HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2006.11.06 0-...
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Monday, November 6, 2006
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commissioner Interviews—6:00 p.m. Conference Room A
1. CALL TO ORDER—7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Regular Council Meeting of October 16, 2006
5. PRESENTATION
a. Fire Department poster contest winners
b. Proclamation for 60th Anniversary of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS—The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each.
a. Resolution for$100,000 Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funds (SLESF)to fund one
additional police officer
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. Adopt Resolution approving annual report of the Advisory Board of the San Mateo County
Tourism Business Improvement District(BID) and declaring intention to establish assessments
for the 2007 year for the District-ADOPT
b. Appointment of members of Advisory Board for the San Mateo County Tourism Business
Improvement District-APPOINT
1
c. Introduction of an Ordinance to amend the Municipal Code for issuing a demolition permit and
clarification of penalties for work done without a building permit —INTRODUCE
9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Use of Capital Improvement funds for Washington Park Ball Field
b. Recommendation to cancel the regular City Council scheduled for December 18, 2006
c. Resolution approving agreement with San Mateo County Transportation Authority(SMCTA)to
replace and upgrade Burlingame water main as part of U.S. 101 auxiliary lane project
d. Resolution awarding construction contract to Vertrans Elevator for the City Hall elevator
replacement
e. Progress update on the Mills Canyon slide repairs project
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.
12. OLD BUSINESS
13. NEW BUSINESS
a. Appointment to Policy Advisory Committee for CCAG's Sub-Regional Housing Needs
Allocation Process (RHNA) -APPOINT
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Library, September 26, 2006; Beautification, October 5, 2006; Parks &
Recreation, October 19, 2006; Planning, October 23, 2006
b. Department Reports: Police, September, 2006; Finance, September, 2006;
Building, October, 2006
15. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
STUDY SESSION
a. Clean Up Week
b. Emergency Preparedness
2
CLOSED SESSION
a. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(a): Claims of Harry Gogarty and Catherine
W innett
b. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1),(3)(C)): Claims of Leticia lbarra, Monica
Granger, and San Mateo County Transit District
16. 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.burlin ag me.org.
Agendas and minutes are available at this site.
NEXT MEETING—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20,2006
3
CITY O�
BURUNGAME
Y-1,
nrco�-k
6
)II.P.
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 16, 2006
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 7:05 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Katie O'Brien.
3. ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. MINUTES
Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 3, 2006 regular Council meeting;
seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
5. PRESENTATION
a. LIBRARY KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Lib Escoffier provided data on the key indicators for Library services for 2005-06. Business at Easton
Branch has tripled in the last year, and overall patron registration has grown 15% over the last four years
serving 89% of the population. Lib Escoffier stated that the 10-year-old Burlingame Library Foundation
continues to support programming and public relations and had raised $1 million for the Easton Branch
renovation.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following citizens spoke on Measure H: John Ward, 792 Willborough Place; Tom Koros, 1425 Cabrillo;
Susan Castner-Paine, 728 Concord Way; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. There were no further
comments from the floor.
1
Burlingame City Council October 16, 2006
Unapproved Minutes
8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. RED LIGHT TRAFFIC PHOTO ENFORCEMENT
COP Van Etten reviewed the staff report and requested Council to direct staff on whether to implement this
traffic enforcement program which would use stand-alone technology at the intersection of Broadway and El
Camino Real. Chief Van Etten introduced Wade Bettisworth of Redflex Traffic Systems who presented
details of their red light traffic photo enforcement program.
Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. David Adams, 917 Laguna Avenue, asked about the photo
identification process. Mr. Bettisworth advised that the process would be up to the local police to pursue
using DMV records. There were no further comments, and the hearing was closed.
Council requested further cost studies including cost justification and a comparison of traffic counts in cities
that have this program in place before approving implementation of this program in Burlingame.
b. DISCUSS POSSIBLE REVISION TO PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTMENTS TO CITY
COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS AND TO ATTENDANCE STANDARDS
CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council to discuss possible revisions to the procedure
for board and commission appointments and possible revisions to the attendance standards for board and
commission members.
For the interview process, Council would like to advise applicants of the number of hours commissioners
might expect to dedicate to their commission; to facilitate more spontaneity in the interview questions; to
include clarification that no private meetings with applicants would occur; and for all Council members to
attend all interviews on a trial basis. In discussing attendance standards, Council would like commissions to
include in their meeting minutes information as to when commissioners or board members arrive late or
leave early.
Council agreed to schedule interviews with all Council members present for a trial period. All Council
members will interview applicants for the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission on November 6 at 6:00
p.m. and all applicants for the Civil Service Commission on November 20 at 6:00 p.m.
A study session will be scheduled in the near future to discuss possible revisions to the attendance standards
for board and commission members. Council agreed that input would be needed from Human Resources
before revising the standards for Civil Service Commission members who also serve on interview panels.
C. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VACANCY
CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and recommended that Council call for applications for the two
impending vacancies on the Civil Service Commission.
The application deadline was set for November 9, 2006. As Council discussed in Item 8.b., all Council
members will be present to interview all applicants on November 20 at 6:00 p.m.
d. CONSIDERATION FOR FUNDING IMPROVEMENTS TO WASHINGTON PARK BALL
FIELD
2
Burlingame City Council October 16,2006
Unapproved Minutes
P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and requested Council to consider authorizing additional funding
for improvements to Washington Park Ball Field as requested by Burlingame Youth Baseball Association
(BYBA) to make the field more playable and safer. BYBA has been supportive in partnering with the City in
improving other park projects in the past.
Council expressed concern about the short notice for this project and the request to use City reserve funds.
Hank Sauer, BYBA President, spoke on the need for improvements to level the field, especially at this time
before the rainy season. Randy Diekman and Chuck Chavez, BYBA Board members, spoke on the need and
the urgency to repair the field.
FinDir Nava recommended that an alternative to using the City's reserve funds would be to transfer the
$25,000 needed for this project from funds already allocated for the Burlingame High School backfield
artificial turf since it may take up to ten months for the backfield issue to be resolved at which time the City
would be looking to re-appropriate funding for the backfield in the 2007-08 budget.
CA Anderson advised that a request for the recommended transfer of funds would be presented to Council
for approval at the next meeting.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. PROGRESS UPDATE ON THE MILLS CANYON SLIDE REPAIRS PROJECT
DPW Bagdon provided Council with a progress update of emergency repairs to the Mills Canyon mudslide.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 85-2006 AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO SHAW
PIPELINE FOR THE MILLS TANK TRANSMISSION MAIN PROJECT
DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 85-2006 awarding construction contract for the
Mills Tank Transmission Main to Shaw Pipeline, Inc.
C. RESOLUTON NO. 86-2006 AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO STOLOSKI &
GONZALEZ FOR SKYLINE WATER SERVICE LATERALS
DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 86-2006 awarding construction contract for the
Skyline Water Service Laterals to Stoloski & Gonzalez.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 87-2006 APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH KENNEDY JENKS CONSULTANTS FOR CONSTRUCTON MANAGEMENT OF
THE MILLS TANK TRANSMISSION MAIN PROJECT
DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 87-2006 approving agreement for professional
services with Kennedy Jenks Consultants for Construction Management of the Mills Tank Transmission
Main Project.
e. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NOS. 82-2006, 83-2006 AND 84-2006 FIXING THE
EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES MEDICAL AND
HOSPITAL CARE ACT EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2007
3
Burlingame City Council October 16,2006
Unapproved Minutes
HRD Dolan requested Council approve Resolution No. 82-2006 fixing the employer's contribution under the
Public Employees' Medical and Hospital care Act for AFSCME Locals 829 and 2190, Burlingame
Association of Middle Managers, Department Heads, International Association of Fire Fighters, Police
Officers Association, Association of Police Administrators and Unrepresented Employees; Resolution No.
83-2006 fixing the employer's contribution under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act for
employees in classifications represented by the Fire Administrators employee organization; and Resolution
No. 84-2006 fixing the employer's contribution under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act
for employees in classifications represented by Teamsters, Local 856.
f. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL
FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #21118-21655 duly audited, in the amount of
$2,217,033.20 and Payroll checks #166583-166814 in the amount of$2,799,618.90 for the month of
September 2006.
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman
Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City.
a. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE ON SAFEWAY
Councilwoman Keighran reported that she and Mayor Baylock met with Safeway's consultant, David
Bowlby, on October 11. Mr. Bowlby plans to meet with Citizens for a Better Burlingame (CBB) on October
26 because of their interest in Safeway's project. Next, Mr. Bowlby would like to invite Candace Hathaway,
an independent mediator, to meet with Mayor Baylock, Councilwoman Keighran and City Manager Jim
Nantell in November. Then early next year, a meeting with all stakeholders is planned. For that meeting,
Mayor Baylock suggested displaying Safeway's plan, Martin Dreiling's plan and Dan Ionescu's plan to be
critiqued by those who attend.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on various community issues. There were no further comments from
the floor.
12. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
13. NEW BUSINESS
Councilwoman O'Mahony stated that recently CalPers was authorized to invest $2.9 million to help agencies
throughout the state to develop a pre-funding plan for employee health needs in the future and requested
Finance to present to Council any advantages that would be made available to the City.
Mayor Baylock shared a letter from San Mateo Mayor John Lee asking Council to support Sue Lempert for
her reappointment to MTC.
4
Burlingame City Council October 16,2006
Unapproved Minutes
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Parks &Recreation, September 21, 2006; Planning, October 10, 2006
b. Department Reports: Building, September 2006
c. Three letters from Comcast concerning program changes
CLOSED SESSION
CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following:
a. Personnel Matter: Mid-Year Performance Review of City Manager(Government Code § 54957)
15. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Baylock adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and voted not to submit a bid on the property at 260
El Camino Real:
a. Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8:
Property: 260 El Camino Real (APN 029-201-320)
Agency Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Larry Anderson and George Bagdon
Negotiating Parties: Chevron USA, Inc.
Under consideration: Possible negotiation for purchase of property
16. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Baylock adjourned the meeting at 10:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Doris J. Mortensen
City Clerk
5
Burlingame City Council October 16,2006
Unapproved Minutes
PIZO CLAMAT' ION
Honoring Gooa shepherd Lutheran church's 60th Anniversary
Whereas, With 24 worshipers in attendance the first worship service for the
people soon to form the Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd was held
in St.George's Hall in januarN 1946;and
Whereas, The Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd was chartered on November
24,1946,in the Gunst Mansion in Burlingame's Washington Park.and
whereas, Laving the cornerstone of a new buifding on September 7, 1947, with the
dedication of that buifding on November 9, 1947, the Church still stands
todaN at 301 Burlingame Avenue;and
whereas, Since 1946, Good shepherd Lutheran C6urc6 has provided a growing
number of services benefiting the citizens of this communitN;
Now, there f ore, I, Cat6T BaNf ock Mallor of the CitN of Burlingame, do 6erebN offer
congratulations to Pastor Peter Garrison and the Congregation of the Good
Shepherd Lutheran C6urc6 as theN celebrate their 66anniversaq and
wish them continued growth in our community.
In witness w6ereo f, I Gave hereunto set mN band
and caused the seat of the CAN of Burlingame to be
affixed this 0 daN o f November 2006.
Cat6T BaNtock Mav or
AGENDA
ITY o� ITEM# 63
' � STAFF REPORT MTG.
mh
DATE NoupPr Ei 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: _ October 18, 2006
APPROVED
FROM: Jack Van Etten, Chief o Polirp BY Jim Nantell, city Managi-r
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Approve Expenditure of SLESF (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services
Funds), also referred to as COPS (Citizens Options for Police Spending)
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution for the purpose of approving the
Police Chief's plan to use Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funding (SLESF) allocated to the City
of Burlingame. This hearing should be placed on the agenda for the regularly held City Council Meeting of
November 6, 2006.
