed the changes proposed to the approved project at 1416 Carlos and noted that they were not substantial. - FYI: 1532 Bernal Avenue -change to approved design review project. Since the commission cannot make recommendations to an FYI without a public hearing, the Commissioners voted on a motion made by C.Deal and seconded by C.Cauchi to return this item to the action calendar at the next available meeting. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. X1. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:12 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, David Cauchi, Secretary VA IINUTESWinutes Template.doc 13 5-18-06 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE : 1 FOR: APRIL, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD rime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD . . Change 8 Change urder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 anslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 .ape By Force 1 0 3 0 3 .ttempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 .obbery Firearm 0 1 2 2 0 0 . 00 .obbery Knife 1 0 2 0 2 .obbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 00 .obbery Strong-Arm 6 0 10 4 6 150 . 00 .ssault - Firearm 0 1 0 2 -2 - 100 . 00 .ssault - Knife 1 0 1 4 - 3 -75 . 00 .ssault - Other Dangerous Weapon 2 4 7 6 1 16 . 67 .ssault - Hands, Fists, Feet 1 0 5 1 4 400 . 00 ,ssault - Other (Simple) 17 9 63 59 4 6 . 78 lurglary - Forcible Entry 5 2 21 28 -7 -25 . 00 lurglary - Unlawful Entry 7 6 35 26 9 34 . 62 lurglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 2 1 2 - 1 -50 . 00 ,arceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 ,arceny Purse-Snatching 1 0 2 0 2 ,arceny Shoplifting 5 5 18 14 4 28 . 57 ,arceny From Motor Vehicle 17 26 102 87 15 17 . 24 ,arceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 11 12 41 46 -5 -10 . 87 arceny Bicycles 0 2 1 9 -8 -88 . 89 arceny From Building 11 12 36 28 8 28 . 57 ,arceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 2 1 6 9 - 3 - 33 . 33 .arceny All Other 5 4 26 53 -27 -50 . 94 4otor Vehicle Theft Auto 9 5 29 26 3 11 . 54 4otor Vehicle Theft Bus 1 2 4 2 2 100 . 00 4otor Vehicle Theft Other 0 0 2 0 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 103 94 418 409 103 94 418 409 ,5-18-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: APRIL, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD !rime Classification.................. .. Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change .11 Other Offenses 34 40 152 161 -9 -5.59 mimal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 mimal Nuisance 1 0 1 1 0 0.00 .rson 2 4 8 4 4 100.00 .ssists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 licycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 ligamy 0 0 0 0 0 tomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 lomb Threat 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 iribery 0 0 0 0 0 `heck Offenses 7 1 9 4 5 125.00 :hild Neglect/prot custody 5 5 26 13 13 100.00 :omputer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 )onspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 )redit Card Offenses 0 0 1 0 1 :ruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 urfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 )eath Investigation 5 4 11 18 -7 -38.89 )isorderly Conduct 3 3 8 17 -9 -52.94 )river's License Violations 1 0 3 2 1 50.00 )riving Under the Influence 7 5 24 24 0 0.00 )rug Abuse Violations 3 5 10 13 -3 -23.08 )rug/Sex Registrants/Violations 1 0 1 0 1 )runkeness 1 4 20 12 8 66.67 embezzlement 1 1 2 2 0 0.00 escape 0 0 0 0 0 extortion 0 0 0 0 0 'alse Police Reports 0 0 0 0 0 7alse Reports of Emergency 0 0 2 0 2 'ish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 'orgery and Counterfeiting 2 5 13 17 .4 -23.53 'ound Property 9 13 19 37 18 -48.65 'raud 4 3 12 15 -3 -20.00 ,ambling 0 0 0 0 0 larrassing Phone Calls 3 0 9 7 2 28.57 5-18-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: APRIL, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD :rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change [it and Run Accidents 0 2 11 14 -3 -21.43 Impersonation 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 :nest o 0 0 0 0 :ndecent Exposure 1 0 2 0 2 :ntimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 ,idnapping 0 0 0 0 0 ,ewd Conduct 1 0 1 0 1 ,iquor Laws 2 0 2 2 0 0.00 ,ittering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 4arijuana Violations 0 3 4 6 -2 -33.33 4ental Health Cases 3 3 32 24 8 33.33 4issing Person 4 8 19 26 -7 -26.92 4issing Property 4 6 27 23 4 17.39 4unicipal Code Violations 6 7 33 17 16 94.12 narcotics Sales/Manufacture o 0 0 0 0 offenses Against Children 0 0 3 0 3 )then Assaults 17 9 63 59 4 6.78 ether Juvenile Offenses 0 0 0 0 