BACKGROUND:
The State of California has awarded the City of Burlingame $100,000 in SLESF (Supplemental Law
Enforcement Services Funding), or also referred to as COPS (Citizens Options for Police Spending)
funding for this fiscal year (2006-2007). In order to receive this funding, there must be a public hearing at a
regularly scheduled city council meeting to review and approve the spending plan for the funds. The Chief
of Police is responsible for developing the spending plan.
The spending plan for consideration is the same as approved in past years by the City Council. The entire
amount of the SLESF/COPS funding will be used to pay the salaries and benefits of one plus (1+)
Burlingame Police Officer(s). This expenditure fulfills the mandate of Governor Schwarzenegger that
COPS funds be used for police personnel costs.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING
THE PLAN OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE FOR EXPENDITURE OF SUPPLEMENTAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUNDS(SLESF),ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE CITIZENS
OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY(COPS)FUNDS
RESOLVED,by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame,California that;
WHEREAS, the State of California has established the Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS)
programs and appropriated money from the State general fund for certain public safety programs for the 2006-2007
fiscal year;and
WHEREAS,the State has awarded the City$100,000 in COPS funding;and
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has proposed that this funding be used to fund one additional police
officer position pursuant to the COPS funding guidelines;and
WHEREAS,notice of this proposal and this public hearing has been published as required by law;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing and received and considered testimony from all
persons interested in the matter who appeared at the hearing,
NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The plan proposed by the Chief of Police to use the COPS funding for provision of one additional
police officer is approved.
2. These funds will be used to supplement existing services as required by State law and shall not be
used to supplant any existing funding for the Burlingame Police Department.
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 6th of November 2006,and
was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
CITY o AGENDA 8a
ITEM#
BURLINGAIME MTG.
STAFF REPORT
DATE 11/6/2006.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED �ry
BY
DATE: November 1, 2006 APPROV D
BY—
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ADVISORY BOARD OF
THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) AND
DECLARING INTENTION TO ESTABLISH ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2007 YEAR FOR
THE DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt proposed resolution approving annual report of the advisory board of the San Mateo County Tourism
BID and declaring intention to establish and levy 2007 assessments in the District.
DISCUSSION:
In early 2001, the City Council formed the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (BID)
under Streets & Highways Code §§ 36500 and following, with the consent of 11 participating agencies: County
of San Mateo and the Cities of Belmont, Daly City, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Redwood City, San
Bruno, San Carlos, and San Mateo. In 2002, Daly City withdrew from the District, and South San Francisco
joined. In 2005, the City of East Palo Alto joined the District.
Annual assessments have generated a steady source of income to fund tourism promotion and sustainment
activities through a contract with the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau
The BID Advisory Board has submitted the annual report for 2006 explaining the activities and
accomplishments over the past year. The Board is recommending that the assessments for 2007 remain the
same as in 2006.
The resolution sets a public hearing for December 4, and the Convention and Visitors Bureau and the City Clerk
will mail the resolution and the assessment details to all the included hotels. The TBID pays the costs of
publication of the notices (over $5,000), but does not pay for any administrative costs of the City because until
the District was formed, the City was contributing between $400,000 and $500,000 a year in general fund
money to the Bureau.
Attachments
2006 Annual Report from the Advisory Board
Proposed Resolution
Draft Assessments by Hotel
Summary of Total Assessments by Agency
Distribution: Anne LeClair, SMCCVB; Finance Director
San Mateo County Convention&Visitors Bureau Annual Report
To Burlingame City Council
Lead Agency for San Mateo County
Tourism Business Improvement District
October 19, 2006
Activities/Accomplishments in last 12 months
Overall: In the last 12 months,the Bureau has generated 489 "leads" for county properties—an
increase of 26%over last year. We assisted our properties in booking 96,929 room nights,an increase
of 11 %over last year. Year to date, we have "closed" 60%of the leads we have generated, a"close"
figure 77%higher than the industry average. The estimated economic impact from these group
bookings is$37,654,947. This total does NOT include individual corporate and leisure nights
generated through advertising and promotion.
Accomplishments in Group Sales:
• Won the prestigious Successful Meetings Pinnacle Award for cvb's rated (by planners) as
offering outstanding customer service to meeting planners;
• Conducted three-day familiarization ("fam") tour for meeting planners from the Midwest
and East Coast, showcasing San Mateo County and its properties;
• Conducted three-day "fam" tour for meeting planners from Sacramento;
• Conducted two-day "fam tour" for military and family reunion planners;
• Conducted one-and-a-half-day fam tour for religious planners in conjunction 'xith Religious
Conference Management Association Conference;
• Participated in 53 trade shows, greatly increasing visibility of San Mateo County;
• Held receptions for planners in Chicago and Washington, DC, and Boston to introduce our
area to planners;
• Conducted sales "blitzes" in Sacramento, Chicago, Washington, DC and Southern
California;
• Expanded our hot dates/hot rates notification program sending last minute deals out to key
meeting planners to assist area properties with filling in"need" dates and offering our members
the opportunity to list their short-term need dates on a national hot dates site;
• Conducted numerous targeted meeting planner outreach campaigns to various market
segments, e.g. medical meeting planners;
• Continued our participation in "Team Japan", and took director from Tokyo on
countywide fam tour;
• Worked with U.S. Department of Commerce offices in San Francisco and San Jose to
expand outreach to overseas travel offices and travel publications, securing ink in
multiple publications in Asia;
• Created strong ties with numerous Bay Area sports-related groups, generating thousands of
definite room nights in that category, from professional events to youth activities;
• Continued outreach to third party meeting planners and meeting management
companies, including Smith Bucklin, David Green, Conferon, Booz Allen Hamilton,
conference Direct and Association Management Center, making presentations and securing
listings in their directories;
• Remained actively involved in MPI chapter in Chicago;
• Continued active involvement in the Greater Washington Society of Association Executives
(GWSAE), as well as numerous other professional meeting planner organizations, including
SGMP, CalSAE; ASAE,NCSAE,MPI, HSMI, IAAMC, RCMA, PCMA;
• Continued outreach in the Midwest, building relationships and an identity with association,
corporate and SMERF meeting planners in that region;
:Advertised in publications directed at meeting planners and tour group operators,
including ads in the following publications: NTA - Group Tour (two editions), Meetings West
(five editions and online), Successful Meetings, ASAE The Executive, Group Tour Magazine
(four editions), Small Market Meetings (two editions), The Tour Operator (online and print
directory), RCM—Religious Conference Manager (two editions), Smart Meetings (one edition)
Western Association of Chamber Executives newsletter (one edition), Creative Industry
Handbook and the Reel Directory.
• Created promotional flyers for several booked clients to enhance attendance at their
meetings in SMC;
• Publicized the incredible testimonials our team receives in writing from planners, writers and
production companies, to recruit new business. (We do not solicit testimonials, yet we receive
five-to-ten per week!) ;
• Won best booth award for second year at SGMP educational conference, generating
additional publicity for the county. Won best tee exhibit at MPI golf tournament(second year
in a row); served on various boards of travel associations and meeting planner organizations;
Accomplishments in Recruiting Leisure Travelers/Individual Corporate Travelers for Smaller
Properties:
• Placed 40,000 of 80,000 visitor guides produced in California Welcome Centers around the
state to encourage drive-in business;
• Placed ads aimed at individual travelers in: CA Visitor Guide (500,000 copies),Sunset(four
editions), Society of American Travel Writers Directory and See America. Total readership
for all ads is well over 13.7 million;
• Sent monthly ebulletins to several thousand prospective visitors in our database, listings
special events and special rates to encourage visits;
• Provided links for member properties, with website averaging 200,000 hits and over 5,400
unique visitors per month, for an annual total of: 2,600,000 hits and 64,800 unique visitors;
• Responded to phone calls, emails, ad response cards requesting local lodging information;
• Participated in Adventures in Travel leisure travel show, POWWOW show for tour planners
from all over the world and California Travel Market show and appointments, as well as
MayFair;
• Updated smaller guides on filming in San Mateo County, beaches, recreation, ghosts and
graveyards and historical areas to generate additional interest in our area;
• Maintained visitor kiosk at Hiller Aviation Museum for drive in visitors:
• Implemented discounted car rental program with Enterprise Rent-a-Car, offering deep
discounts to those coming to San Mateo County.
NEW PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITY-San Mateo County as Culinary Destination
• Began a campaign to position and market San Mateo County as a top culinary tourism
destination (Please see attachment describing program);
• Formed partnership with San Mateo County Farm Bureau, San Mateo County Harbor
District to encourage SMC restaurants to buy and serve the freshest local produce, seafood,
wine, beer and goat dairy products;
• Received special commendation from U.S. Department of Commerce for the campaign;
• Featured as cover story in California Country Magazine (June/July, 06);
• Will be awarded Award of Excellence (with San Mateo County Farm Bureau) from American
Farm Bureau in January;
• Increased level of interest among meeting planners and visitors in general due to program, and
began generating additional prospective business from food-related and agricultural groups;
• Received County grant to allow part time employee year-round for the project and to enhance
advertising;
• Cookbook featuring recipes using SMC's freshest ingredients due out first week in November;
• Local fresh products used at receptions for planners out of town and in gift baskets for those
visiting and out of town to call attention to the high quality of our cuisine;
• Chefs taken right onto the farms and docks to learn about fresh products and make purchasing
connections;
• Farm/dock/winery/goat farm/brewery tours now being pitched to food groups and tour groups
in general.
MEDIA OUTREACH
• Attended two national travel writer shows in 2006 (North American Travel Journalists
Association in May and Travel Media Showcase in September, meeting one-on-one with over
80 travel writers and pitching all types of stories, including Wining and Dining in San Mateo
County, Convention& Exhibition Centers, Family Travel, Mature and Inter-Generational
Travel, Holiday Escapes, Sun Destinations, SMC Conference and Meeting Facilities, SMC
Convention and Visitors Bureau services; San Francisco International Airport;Nature Tourism;
Golf; Spas and Luxury Travel; Romantic Coastside; Beaches; Coastside Drive; Trails
(Walking, Hiking, Biking); "Togethering" in San Mateo County, and Entertainment and
Nightlife.
• Generated articles in addition to several inclusions in CTTC (California Travel and Tourism
Commission)releases, which are distributed to hundreds of public relations and media outlets
worldwide.
• Toured SMC with individual travel writers, showing them San Mateo County attractions.
Conducted a very successful press tour of San Mateo County in August for eight travel
writers from U.S. and Canada resulting in numerous articles in
www.BeachCalifornia.com,www.offbeattravel.com,www.gettingaway.com,
www.sogonow.com, plus upcoming pieces in several Canadian newspapers.
• Customized stories to fit needs of extensive media calendars we have purchased, sending
numerous"made to fit"pieces out on a monthly basis;
• Followed up on leads from SATW and Travel Publicity Leads with hundreds of requests
from travel writers for information for specific stories;
• Worked closely with the California Travel and Tourism Commission (CTTC) team,
responding to all publicity leads that came in to the state.
• Continued to build our media database, allowing us to send editorial ideas to numerous
publications and travel media outlets on a monthly basis. (In the last year,we have emailed
editorial ideas on our county to several hundred travel editors each month, in addition to
sending information to fit their prescheduled stories.)
• Made presentations on SMC before the Bay Area Travel Writers and North American
Travel Journalists Association (Margi Grant's status as a member of these groups, rather than
merely a promoter, enhances her influence with them.)