0 7ther Police Service 2 6 19 21 -2 -9.52 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 1 0 1 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 1 0 3 1 2 200.00 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 2 1 4 1 3 300.00 Prowling 0 1 2 2 0 0.00 Resisting Arrest 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Restraining Orders 0 4 0 12 -12 -100.00 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 0 0 2 1 1 100.00 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 1 0 1 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 0 5-18-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: APRIL, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD 'rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change % Change statutory Rape 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 0 2 2 0 0.00 ;uspended License 4 5 15 9 6 66.67 'ax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 'errorist Threats 0 0 4 3 1 33.33 ,owed vehicle 26 22 107 140 -33 -23.57 'respassing 0 0 7 6 1 16.67 'ruants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 JS Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Jagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Jandalism 28 16 76 72 4 5.56 Jehicle Code Violations 2 1 3 12 -9 -75.00 Jiolation of Court Order 1 0 4 3 1 33.33 larrants - Felony 0 1 3 5 -2 -40.00 iarrants - Misd 5 8 21 27 -6 -22.22 ieapons;Carrying,Possessing 1 1 3 3 0 0.00 ielfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------- ------- 199 200 806 850 199 200 806 850 05-18-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: APRIL, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Parking Citations 3640 2 , 740 11 , 669 12 , 584 Moving Citations 213 120 949 422 ------- ------ ------- ------- 3853 2 , 860 12 , 618 13 , 006 ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- 3853 2 , 860 12 , 618 13 , 006 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 05/18/2006 at 01 : 45 : 26 PM Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 04/01/2006 to 04/30/2006 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids % All % Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ALVISO 355 955 27.08 12 21.43 98.76 FEITELBERG 508 1317 37.34 17 30.36 98.73 GARRETT 501 710 20.13 16 28.57 97.80 KIRKPATRICK 502 483 13.69 10 17.66 97.97 ROSCOE 503 62 1.76 1 1.79 98.41 Total 3527 56 Page 1 of 1 Ccomcast Comcast Cable 12647 Alcosta Boulevard Suite 200 San Ramon,CA 94583 Office:925.973.7000 May 16, 2006 Fax:95.93.7015 www.comcast.com Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: As you may be aware of, it has always been our goal at Comcast to ensure that your office remains informed of the programming services offered to our customers who reside in your community. In keeping with our pursuit of that goal we are sending you this letter to inform you of an upcoming programming adjustment. Effective June 14, 2006 Comcast will add Playboy TV Subscription to the existing optional programming services. Playboy TV Subscription will be offered on channel 853. Comcast will continue to offer the Playboy channel as a pay-per-view option on channel 853, as well. If you should have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact your local Government Affairs Director, Lee-Ann Peling at (650) 289-6794. Sincerely, 1 441 Mitzi Givens-Russell Franchise Compliance Manager Bay Market (comcast Comcast Cable 12647 Alcosta Boulevard Suite 200 San Ramon,CA 94583 May 24, 2006 Office:925.973.7000 Fax:925.973.7015 www.comcast.com Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: It has always been our goal at Comeast to ensure that your office remains informed of the programming services offered to our customers who reside in your community. In pursuit of attaining that goal, we are sending you this letter as Comcast's official notice of our intention to adjust the current channel line-up. Effective June 28, 2006 we will make the following adjustments to the channel line-up: Action Channel Name Service Level Channel Location Add IndiePlex Digital Plus 513 Add RetroPlex Digital Plus 514 Remove Starz! East Premium 533 Remove Encore East Digital Plus 517 IndiePlex will offer theatrically released independent films and RetroPlex will offer movies from the 1950's-1970's.—both channels will be commercial-free. Customers will be informed of the programming changes via a message on their Digital Control Terminal. These programming adjustments will not result in a price adjustment at this time. If you should have any questions or concerns regarding the matter, please feel free to contact your local Government Affairs Director, Lee-Ann Peling at (650) 289-6794. Sincerely, L�Q___Q Mitzi Givens-Russell Government Affairs Manager Bay Market- Franchise Compliance