FILMING OUTREACH
• Continued active recruitment of major motion picture filming through our film
commission, led by Film Commissioner Brena Bailey;
• Targeted professional location scouts and location managers, sending out monthly email
updates of new/interesting filming locations to the Northern California Location
Scouting/Managers Internet List AND the Southern California Location Scouting/Managers
Internet List;
• Developed(or provided) ongoing script breakdowns for proposed film projects,
matching them with available San Mateo County coastal locations and sending
appropriate images of venues from our digital library;
• Continued to increase the number of photographs in digital library for use in
promotion to film industry;
• Handled average of 20 requests per week for filming/permitting assistance to make
production easier for film crews;
• Participated in film industry trade shows, including the"Locations" Trade Show put on
by the AFCI (Association of Film Commissioners International - of which we are an active
member.) This is the world's largest locations trade show, geared to reach an audience of
filmmakers--producers, directors, location managers and scouts. Nominated SM County
Park Service for their work on Memoirs of a Geisha and they won award at the show in
October 05;Nominated producer of Grape Nuts commercial in our County Park system this
October, and he won, adding to our visibility as a prime filming destination.);
• Participated in the "Cinegear" Show, (an industry only showcase),promoting filming in
San Mateo County;
• Recruited numerous small film, advertising and video productions (with small crews)
through our film commission, including Grape Nuts commercial,X-Box commercial, and
multiple car commercials;
• Ensured that several photo pages are devoted to San Mateo County in the Reel Directory
(goes to film
industry).
ADDITIONAL OUTREACH
• Continued to work closely with team at SFO,welcoming new airlines to our area;
• Attended all new airline/new flight service ceremonies at SFO, creating strong visibility for
San Mateo County with new carriers;
• Met with multiple arts organizations, to assist with promotion to visitors;
• Gave numerous speeches and presentations in Bay Area in effort to get local assistance with
recruitment;
• Continued to build relationships with Cow Palace, South San Francisco Conference Center
and San Mateo County Expo center,working to bring leads to their sales teams and assist
in closing business;
• Worked with SFO, SamTrans, CalTrain and BART to promote our area as easily
accessible;
• Continued outreach to chambers and cities in county, including area events in bimonthly
calendars of events.
Newest Culinary Tourism Destination:'SAN MATEO COUNTY
ON THE SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA
CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL PHOTOS AVAILABLE
San Mateo County: As Fresh As It Gets
Media Contact:Anne LeClair or Margi Grant:650-348-7600
Now that the word is out,"foodies"and gourmets of all kinds are heading to San
Mateo County,San Francisco's closest neighbor,offering two sides of a gorgeous
peninsula—the Coastside and the Bayside. Already known for its convenience(SFO
is there),its sunshine,scenic beauty,90 miles of beaches and proximity to San
Francisco,the area is now touting the incredible fresh produce grown in the
southernmost part of the county,the fish,crab and prawns caught off of the Pacific
side and the locally produced wine and microbrews. The county is making a name
for itself as a world-class tourism destination.
San Mateo County offers dining at its best. Locally grown produce and fresh
seafood,multi-ethnic cuisine,and local wineries make dining on the Peninsula a
truly fine culinary experience. A new"San Mateo County:As Fresh As It Gets"
awards program recognizes local restaurants,hotels and caterers that buy and serve
produce from local San Mateo County growers,seafood caught off of San Mateo
County's coastline and beer and wine made in the county. The San Mateo County
Convention&Visitors Bureau(SMCCVB)and San Mateo County Farm Bureau
created the ongoing awards program in cooperation with the San Mateo County
Harbor District
Chefs have been taken right onto the farms and docks to learn first-hand how to
find the freshest products,and how to serve them so that they are at their peak.
Culinary teams have been trained to give diners little known facts,such as how a
Dungeness crab develops and becomes so sweet. Arrangements have even been
made for groups to hear presentations by farmers,fishermen and/or winery owners
as they enjoy a particular meal.(Outings can even be arranged for groups:a group
trip to a goat farm,followed by a visit to an award-winning restaurant serving that
farm's goat cheese made to look like a still life covered with edible flowers.)Unique
networking opportunities are being provided for chefs,hotel operators,farmers,
dairy operators,fishermen,and beer and wine producers to ensure that products
are bought and served at their peak of freshness.
Visitors and residents are being informed of not only which venues are participating
in the program,but also which local products are used in the menu(special labels),
the health-conscious aspect of certain dishes(heart icons),how to take of some of
San Mateo County's freshest products home(a guide of growers/fishermen who will
ship their goods to visitors'homes),and where to go to enjoy local wine and food
pairing events and celebrations of special foods.
The "San Mateo County: As Fresh As It Gets" program has enjoyed a tremendous
welcome within both the local restaurant and agricultural communities. The
California Secretary of Food and Agriculture made a point of coming to present the
very first: "San Mateo County: As Fresh as it Gets Awards" at a reception in Half
Moon Bay. The campaign was also the featured cover story of the California
Country Magazine's May/June issue. The program continues to grow
exponentially, with increasing numbers of restaurants now serving products picked
or caught the same day.
San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau is proud to be involved in a
campaign that will clearly benefit the local lodging and dining establishments, the
agricultural community in the county, the tourism industry in our area, and will
promote economic growth and media recognition for San Mateo County. We
encourage writers to visit and see the farm-and dock-to-restaurant sequence first
hand. San Mateo County is becoming the new culinary tourism destination.
A"
PHOTOS AVAILABLE (including professional shots of gourmet goat cheese maker
on her farm w/goats; farmers w/giant pumpkins, artichokes; chefs sampling fava
beans right in the farm fields, a fisherman talking to chefs from his boat w/a crab in
one hand etc.)
Note to publication:
The San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau would appreciate receiving
a copy of your publication which features an editorial about our area. Please use
the information below to contact me:
Margi Grant - Publications Manager
San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau
111 Anza Blvd., Suite 410
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 348-7600 x 111
Fax: (650) 348-7687
e-mail: margi@smccvb.com
www.smccvb.com
wwm.Yisitsanmateocounte1.corn
Articles published in 2006
January 2006—CocktailAtlas.com:Drinking With The Blue Lady by Sandra Scott
January 2006—Copley News Service:Take A Trip—To The Airport by Sandra
Scott
January 2006—Smart Meetings Magazine: California Dreaming(Pescadero and
Costanoa)
January 2006—The Salt Lake Tribune: Surf,Sand,Sun by Carey Hamilton
(BATW)
January 2006—CTTC Press Release: Birding in San Mateo County
January 2006—Meetings West:Northern Ca.—Shining Examples of the Golden
State's Riches by Marlene Goldman
February 2006—Tidewater Women: Impressions of Half Moon Bay by Peggy
Sijswerda(TMS)
February 2006—The Wave Magazine: Half Moon Bay by Bob Ecker(BATW)
February 2006—Smart Meetings Magazine(Small Meetings Guide):Beyond the
Bay
February 2006—Smart Meetings Magazine:The Ultimate Incentive
March 2006—ejazztravel: San Mateo County on the San Francisco Peninsula
California by Kris King(TMS)
March 2006—Main Line Times:Living in the Lap of Luxury at San Francisco's
Four Seasons by Ralph Collier(SATW)
March 2006—Main Line Times:It's Springtime in Northern California by Ralph
Collier(SATW)
March 2006—Main Line Times:Unhurried in San Mateo County by Ralph Collier
April 2006—Broadcast on"I Hear America Talking"by Ralph Collier
April 2006—Guide Book"Gardens by the Bay"by David Laws (BATW)
April 2006—Smart Meetings Magazine:High Tech Meets High Class in Silicon
Valley
April and May 2006 — Four Seasons Hotel Spa Package in "Travel To Wellness"
website by Anne Dimon
May 2006 — Professional Businesswomen of California: New Rest for the Wicked by
Patricia Kutza (CTTC)
May 2006 — Guidebook to Wheelchair-Accessible B&Bs by Candy Harrington
(BATW and NATJA)
Summer 2006 — RV Journal: Beckoning Beacons by Janet and Stuart Wilson
(BATW)
June 2006 — Meetings Focus: Northern California Coast by Robert P. Farmer
(Meetings West)
July 2006 — Sketchandtravel.com: Romantic San Mateo County (interview with
Margi Grant) by Norm Goldman (Travel Publicity Leads)
July 2006 — Sketchandtravel.com: Beaches in San Mateo County by Norm Goldman
(Travel Publicity Leads)
July 2006 — Family Travel Forum: A Very Cool California Road Trip by Bethany
Kandel
July 2006 — The Hindu: For A Perfect Location (filming in San Mateo County)
July 2006 — www.fostertravel.com: Coastside San Mateo County by Lee Foster
(BATW and SATW)
August 2006 — Smart Meetings: Bayside to Coastside by Carolyn Koenig (BATW)
August 2006 — www.BeachCalifornia.com: A Passion for Pez by George Bailey
2006 Press Trip)
August 2006 — www.ronkapon:typel2ad.com: I Left My Heart Outside San
Francisco by Ron Kapon (2006 Press Trip, NATJA, TMS)
August 2006 — www.aettin2away.com: Half Moon Bay, Ca and Burlingame, Ca by
Jim Bruner (Press Trip)
August 2006 — www.BeachCalifornia.com: San Mateo County Vacation — Hidden in
"Plane" View by Debbie Stock (2006 Press Trip)
September 2006 — www.offbeattravel.com: Soaking up California Coastside: San
Mateo County by George Bailey (2006 Press Trip)
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION
TO ESTABLISH AND LEVY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2007 YEAR IN
THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS,pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et sea.,the
San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District was established for the purpose of
promoting tourism in the District through promotion of scenic,recreational,cultural,hospitality,and
other attractions in the San Mateo County region; and
WHEREAS,the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District Advisory Board
has filed its 2006 annual report and requested the Burlingame City Council to set the assessments
for the 2007 year; and
WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District through the
City's agreement with the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau has established a basic
foundation to promote tourism in the District and the programs for the coming year should
significantly help the hospitality industry continue its recovery in the County; and
NOW,THEREFORE,the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve,determine,and find as
follows:
1. The 2006 annual report of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement
District Advisory Board is approved.
2. The Burlingame City Council intends to levy an assessment for the 2007 year on
hotels in the District,as the District is described in Ordinance Nos. 1648, 1678,and 1774,to pay for
programs and activities of the District.
3. The types of programs and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of assessments
on hotels in the District are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. These
programs and activities are without substantial change from those previously established for the
District.
4. The method and basis for levying the assessments on all hotels within the District are
set forth in Exhibit"B",incorporated herein by reference,and would retain the same basic formulas
1
as those used in the previous year. This means that the assessments for a hotel would be the same
as the previous year, unless the number of hotel rooms in the hotel had been reduced or increased.
5. New hotels shall not be exempt from assessment.
6. A public hearing on the proposed assessments and programs for the year 2006 is
hereby set for December 4,2006,at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at
the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
7. The Council will receive testimony and evidence at the public hearing, and interested
persons may submit written comments before or at the public hearing, or they may be sent by mail
or delivered to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010.
8. Oral or written protests may be made at the hearing. To count in a majority protest
against the proposed assessment for the 2007 year,a protest must be in writing and submitted to the
City Clerk at or before the close of the public hearing on December 4,2006. A written protest may
be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of that public hearing. Each written
protest shall identify the hotel and its address. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the
official records of the City of Burlingame as the owner of the hotel,then the protest shall contain or
be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the hotel. Any written protest
as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the
irregularity or defect to which objection is made.
9. If at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record written protests by the
owners of hotels within the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total
assessments of the entire District,as to the proposed assessments for the 2007 year, no assessment
for 2007 year shall occur. If at the conclusion of the public hearing there are of record written
protests by the owners of hotels within the District which will pay fifty percent(50%)or more of the
total assessments of the entire District only as to a program or activity proposed, then that type of
improvement or activity shall not be included in the District for the 2007 year.
11. Further information regarding the proposed assessments and procedures for filing a
written protest may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,
California, phone 650 - 558-7203. The annual report of the San Mateo County Tourism Business
Improvement District is on file and available at the Office of the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
2
12. The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice of the public hearing by publishing the
this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Burlingame in accordance with
the requirements of the Government and Streets&Highways Codes and mailing in accordance with
those requirements and Ordinance Nos. 1648 and 1678 as applicable.
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 on the _ day of
November, 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
U:\FILES\HotelBid\2007intro.res.wpd
3
EXHIBIT A
SERVICES AND PROGRAMS TO BE PROVIDED IN 2007
San Mateo Tourism Business Improvement District
1. Generate Additional Group Leads through:
a. Participating in over 50 trade shows, putting word out about San Mateo County
b. Hosting receptions in Washington, DC, Chicago and Sacramento, and Southern
California;
C. Conducting group "fam" (familiarization) tours for meeting planners from the
Midwest and Washington, DC area;
d. Targeting medical and incentive markets and conducting mail and sales blitzes in
those areas;
e. Conducting multiple individual "fam" tours for planners as well as "site" visits for
planners with possible interest in the area;
f. Further penetrating the military market buy conducting "fam" tour for military
planner group;
g. Hosting a "fam" tour for religious meeting planners;
h. Parlaying existing accounts, (e.g. California Farm Bureau annual meeting
contract) into related-industry accounts;
i. Increasing our marketing to planners in the sports industry, continuing our work
with Stanford University's athletic directors and other area universities, schools
and specialty sports groups;
j. Conducting numerous targeted mail and sales blitzes, including two in Chicago,
two in Washington, DC and two in Chicago;
k. Using testimonials to recruit additional planners;
1. Enhancing/updating trade show booth decor and marketing materials;
M. Increasing memberships in organizations/attendance at meetings with key,
potential target visitors;
n. Enhancing advertising in publications/web programs aimed at meeting planners;
o. Creating additional specialty guides/promotional pieces aimed at target market
segments (e.g. golf, culinary experiences);
P. Continuing to make contacts/build business in Washington, D.C., Sacramento,
and Midwestern markets;
q. Continuing efforts to focus on new feeder markets for discounted airlines into
SFO, including Boston,New York and Calgary;
r. Continuing in-house sales managers' focus on corporate, SMERF markets;
S. Hosting "fam" trip for Sacramento planners;
t. Broadening outreach to fraternal groups from Midwest;
U. Targeting agricultural meetings;
V. Continuing in-house sales managers' focus on corporate, SMERF markets;
W. Creation of strong presence with tour and travel operators through conference
attendance and ads in targeted T&T publications;
X. Working with SFCVB and "Team Japan" to secure time on San Francisco Bay
A-1
Area "fam" trips for Japanese meeting planners to tour our area;
Y. Enhancing advertising in publications/web programs aimed at meeting planners;
Z. Continuing investment in Travel planner publications and distribution of editorial
to same publications.
2. Generate additional individual room nights-leisure and corporate-by:
a. Contracting for PR/professional ads targeting potential customers as outlined by
research;
b. Continue to place visitor guides in California Welcome Centers throughout the
State to generate drive traffic;
C. Participating in multiple travel writer shows, e.g. Society of American Travel
Writers and National Assn. of Travel Journalists in America;
d. Continuing to generate multiple editorial pieces every month for distribution to
several hundred publications per month;
e. Continuing to respond to all California Travel and Tourism Commission leads for
editorial requests;
f. Hosting annual group travel writer "fam" tour and numerous individual "fam"
tours for writers, editors and photographers;
g. Updating on-line individual reservation service to go directly to properties for
reservations;
h. Creating additional collateral and marketing materials;
i. Continuing ads in travel publications which generate the greatest return, e.g.
Sunset;
j. Continuing to subscribe to multiple travel writer "lead" services and editorial
calendar release programs, responding immediately to leads and calendaring all
scheduled publications for follow-up;
k. Continuing to publish specialty guides/promotional pieces aimed at target market
segments;
1. Continuing to work with SFO, CalTrain, and BART on coordinated marketing of
the area;
M. Continuing operation of Visitor Center Kiosk at Hiller Aviation Museum.
n. Continue Culinary Destination program with San Mateo County Farm Bureau and
San Mateo County Harbor District.
3. Use Film Commission to Enhance Area's Image and to Generate Room Nights by:
a. Continuing monthly "teaser" thumbnail photo emails to location scouts/producers
on various sites in San Mateo County;
b. Continuing immediate responses to California Film Commission leads re: specific
areas sought, finding matches within our County;
C. Continuing to attend several film industry trade shows to give producers an idea
of what we have to offer;
d. Continuing to build photo database for outreach by Film Commission;
e. Proactively contacting key location scouts and producers to offer assistance.
A-2
EXHIBIT B
ASSESSMENT BASIS FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR 2007 YEAR
CATEGORY ZONE A—ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2007 ZONE B—ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2007
Hotel with full service $360 per sleeping room X 65% $360 per sleeping room X 55%
and more than 20 sleeping (no assessment in Half Moon Bay)
rooms
Hotel with limited service $180 per sleeping room X 60% $180 per sleeping room X 40%
and more than 1000 square
feet of meeting space
and more than 20 sleeping
rooms
Hotel with limited service $90 per sleeping room X 60% $90 per sleeping room X 40%
and some meeting space but (no assessment in Half Moon Bay)
less than 1000 square feet
and more than 20 sleeping
rooms
Hotel with standard service $54 per sleeping room X 60% $54 per sleeping room X 40%
and more than 20 sleeping (no assessment in Half Moon Bay)
rooms
Hotel with full service, $54 per sleeping room X 30% $54 per sleeping room X 25%
limited service,or standard (no assessment in Half Moon Bay)
service, and
20 sleeping rooms or less
ZONE A—Includes all cities participating in the District except Half Moon Bay
ZONE B—Includes Half Moon Bay,and most of the unincorporated areas of San Mateo County
Assessment of new hotels opening duringfscal_year:
A new hotel shall be assessed for an amount equal to the ratio of the number of full quarters remaining in the fiscal year multiplied by the full annual
assessment that would have been due. A partial quarter is not counted for the ratio. For example, if a hotel opens in May,there are two full quarters
and 2 months of one partial quarter remaining in the fiscal year. The full annual assessment would be multiplied by 2/4 for that year's assessment for
the new hotel.
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT C
YEAR 2007 DRAFT ASSESSMENTS
Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment
Belmont
Bel Mateo Motel A $ 54.00 23 $ _ 745.20 $ 62.10
Belmont Palms A $ 54.00 14 $ 226.80 $ 18.90
ExtendedStay America A $ 54.00 108 $ 1,749.60 $ 145.80
Hillside Inn A $ 54.00 23 $ 745.20 $ 62.10
Holiday Inn Express&Suites A $ 90.00 82 $ 4,428.00 $ 369.00
Kingsway Motel A $ 54.00 16 $ 259.20 $ 21.60
Motel A $ 54.00 273 $ 8,845.20 $ 737.10
Summerfield Suites A $ 90.00 132 $ 7,128.00 $ 594.00
Room Total 671
Total: $ 24,127.20
Muini ,��
1 i �
Burlame
Bay Landing A $ 54.00 130 $ 4,212.00 $ 351.00
. _ Burlin ame Hotel A $ 54.00 41 $ 1,328.40 $ 110.70
Crowne Plaza SFO A $ 360.00 309 $ 72,306.00 $ 6,025.50
Doubletree Hotel A $ 360.00 388 $ 90,792.00 $ 7,566.00
EmbassySuites A $ 360.00 340 $ 79,560.00 $ 6,630.00
Hampton Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 77 $ 2,494.80 $ 207.90
Hilton Garden Inn A $ 180.00 132 $ 14,256.00 $ 1,188.00
Holiday Inn Express A $ 90.00 144 $ 7,776.00 $ 648.00
H att Re ency SFO A $ 360.00 789 $ 184,626.00 $ 15,385.50
Red Roof Inn A $ 54.00 212 $ 6,868.80 $ 572.40
SFO Marriott A $ 360.00 685 $ 160,290.00 $ 13,357.50
Sheraton Gateway A $ 360.00 404 $ 94,536.00 $ 7,878.00
Va abond Inn A $ 54.00 91 $ 2,948.40 $ 245.70
Room Total3742
Total $ 721,994.40
East Palo Alto
Four Seasons Silicon Valley A I $ 360.00 200 $ 46,800.00 $ 3,900_.00
Room Total 200
Total: $ 46,800.00
1 of 6 10/27/2006
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT C
YEAR 2007 DRAFT ASSESSMENTS
Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment
3 Y3 5X 333 'Rs,
Foster City
Crowne Plaza Mid-Peninsula A $ 360.00 ' 356 $ 83,304.00 $ 6,942.00
Courtyard by Marriott A $ 180.00 147 $ 15,876.00 $ 1,323.00
Room Total 503
-_ - Total: $ 99,180.00
3n 1, ;,?. �, r. .>-
9�N s�,rr� �±'���'+ ..�.,°�' .�: ,�:�
Half Moon Ba
Beach House Hotel B $ 180.00 54 $ 3,888.00 $ 324.00
Best Western Half Moon Bay Lod B $ 180.00 81 $ 5,832.00 $ 486.00
Cameron's Inn B $ 54.00 3 $ - $ --
Holiday Inn Express B $ 54.00 52 $ - $ -
Mill Rose Inn&Garden B $ 54.00 6 $ - $ -
Miramar Lodge&Conf.Center B $ 90.00 40 $ - $
Moon Dream Cottage B $ 54.00 0 $ - $ -
Old Thyme Inn B $ 54.00 7 $ - $ -
Plum Tree Court B $ 54.00 6 $ - $ -
Ramada Limited B $ 54.00 29 $ - $
Ritz Carlton B $ 360.00 261 $ - $
San Benito House B $ 54.00 12 $ - $
The Gilchrest House B $ 54.00 1 $ - $
Zaballa House B $ 54.00 23 $ - $
Room Total 575
Total: $ 9,720.00
Millbrae
n
Best Westem EI Rancho Inn A $ 180.00 306 $ 33,048.00 $ 2,754.00
Clarion Hotel A $ 360.00 250 $ 58,500.00 $ 4,875.00
Comfort Inn SFO A $ 54.00 100 $ 3,240.00 $ 270.00
Millwood Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 34 $ 1,101.60 $ 91.80
Quality Suites Millbrae A $ 90.00 80 $ 4,320.00 $ 360.00
SFO South Travelodge A $ _ 54.00 58 $ 1,879.20 $ 156.60
Westin Hotel A $ 360.00 390 $ 91,260.00 $ 7,605.00
Room Total 1218
Total: $ 193,348.80
2 of 6 10/27/2006
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT C
YEAR 2007 DRAFT ASSESSMENTS
Name of Property Zone 'Category/Assessment #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment
Redwood City
Best Inn A $ 54.00 38 $ 1,231.20 $ 102.60
Best Western Inn A $ 54.00 26 $ 842.40 $ 70.20
Budget Inn A $ 54.00 40 $ 1,296.00 $ 108.00
Capri Motel A $ 54.00 50 $ 1,620.00 $ 135.00
Comfort Inn A $ 54.00 52 $ 1,684.80 $ 140.40
Das Inn A $ 54.00 68 $ 2,203.20 $ 183.60
Deluxe Inn A $ 54.00 27 $ 874.80 $ 72.90
Garden Motel A $ 54.00 17 $ 275.40 $ 22.95
Good Nite Inn _ A $ 54.00 123 $ 3,985.20 $ 332.10
Holida Inn Express A $ 54.00 38 $ 1,231.20 $ 102.60
Holiday Inn Express RWC Central A $ 54.00 61 $ 1,976.40 $ 164.70
Pacific Euro Hotel A $ 54.00 55 $ 1,782.00 $ 148.50
Pacific Inn A $ 54.00 75 $ 2,430.00 $ 202.50
Redwood Motor Court A $ 54.00 12 $ 194.40 $ 16.20
Sequoia Inn A $ 54.00 22 $ 712.80 $ 59.40
Sofitel San Francisco Bay A $ 360.00 419 $ 98,046.00 $ 8,170.50
Towne Place Suites by Marriott A $ 54.00 95 $ 3,078.00 $ 256.50
Room Total 1218
Total: $ 123,463.80
San Bruno
Ba hill Inn A $ 54.00 24 $ _ 777.60 $ 64.80
Budget Motel A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30
Comfort Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30
Courtyard by Marriott A $ 180.00 147 $ 15,876.00 $ 1,323.00
Das Inn A $ 54.00 48 $ 1,555.20 $ 129.60
Gateway Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 31 $ 1,004.40 $ 83.70
Howard Johnson A $ 54.00 49 $ 1,587.60 $ 132.30
Ramada Limited A $ 54.00 61 $ 1,976.40 $ 164.70
Re en Inn A $ 54.00 32 $ 1,036.80 $ 86.40
_ Ritz Inn A_ $ 54.00 23 $ 745.20 $ 62.10
Sta Brid a Suites SFO _ A $ 180.00 95 $ 10,260.00 $ 855.00
Su er 8 A $ 54.00 54 $ 1,749.60 $ 145.80
Room Total 622
Total: $ 38,448.00
3 of 6 10/27/2006
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT C
YEAR 2007 DRAFT ASSESSMENTS
Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment
San Carlos
Americas Best Value Inn A $ 54.00 32 $ 1,036.80 $ 86.40
Country Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 _50 $ 1,620.00 $ 135.00
Das Inn A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30
Fairfield Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 112 $ 3,628.80 $ 302.40
Homestead Studio Suites A $ 90.00 116 $ 6,264.00 $ 522.00
Travel Inn A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30
Room Total 368
Total: $ 14,428.80
"M 0=11ENIMMOM
San Mateo_
_ -Avalon Motel A $ 54.00 48 $ 1,555.20 $ 129.60
Best Western Los Prados Inn A $ 90.00 113 $ 6,102.00 $ 508.50
Coxhead House B&B A $ 54.00 4 $ 64.80 $ 5.40
Firestone Lode A $ 54.00 46 $ 1,490.40 $ 124.20
Hillsdale Inn A $ 54.00 90 $ 2,916.00 $ 243.00
Hilton Garden Inn A $ 180.00 156 $ 16,848.00 $ 1,404.00
Holiday Inn A $ 360.00 110 $ 25,740.00 $ 2,145.00
Homestead Studio Suites A $ 54.00 136 $ 4,406.40 $ 367.20
Howard Johnson A $ 54.00 57 $ 1,846.80 $ 153.90
Quality Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 111 $ 3,596.40 $ 299.70
Residence Inn by Marriott A $ 54.00 160 $ 5,184.00 $ 432.00
San Mateo Marriott A $ 360.00 476 $ 111,384.00 $ 9,282.00
Su er 8 A $ 54.00 53 $ 1,717.20 $ 143.10
Wingate Inn SFO South A $ 54.00 99 $ 3,207.60 $ 267.30
Room Total 1659
Total: $ 186,058.80
I
I
4 of 6 10/27/2006
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT C
YEAR 2007 DRAFT ASSESSMENTS
Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment
South San Francisco
Airport Inn A $ 54.00 34 $ 1,101.60 $ 91.80
Americana Inn Motel A $ 54.00 17 $ 275.40 $ 22.95
Best Western Grosvenor Hotel A $ 360.00 206 $ 48,204.00 $ 4,017.00
Comfort Suites A $ 54.00 166 $ 5,378.40 $ 448.20
Courtyard by Marriott A $ 180.00 197 $ 21,276.00 $ 1,773.00
Das Inn A $ 54.00 25 $ 810.00 $ 67.50
Deluxe Inn A $ 54.00 20 $ 324.00 $ 27.00
Economy Inn A $ 54.00 21 $ 680.40 $ 56.70
Embassy Suites A $ 360.00 312 $ 73,008.00 $ 6,084.00
Four Points by Sheraton Hotel&Su A $ 90.00 100 $ 5,400.00 $ 450.00
Good Nite Inn A $ 180.00 175 $ 20,475.00 $ 1,706.25
Hallmark House Hotel A $ 54.00 13 $ 210.60 $ 17.55
Hampton Inn A $ 54.00 100 $ 3,240.00 $ 270.00
Hilton Garden Inn A $ 180.00 169 $ 18,252.00 $ 1,521.00
Holiday Inn Express Hotel&Suites A $ 54.00 87 $ 2,818.80 $ 234.90
Holiday Inn SFO North A $ 360.00 224 $ 52,416.00 $ 4,368.00
Howard Johnson A $ 54.00 51 $ 1,652.40 $ 137.70
Inn at Oyster Point A $ 90.00 30 $ 1,620.00 $ 135.00
La Quinta Inn A $ 180.00 174 $ 18,792.00 $ 1,566.00
Larkspur Landing A $ 90.00 111 $ 5,994.00 $ 499.50
Motel A $ 54.00 117 $ 3,790.80 $ 315.90
Quality Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 45 $ 1,458.00 $ 121.50
Ramada Limited Suites A $ 54.00 45 $ 1,458.00 $ 121.50
Residence Inn A $ 90.00 152 $ 8,208.00 $ 684.00
Royal Inn A $ 54.00 17 $ 275.40 $ 22.95
Travelodge SFO North(S.Airport) A $ 54.00 199 $ 6,447.60 $ 537.30
Travelers Inn A $ 54.00 20 $ 324.00 $ 27.00
Room Total 2827
Total: $ 303,890.40
5 of 6 10/27/2006
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT C
YEAR 2007 DRAFT ASSESSMENTS
Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment ! #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment
n,
Unincorporated Coun
Atherton Inn A $ 54.00 5 $ 81.00 $ 6.75
Best Western Exec.Suites A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30
Costanoa Resort B $ _ 90.00 172 $ 6,192.00 $ 516.00
Cypress Inn on Miramar Beach B $ 54.00 18 $ 243.00 $ 20.25
Estancia del Mar B $ 54.00 3 $ 40.50 $ 3.38
Farallone Inn B&B B $ 54.00 9 $ 121.50 $ 10.13
Goose&Turrets B&B B $ 54.00 5 $ 67.50 $ 5.63
Harbor House B $ 54.00 6 $ 81.00 $ 6.75
Harbor View Inn B $ 54.00 18 $ 243.00 $ 20.25
Landis Shores Oceanfront Inn B $ 54.00 8 $ 108.00 $ 9.00
Motorville Motel B $ 54.00 30 $ 648.00 $ 54.00
Pacific Victorian B&B B $ 54.00 3 $ 40.50 $ 3.38
Pescadero Creek Inn B $ 54.00 4 $ 54.00 $ 4.50
Pescadero Creekside Barn B $ 54.00 1 $ 13.50 $ 1.13
Pillar Point Inn B $ 54.00 11 $ 148.50 $ 12.38
Princess Port B&B B $ 54.00 4 $ 54.00 $ 4.50
Rose Cottage by the Beach B $ 54.00 1 $ 13.50 $ 1.13
_ Seal Cove Inn B $ 54.00 10 $ 135.00 $ 11.25
Stanford Guest House A $ 54.00 112 $ 3,628.80 $ 302.40
Stillheart B $ 54.00 16 $ 216.00 $ 18.00
The Tower B $ 54.00 1 $ 13.50
Room Total 466
Total: $ 13,082.40-T-
6 of 6 10/27/2006
DRAFT SUMMARY OF AGENCY ASSESSMENTS--YEAR 2007
TOTAL OF AGENCIES Rooms 2007 ASSESSMENT Per Room
Belmont 671 $24,127 $35.96
Burlingame 3,742 $721,994 $192.94
County of San Mateo 466 $13,082 $28.07
East Palo Alto 200 $46,800 $234.00
Foster City 503 $99,180 $197.18
Half Moon Bay 575 $9,720 $16.90
Millbrae 1,218 $193,349 $158.74
Redwood City 1,218 $123,464 $101.37
San Bruno 622 $38,448 $61.81
San Carlos 368 $14,429 $39.21
San Mateo 1,659 $186,059 $112.15
South San Francisco 2,827 $303,890 $107.50
TOTAL 14,069 $1,774,542.60 $126.13
CITY AGENDA 8b
��� °� ITEM# _
6URIJNGAME STAFF REPORT
MTG.
DATE 11/6/2006
�Mtl[p eux[6•
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITT
BY
DATE: October 25, 2005 APPROVE
BY
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY
TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint seven Advisory Board members for the years 2007-2009 for the San Mateo County Tourism BID, two
Advisory Board members for the years 2006-2008, and two Advisory Board members for 2005-2007 terms.
DISCUSSION:
The Advisory Board for the San Mateo County Tourism BID is made up of 24 members, representing various
interests in the hospitality industry in the District — 15 representing owners/managers of hotels or owners of
property occupied by a hotel within the District, and 8 representing companies or businesses that are directly
related to tourism in the County. The fifteen hotel representatives are also allocated among the member cities.
The Board members serve 3-year terms.
The terms of a portion of the board will expire early next year. With the concurrence of the San Mateo County
Convention and Visitors Bureau Board, the San Mateo Hotel Council has submitted a list of nominees for the 3
year term beginning on May 1, 2007.
Term — 2007, 2008, 2009
Len Almalech (Enterprise Rent-a-car)
Ken Landis (Landis Shores, Unincorporated San Mateo County)
Kandace Bender (SFO)
Bill Gillespie (Half Moon Bay Brewing Co., Half Moon Bay)
Tonette Tamayo (Comfort Suites, South San Francisco) (also serving out 2006 term of Richmond
Richardson)
Craig Parker (Sheraton Gateway Burlingame) (also serving out 2006 term of Bruce Carlton)
Mike Cecil (Half Moon Bay Lodge) (also serving out 2006 term of Kurt Picillo)
An additional position is open for this term, and the Board is awaiting the appointment of a general manager for
the San Mateo Marriott to make a recommendation to the Council.
Because of departures and the addition of East Palo Alto, the Board is also nominating the following persons to
the Board:
Mayor and Council
Re: Appointment of Members of Advisory Board for the San Mateo County Tourism Business
Improvement District
October 26, 2006
Page 2
Term— 2005, 2006, 2007
Robert Whitfield (Four Seasons Hotel, East Palo Alto)
Samir Mshasha(Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites, Belmont) taking the place of Sylvia Chu
Term—2006, 2007, 2008
Derek Hudson (Hilton Garden Inn, San Mateo)taking the place of Stephen Algood
Susanne Pandich(Filoli Mansion& Gardens)taking the place of Alan Waufle
Also attached is a list of the incoming officers to the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau for
2007.
Attachment:
San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau Officers, 2007
Distribution
Anne LeClair, SMCCVB
San Mateo County Convention& Visitors Bureau
Executive Committee for 2007
Chair: Tim Lusher, Westin& Clarion Hotels
Chair-Elect: Eric Buitenhuis, Sofitel San Francisco Bay
Vice Chairs:
Kandace Bender, SFO
Rudy Ortiz, Embassy Suites, SSF
David Lewin, Hyatt SFO
Secretary: Ken Landis, Landis Shores
Treasurer: Ken Landis, Landis Shores
Agenda
Item # $�
Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: November 6, 2006
SUBMITTED BY
APPROVED BY
_ flk7
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2006
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL
CODE FOR ISSUING A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND CLARIFICATION
OF PENALTIES FOR WORK DONE WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council begin adoption of the
attached ordinance to amend the Municipal Code for issuing a demotion permit and
clarifying penalties for work done without a building permit, by:
1. Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the attached ordinance.
2.Waiving further reading of the proposed ordinance.
3. Introducing the proposed ordinance.
4. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at
least five days before its proposed adoption.
BACKGROUND: Recently staff has investigated, and issued stop work orders at
a number of small projects where work was commenced without first obtaining a
building permit. These small building projects have consisted of window
replacements, storage racks, owner-built garage conversions, demolished
buildings, and minor plumbing, electrical or mechanical work. Although a project
is small and has a low value of construction, staff can spend many hours
resolving the issues surrounding the stop work order. The current ordinance
allows for doubling fees when a stop work order is issued. Often the fees
assessed do not cover the City's staff costs for achieving code compliance and
are not a sufficient deterrent for preventing non-permitted work.
In addition, the demolition permit is issued separately from the building permit
and the neighborhood effectively experiences two construction projects. The
first project takes place when the buildings are demolished; then the site
remains dormant for weeks or months. The second project begins after the
permit is issued and reconstruction of the site begins. If a demolition permit is
issued before the building permit there is also the potential for a building of
community importance to be removed without proper review.
SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Penalties for Work Done without a Building Permit.doc
DISCUSSION: Staff met with the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the
Planning Commission to develop recommendations for demolition and other work
done without a permit. The options explored included: 1) keep the penalty for work
without a permit at double the permit fee; 2) increase the penalty to five times the
permit fee; 3) increase the penalty to ten times the permit fee; 4) increase the
penalty up to ten times the permit fee but provide some discretion to allow for
adjustment of the penalty depending on the amount of staff time required to resolve
the issues related to the work without permits.
In addition the subcommittee reviewed the policy regarding demolition permits.They
discussed linking the Planning permit process to the demolition permit thereby
reducing the impact of construction on the neighborhood,allowing a thorough review
of buildings of community importance, and safeguarding the health and safety
concerns of the community.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The recommendations from those meetings
were presented to the Planning Commission on October 10, 2006. The Planning
Commission unanimously recommended Option 4 which includes raising the fees for
work without a permit up to ten times the building permit fee and the amendment
requiring demolition permits to be issued simultaneously with the building permit.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
EXHIBITS: Proposed Ordinance
Planning Department Memo date August 25,2006
Annotated changes and additions to the Burlingame Municipal Code,
Chapter 18,
Planning Commission Staff Report,October 10,2006
Planning Commission minutes,October 10,2006
c: City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney, Public Works Director, Asst. Public
Director,City Planner
I
Joe ,Chief uildin� fficial
SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Penalties for Work Done without a Building Pennil.doc
I ORDINANCE NO.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 18.07 TO
SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT, TO
3 CLARIFY CIVIL PENALTIES FOR WORK WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS,
AND TO CLARIFY FEE SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
4
5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS
6 FOLLOWS:
7
8 Section 1 .
9 (a) It is important that buildings in the City not be demolished unless proper safeguards are
10 taken to ensure environmental review is conducted, property values are preserved in the
11 neighborhood, and unlawful construction is prevented. In addition, unlawful construction or
12 demolition adversely affects neighborhoods, endangers public safety, wastes public resources, and
13 imposes an unnecessary burden on the community. Civil penalties should be in place that discourage
14 such practices and compensate the community in case of such violations. This ordinance is intended
15 to address these concerns. This ordinance also clarifies that the fees for construction permits are set
16 by Council action.
17 (b) The City Council hereby finds and declares that this amendment to Chapter 18, Uniform
18 Administrative Code, promotes and implements the original policy of the Chapter and the Code, and
19 does not significantly broaden its scope of application. In addition, this ordinance is intended to and
20 does protect public health and safety.
21
22 Section 2. A new Section 18.07.065 is added to read as follows:
23 18.07.065 Section 303.1 amended — Issuance
24 A fourth paragraph is added to Section 303.1 to read as follows:
25 Demolition permits will only be issued after all approvals required by title 25 of this code and
26 the California Environmental Quality Act are granted for the overall project for which the demolition
27 is intended, and in any event, will only be issued simultaneously with the construction permits for
28 the project.
10/26/2006 1
I Exceptions:
2 a. If a property owner does not intend to construct anything on the property following
3 demolition in the foreseeable future, the property owner shall file a declaration under penalty of
4 perjury to that effect, and the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that
5 the property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped.
6 b. If the city has ordered the demolition of the structure because it is an imminent danger to
7 public health or safety, the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that the
8 property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped even though the
9 property owner has not applied for any construction permits.
10
11 Section 3. Subsection 18.07.080(a) is amended to read as follows:
12 (a) The first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 304.2 is amended to read as follows:
13 The fee for each permit shall be as established by resolution or ordinance adopted by the city council
14 set f6rth in Tables 3-A - , plus any additional fees which may be established or mandated
15 by state or federal law or city ordinance.
16
17 Section 4. Section 18.07.090 is amended to read as follows:
18 18.07.090 Section 304.3 amended—Plan review fees.
19 Section 304.3 is amended by adding a new second and third paragraphs:
20 When the submittal documents require review for compliance with State access regulations, an
21 access plan review fee shall also be paid at the time of submittal. This fee shall be as established by
22 resolution or ordinance adopted by the city council 35 percent of thebuildingpemift fee as showin
23 .
24 When the submittal documents require review for compliance with State energy regulations, an
25 energy plan review shall also be paid at the time of submittal. This fee shall be as established by
26 resolution or ordinance adopted by the city council 25 percent of the building pennit fee as shown in
27 Table No. 3-A.
28
10/26/2006 2
I Section 5. Section 18.07.100 is amended to read as follows:
2 18.07.100 Section 304.5 amended-Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit.
3 (a) The first sentence of Section 304.5.1 is amended to read as follows:
4 304.5.1 Investigation. Whenever construction or work for which a permit is required by this code,
5 or any other code adopted or incorporated by reference as a part of this code, has been commenced
6 without first obtaining a permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued
7 for the work. Demolition of all or any part of a structure without a required permit shall be subject
8 to the investigation and fees imposed by this section.
9 (b) The third sentence of Section 304.5.2 is amended to read as follows:
10 304.5.2 Fee. An investigation fee, in addition, to the permit fee, shall be collected as a civil penalty,
11 whether or not a pennit is then or subsequently issued. The mininrttin investigation fee shall be up to
12 ten times the building permit fee. 'The investigation fee shall be determined by the building official
13 and shall be based on the staff time reasonably required to resolve all of the issues related to the
14 work that has been performed without a permit. No construction permit shall be issued until the
15 investigation fee has been paid in full. equal to the fee set foTth in Tables 3-A -
16 mininittin of$100.00, whichever is greater.
17 Any person assessed such a fee may file an appeal with the city clerk within ten (1 O) days
18 after written notice to such person of the assessment. A hearing upon such appeal shall thereafter be
19 held by the city council; its decisions thereon shall be final.
20 Nothing in this section shall relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements
21 of this code, or with any codes incorporated by reference and made a part of this code in the
22 execution of the work, or from any other fees or penalties prescribed by law.
23
24 Section 6. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
25
26
Mayor
27
28 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
10/26/2006 3
I foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of
2 , 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
U:\FILES\ORDINANC\uac2006.bld.wpd
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10/26/2006 4
CITY o PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO
BURLJNGAME
�s
w►m auuc°'
DATE: August 25, 2006
TO: City Council: Mayor Cathy Baylock
Vice-Mayor Terry Nagel
Russ Cohen
Ann Keighran
Rosalie O'Mahony
FROM: Margaret Monroe, City Planne
RE: Status of Review of Demolition Permit and Associated Fees
We recently had a house demolished on Hillside without a permit. In fact the demolition
occurred the week-end before the design review project was to be heard by the Planning
Commission. Both the City Council and Planning Commissioners expressed concern about the
action and the consequences for the action currently outlined in the city's building code.
For FY 2006-2007 the Chair of the Planning Commission has appointed a number of
subcommittees of the commission to assist staff with completing the FY 2006-07 Work
Program agreed to at the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting held this Spring.
The Permit and Processing Subcommittee, composed of Cers. Cauchi, Deal and Terrones,
seemed to be the appropriate body to review and make recommendations regarding the current
demolition permit policies and associated fees (including penalty fees for undertaking
demolition without a permit).
Planning staff has scheduled a meeting of this subcommittee on September 8,2006,with the
objective of reviewing the current policy regarding demolition permits,fees and penalties and
making a recommendation to the Commission regarding any proposed changes to the
Municipal Code and fee schedule. Joe Cyr,ChiefBuilding Official representing Public Works,
and City Attorney, Larry Anderson, will work with the Subcommittee and City Planner,to
formulate a recommendation.
Adoption of new Municipal Code provisions, and fee schedule will include a public hearing
before the Planning Commission with a recommendation to City Council. Presently staff
anticipates that the Subcommittee will meet twice on this matter and then report out to the
Planning Commission. Planning Commission action will require study and action. Based on
Memorandum: Status of Review of Demolition Permit and Associated Fees
August 25,2006 Page 2
this time table a recommendation regarding demolition permit compliance should come to the
City Council in late October or November,2006.
A second item which has been discussed with staff,is what fees should be charged for'work
done without a permit'. This goes beyond demolition permits, to include any work which
would require a building permit. Staff is proposing that this issue be discussed separately
from demolition permits. The Subcommittee can begin work on the'work without a permit'
fee issue while the Planning Commission is reviewing the demolition permit issue. Taking the
two issues to the Subcommittee at the same time would delay the resolution of both. In
addition the direction followed for demolition permits and appropriate fees,could help frame
the solutions for'building without a permit'enforcement.
Please let me know if you would like to take a different approach to these issues. I can be
reached at(650)558-7255. If I do not hear from you I will proceed with the demolition permit
issue on September 8, and leave the'work without a permit issue'to subsequent action.
cc. Jim Nantell, City Manager
Larry Anderson, City Attorney
George Bagdon,Public Works Director
Joe Cyr, Chief Building Official
UACCmemosTo\2006%imo Status Rev Demo Permit and fee 8.22.06.doc
Draft: Base draft September 15, 2006
From September 8, 2006 Permit Processing Subcommittee Meeting
Annotated Changes and Additions
to the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 18
18.07.065 Section 303.1 amended - Issuance
A fourth paragraph is added to Section 303.1 to read as follows:
Demolition permits will only be issued after all approvals required by title 25 of this code and the
California Environmental Quality Act are granted for the overall project for which the demolition is
intended, and in any event, will only be issued simultaneously with the construction permits for the
project.
Exceptions:
a. If a property owner does not intend to construct anything on the propertyfollowing demolition in
the foreseeable future, the property owner shall file a declaration under penalty of perjury to the
effect, and the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that the property
where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped.
b. If the city has ordered the demolition of the structure because it is an imminent danger to public
health or safety, the building official may issue the demolition permit on condition that the
property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped even though
the property owner has not applied for any construction permits.
Annotation:
The Subcommittee wanted it to be clear for all builders and developers when a
demolition permit will be issued. Demolition performed prior to construction presents
some significant problems to the community. There are two basic sets of customers
during a construction project: 1) the builder and 2) the neighbors who must live with and
during the construction. In the past buildings have been demolished months before plans
were approved and the actual new construction began. Neighbors see this as living
through two construction projects. The site is left vacant and fenced, often resulting in
soil erosion and other neighborhood nuisances. Trash accumulates and the site is
basically ignored until construction begins. Neighbors have been vocal about the visual
condition of the site and express fear for the safety of their children. In addition, allowing
demolition prior to the issuance of building permit could mean that the proposed project
is never constructed. When this happens the City and neighbors are forced to tolerate a
vacant lot until some future project is proposed and built. For these reasons the
Subcommittee thought that it is prudent to require that the demolition permit is issued
simultaneously with the building permit and after all Planning approvals. This will allow
public comment on most projects before a demolition permit is issued.
Section 3. Subsection 18.07.100 is amended to read as follows:
18.07.100 Section 304.5 amended - Investigation Fees. Work without a Permit.
(a) The first sentence of Section 304.5.1 is amended to read as follows:
304.5.1 Investigation. Whenever construction or work for which a permit is required by this code, or any
other code adopted or incorporated by reference as a part of this code, has been commenced without first
obtaining a permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for the work.
Demolition of all or any part of a structure without a required permit shall be subject to the investigation
and fees imposed by this section.
(b) The third sente ee e Section 304.5.2 is amended to read as follows:
304.5.2 Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected as a civil penalty,
whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The minimum investigation fee shall be up to
ten times the building permit fee. The investigation fee shall be determined by the building official and
shall be based on the staff time reasonably required to resolve all of the issues related to the work that
has been performed without a permit. No construction permit shall be issued until the investigation fee
has been paid in full. e"al to the fee set f Ah in Tables 3 n *t,,.atigt, 3 ufflinifi�wfne f e 1 nn nn
whiehever-is greater-.
Any person assessed such fee may file an appeal with the city clerk within ten(10) days after
written notice to such person of the assessment. A hearing upon such appeal shall thereafter be held by
the city council; its decisions thereon shall be final.
Nothing in this section shall relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements of
this code, or with any codes incorporated by reference and made a part of this code in the execution of
the work, or from any other fees or penalties prescribed by law.
Annotation:
The Subcommittee was presented with a number of options for assessing fees for work
performed without a permit. The current penalty for work without a permit is a flat fee
equal to the cost of the building permit fee. For most violations this fee does not begin to
cover the costs of City staff time to investigate and resolve the issues surrounding work
done without a permit. The Subcommittee recognized that there needs to be a correlation
between the fees charged and the administrative costs to the City. This amendment to the
Ordinance also gives the Building Official some discretion in adjusting the fees to match
the staff time required to gain compliance with City requirements. This section will also
clarify the requirements that demolition without a permit will follow the same procedures
and carry the same penalties as any other work performed without a building permit.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
City of Burlingame item#
Action on Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Code:Requirements Action Calendar
for Issuing a Demolition Permit and Clam Penalties
for Work Done without a Construction Permit
Meeting Date: 10.10.06
Planning Commission Action:
Commissioners should review the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code to address demolition
permits and penalties for doing construction work without a permit, including demolition and other
work which would normally require a building permit. The reasons for the Commission's action
should be clearly stated for the record. Action in the case of Municipal Code changes is a
recommendation to City Council.
This item was noticed as required by law in the San Mateo Times on Saturday, September 30, 2006.
CEQA Compliance:
CEQA Code Section 15308 Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment,
Class 8: consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to
assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the
regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and
relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption.
General Plan Compliance:
The General Plan is implemented by the zoning code and the building and fire codes. Because the
California Building Code and California Fire Codes are based on protection of life and public safety,
they are determined to be consistent with the city's development policy and therefore the city's General
Plan. These code amendments clarify the intended protection of life and the public's safety in the City
of Burlingame.
History:
A demolition permit is a permit which a contractor applies for and is issued by the City before
removing any portion or all of an existing structure. To protect the safety of the community and
environment,there are a number of clearances which must be obtained before the city will issue a
demolition permit. These include a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board, approval of
a demolition materials recycling plan,termination of utilities, erosion control plan, and approval of
proposed demolition by the Building Department. Under the present Municipal Code provisions the
City's penalty for demolishing without a demolition permit is twice the value of the building
demolition permit. For a single family house the demolition permit runs about $200.00. There are
also separate penalties for failing to have an air quality permit and a completed construction and
demolition recycling plan. The monetary penalties for the air quality permit and recycling permit are
substantially more than the current penalty for the City's demolition permit(two times the permit fee).
Recently a single family house was demolished without applying for and receiving a demolition
permit. The code enforcement activity which followed underscored two things. First, the penalty for
failing to get the demolition permit from the building department was more of an aggravation than a
deterrent to the contractor. Second, the$300 penalty did not begin to cover the cost of the City staff
Action on Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Code. Requirements for Issuing a Demolition Permit and
Clarify Penalties for Work Done without a Construction Permit October 10,2006
time involved in investigating and obtaining correction of the violation. Moreover, in this case the
contractor had obtained permits or partial permits which would reduce the penalties from other
agencies whose penalty fees were high enough to be "real". Another indication that the City's fees
were too low.
With this experience in mind and with the encouragement of the City Council, a Subcommittee of the
Planning Commission met with the Chief Building Official, City Planner and City Attorney, to
discuss how Burlingame might better express the City's policy regarding demolition without a permit
and develop meaningful, realistic Burlingame fees for those who do work not only without a
demolition permit, but also without a building permit.
The policy which is recommended ties the Planning permit process to the demolition permit and
Building permit process in a continuum. It also centers on the community concern that the impact of
construction should be kept to the shortest time frame, and thus have the least possible impact on the
neighbors. Several key community concerns were identified:
■ Separation between demolition and construction results in the neighbors' experiencing the
impacts of two construction projects resulting in only one developed site.
■ Structures which may be important to the Community's culture and history may be removed
without proper community review.
■ Public health issues can be created such as air pollution e.g. asbestos removal and dust;
public utility impacts e.g. erosion impacting storm drain capacity causing flooding and
damage to street surfaces; noise; and traffic.
■ Vacant sites which sit after demolition while plans are processed through Planning and
Building review are rarely maintained and often become a neighborhood nuisance and public
safety issue; and can sit for years without attention if the resulting project is not approved or
the financing is no longer available.
The Subcommittee also felt that the City's General Fund should not subsidize developers who do
work without a permit. City fees and fines should be based on reimbursing the City for the cost of
doing the enforcement. However, the Subcommittee did not feel that arbitrary penalties such as
prohibition from building on the site for a given period or a flat fee based on a percentage of the value
of the construction were appropriate at this time. Many of the miscreants in the case of demolition
without a permit are homeowners with small projects who anticipate work on their houses without
realizing that they need a demolition permit. The fairer approach appeared to be one that included
flexibility based on the scale of the error and the willingness of the homeowner or contractor to take
corrective action. Based on this,the suggestion was that the fee be based on a maximum amount to be
drawn down by the cost (number of hours) of the staff time to obtain correction. There is a real
difference between the homeowner who comes in immediately upon being ordered to stop work,
submits plans and pulls a building permit and the developer who the City ends up having to take to
court in order to get compliance.
2
Action on Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Code. Requirements for Issuing a Demolition Permit and
Clarify Penalties for Work Done without a Construction Permit October 10,2006
Summary of Proposed Municipal Code Amendments:
CS 18.07.065: Demolition permits will only be issued after CEQA review, Planning approvals
are complete and a Building permit has been issued.
CS 18.07.100 (a) Demolition without a permit shall be subject to an investigation fee which will
be paid by the property owner.
CS 18.07.100 (b) The fee for demolition without a permit and for work without a building permit
shall be up to ten(10)times the value of the building (or demolition) permit.
The fee paid shall be based on the actual staff time reasonably required to
resolve all of the issues related to the work done without a permit.
It is important to note that these code sections amend the Uniform Building Administrative Code
which was adopted by the City a number of years ago. In the Administrative Code it states that a
building permit will not be issued until all of the investigation fees have been paid. So there is a
guarantee that the fees accrued by staff to enforce work done without a permit will be paid, if not
voluntarily so that the project can go forward, then by an order from the court.
Attachments:
Annotated Changes and Additions to the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 18
Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 18.07 to Specify Requirements for Issuance
of a Demolition Permit and to Clarify Civil Penalties for Work without Construction Permits.
Public Notice, San Mateo Times, Published Saturday, September 30, 2006.
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10,2006
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions.The motion
passed on a 6-0-1(C.Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised.This item concluded at 8:30 p.m.
--1
7. AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUING A DEMOLITION
- PERMIT AND TO CLARIFY PENALTIES FOR WORK DONE WITHOUT A CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT(PUBLISHED IN SAN MATEO TIMES)PROJECT PLANNER:MARGARET MONROE
Reference staff report October 11,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe and CBO Cyr presented the staff
report noting that this amendment was not to the zoning code but the process proposed would tie the
implementation of the CEQA review,zoning/design review and the building permit together and hold
demolition permits until all these approvals had been completed. Second the ordinance addresses the issue
of penalties for doing work without a permit setting a ten times fee limit based on the hours of staff time
used to attain compliance with the code. CP noted that he Commission had reviewed the Subcommittee's
suggestions for this ordinance at the September 25,2006,meeting,so it is being brought forward for public
hearing and action this evening.
Commissioner's comment: Chair Brownrigg thanked the Subcommittee of Cers. Cauchi, Deal and
Terrones,for their quick action on this recommendation;commissioner asked how this would affect fast
tracking major projects;CBO noted that this proposal is consistent with the current industry standards for
review of large projects,if there is something unusual about a given project it would be considered at that
time;clarified that a demolition permit is a type of building permit. CP noted that current provisions of the
Building Code require all penalties be paid before a Building Permit can be issued
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing
was closed.
C.Deal moved that the Planning Commission recommend the proposed ordinance changes to the City
Council for action.The motion was seconded by C.Terrones.
Comment on the motion: CA noted two technical changes that should be made before the ordinance would
go forward to the City Council.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the proposed ordinance changes
addressing demolition permits and civil penalties for work without a permit to the City Council for approval.
The motion passed on a 6-0-1(C.Osterling absent). . This item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 1557 DRAKE AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,FRONT AND SIDE
SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW,TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG
ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;JAY AND JANET GARCIA,PROPERTY OWNERS)
(48 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if the decision for designating the
front yard,rear yard and side yards was made by staff and if it was open to change by the Commission. Staff
10
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
BURLINGAME
ITEM # 9a
;w6iz DATE 11/6/06
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suBAATTED �L
BY
DATE: October 31, 2006
APPROVED . r
FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY 'J'ti� ,
SUBJECT: USE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
FOR WASHINGTON PARK BALLFIELD
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the use of Capital
Improvement Project funds previously allocated for a synthetic grass Burlingame High School
Back Field for improvements to Washington Park Ball Field.
BACKGROUND:
Per direction from the City Council at its October 16ffi meeting, staff is requesting approval to use
up to $25,000 for improvements to Washington Park's main baseball field. The funds were part
of an allocation in the 2005-06 budget as the City's contribution to the synthetic grass field at
Burlingame High School. However, this contribution is not anticipated to be necessary, as the
San Mateo Union High School District is applying to the State for arsenic abatement funds.
Improvements to the field at this time would include hiring a contractor to replace the existing
infield grass and dirt and making improvements to the irrigation and drainage systems.
BUDGET IMPACT:
If the District receives assistance from the State for arsenic abatement, the funds allocated by the
City to support the High School's project will not be needed. If the State does not assist the
funding of the back field and the City still desires to contribute to the installation of a synthetic
grass field, funds could be allocated in the 2007-08 CIP budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
CITY STAFF REPORT
BURL.INGAME AGENDA
ITEM# 9b
`�o q MTG.
DATE 11/6/06
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: October 30,2006
APPROVED
FROM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk By
650-558-7203
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Cancel the Regular Council Meeting scheduled for December 18, 2006
RECOMMENDATION: To cancel the regularly scheduled meeting of December 18, 2006, due to lack of
Council business.
EXHIBITS: None
Agenda
Item # 9c
Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: Ne b 6 2006
,a
SUBMITTED BY
APPROVED BY
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2006
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH SAN MATEO
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SMCTA) TO REPLACE
AND UPGRADE BURLINGAME WATER MAIN AS PART OF U.S. 101
AUXILIARY LANE PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached
agreement with SMCTA for replacing and upgrading the Burlingame water main as
part of U.S. 101 Auxiliary Lane Project.
BACKGROUND: SMCTA and Caltrans are in the process of advertising the U.S.
101 Auxiliary Lane Project for construction. The City has an existing 6 inch water
main on Airport Boulevard and Coyote Point Drive which is in conflict with the project
construction and will be relocated by Caltrans.
DISCUSSION: The City's capital improvement master plan identifies the 6 inch line
to be upgraded to a 12 inch to better serve the Bayfront area. SMCTA has agreed to
upgrade the line in accordance with City standards. SMCTA will be responsible for
the replacement cost and the City will be responsible for the upgrade cost. The total
estimated cost of the 12 inch line is $470,000 of which Burlingame's share is
$146,000.
The project construction is anticipated to begin in Summer 2007 and will take
approximately two years to be completed.
BUDGET IMPACT: Sufficient funds are budgeted in the Water System Capital
Improvements budget for this project.
EXHIBITS: Resolutions, Agreement, Cost Estimate, Water Main Relocation Plan
ASyedrt za
Assista Director of Public Works
c: City Clerk, SMCTA, City Attorney
S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\SMCTA Water Main Upgrade US 101 Auxiliary Lane Project.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING UTILITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority will begin work on the
Auxiliary Lane Project on U.S. 101 in the near future in cooperation with the California
Department of Transportation(Caltrans); and
WHEREAS, as part of the auxiliary lane work, the City's potable water lines will be
relocated and this presents an opportunity to upgrade the lines at a reasonable cost; and
WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority is willing to incorporate
the upgrade into the project at a reasonable cos; and
WHEREAS, the City will issue an encroachment permit to the contractor to construct
and connect the water lines, and that permit will include indemnity provisions for that aspect of
the construction,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Agreement between the
City of Burlingame and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority as contained in Exhibit
A hereto.
2. The Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Manager.
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: COUNCIL,MEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Page 1 of 2
UTILITY AGREEMENT
Caltrans File Identification: EA 264201, District 04, San Mateo County, Route 101, KP 21.7/28.5
DATE: Sept. 1, 2006
SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, acting by and through the California Department
of Transportation, hereinafter called "AUTHORITY," proposes to construct auxiliary lanes, ramp improvements and
bridge reconstructions on State Route 101 from 3rd Avenue in San Mateo to Millbrae Avenue in Millbrae, County of
San Mateo.
CITY OF BURLINGAME, hereinafter called "OWNER," owns and maintains water facilities within the limits of
AUTHORITY's project, which requires clearance to accommodate AUTHORITY's project.
It is hereby mutually agreed that:
I. WORK TO BE DONE:
In accordance with the project plans,PROJECT will relocate OWNER'S water main at the 101 /Peninsula
Avenue Interchange. At the request of the OWNER, PROJECT will upgrade the water main from 150 mm(6")
to 3 05m(12"). All work shall be performed substantially in accordance with PROJECT'S Utility Plans, a
copy of which are on file in the District office of the California Department of Transportation at 111 Grand
Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612-3771. Deviations from the PROJECT'S Plans described above initiated by
either the STATE or the OWNER, shall be agreed upon by both parties.
II. LIABILITY FOR WORK
The cost of relocation of OWNER'S in kind utility facilities shall be 100 percent AUTHORITY and the cost to
upgrade the facilities as described in Section I above shall be 100 percent OWNER
Total Estimated Cost $470,000.00
AUTHORITY liability $ 324,000.00
OWNER liability $ 146,000.00
III. PAYMENT FOR WORK
The OWNER shall pay its share of the actual cost of the herein described work within 90 days after receipt of
AUTHORITY'S itemized bill, compiled on the basis of the actual cost and expense incurred.
UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.) Page 2 of 2
THE ESTIMATED COST TO OWNER FOR ITS SHARE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED WORK IS $ 146,000.00
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above parties have executed this Agreement the day and year above written.
SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORITY (AUTHORITY) (OWNER)
By: By:
SMCTA Date Name/Title Date
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED:
By:
SMCTA Date
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
CITY OF BURLINGAME WATERLINE RELOCATION
RTE 101 AUXILIARY LANES PROJECT 31-Aug-06
EA 264201
04-SM-101-21.7/28.5
ROUTE 101 AUXILLIARY LANES PROJECT
IN SAN MATEO COUNTY IN SAN MATEO, BURLINGAME AND MILLBRAE
ON ROUTE 101 FROM 3rd ROAD OVERCROSSING IN SAN MATEO
TO MILLBRAE AVENUE OVERCROSSING IN MILLBRAE
WATER LINE ESTIMATE(INTERIM)
ITEM ITEM CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION S-F UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 641151A 150 mm PVC WATER PIPE M 310 $108.00 $33,480
2 641153A 150 mm PVC WATER PIPE IN 305 mm STEEL CASING M 220 $450.00 $99,000
Mobilization(10%) $14,720
Subtotal $147,200
Contingency(10%) $14,720
TOTAL $161,920
WATER LINE ESTIMATE(FINAL USING 305 mm PIPE)
ITEM ITEM CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION S-F UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 641152A 305 mm PVC WATER PIPE M 300 $135.00 $40,500
2 641154A 305 mm PVC WATER PIPE IN 610 mm STEEL CASING M 220 $600.00 $132,000
3 641155A JACKED 610 mm STEEL PIPE WITH 305 mm PVC WATER PIPE M 58 $1,350.00 $78,300
Mobilization(10%) $27,867
Subtotal $278,667
Contingency(10%) $27,867
TOTAL $306,533
WATER LINE ESTIMATE(FINAL USING 150 mm PIPE)
ITEM ITEM CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION S-F UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 641152A 150 mm PVC WATER PIPE M 300 $108.00 $32,400
2 641154A 150 mm PVC WATER PIPE IN 305 mm STEEL CASING M 220 $450.00 $99,000
3 641155A JACKED 305 mm STEEL PIPE WITH 150 mm PVC WATER PIPE M 0 $1,000.00 $0
Mobilization(10%) $14,600
Subtotal $146,000
Contingency(10%) $14,600
TOTAL $160,600
COST DIFFERENTIAL 145,933
ENG_EST_08-31-06(WATERLINE).xls Page 1 of 1 9/6/2006
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
CITY OF BURLINGAME WATERLINE RELOCATION
RTE 101 AUXILIARY LANES PROJECT 31-Aug-06
EA 264201
04-SM-101-21.7/28.5
ROUTE 101 AUXILLIARY LANES PROJECT
IN SAN MATEO COUNTY IN SAN MATEO, BURLINGAME AND MILLBRAE
ON ROUTE 101 FROM 3rd ROAD OVERCROSSING IN SAN MATEO
TO MILLBRAE AVENUE OVERCROSSING IN MILLBRAE
WATER LINE ESTIMATE(INTERIM)
ITEM ITEM CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION S-F UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 641151A 150 mm PVC WATER PIPE M 310 $108.00 $33,480
2 641153A 150 mm PVC WATER PIPE IN 305 mm STEEL CASING M 220 $450.00 $99,000
Mobilization(10%) $14,720
Subtotal $147,200
Contingency(10%) $14,720
TOTAL $161,920
WATER LINE ESTIMATE(FINAL USING 305 mm PIPE)
ITEM ITEM CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION S-F UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 641152A 305 mm PVC WATER PIPE M 300 $135.00 $40,500
2 641154A 305 mm PVC WATER PIPE IN 610 mm STEEL CASING M 220 $600.00 $132,000
3 641155A JACKED 610 mm STEEL PIPE WITH 305 mm PVC WATER PIPE M 58 $1,350.00 $78,300
Mobilization(10%) $27,867
Subtotal $278,667
Contingency(10%) $27,867
TOTAL $306,533
WATER LINE ESTIMATE(FINAL USING 150 mm PIPE)
ITEM ITEM CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION S-F UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 641152A 150 mm PVC WATER PIPE M 300 $108.00 $32,400
2 641154A 150 mm PVC WATER PIPE IN 305 mm STEEL CASING M 220 $450.00 $99,000
3 641155A JACKED 305 mm STEEL PIPE WITH 150 mm PVC WATER PIPE M 0 $1,000.00 $0
Mobilization(10%) $14,600
Subtotal $146,000
Contingency(10%) $14,600
TOTAL $160,600
COST DIFFERENTIAL $145,933
ENG_EST_08-31-06(WATERLINE).xls Page 1 of 1 9/6/2006
NOTES: 01sT couxn eouTE
1.THIS PLAN ACCURATE FOR UTILITY WORK ONLY. xl LOLCTEx ros 4 o L
TOTAL Wi0JE0T N0. SNFETS
04 SM 101 21.7/28.5 405 1161
2.FOR GENERAL NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS,SEE SHEET U-1.
•,j 1. � m{yyzJ 10/01/05
P EA510N CI_ (p
+57.76±m"APR-L" 8-21-06 38467 11
305 mm PVC \ 10.84± LT= PLANS APP80YAL OAT'
03/31/07
LENGTH- 57-:53 \ W2 LOL 0+00 SAN MATEO COUNTY ' r.
1-305 mm TEE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ?c",
CONNECT TO EXISTING 1250 SAN CARLOS AVE, 3rd FLOO
'`. SAN CARLOS CALIFORNIA 94070
RAJAPPAN&MEYER
V "APR-L" 1.86+56.528 5.347 Lt CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
CONNECT TO PROPOSED 305 mm WATER 1038 LEIGH AVENUE, SUITE 100
1-305 mm TEE SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95126
305 and PVC .+..�..
ENGT
+65.23$ PL 2. \
18.74+ m LT-
N - 60° BEND �. "APR-L" 187+00.259 4.985 Lt
9--BEND
s z
,`. 'OG
ABANDONED 150 mm PVC C
Wo 305 IT. PVC '. , FOM INTERIM STAGE
%z
c LENGTH = 81.95 -
x Temp WATER LINE 1.524
150 mm CLDIP
ABANDONED 150 mm PVC - 305 mm PVC
--IN 305 w STEEL CASING y. LENGTH 78.15
FROM INTERIM STAGE �. TYPICAL SECTION
a
9 r NO SCALE
+54.36±- "PL-2"
�.
8.26± m:tT= 1^
'- 15° SEND.
o a \
a 9
A � 'APR L' 187+77.482 5.540 Lt
w10 BEND
..P305 VC m011 )11PEm• °
IN 610 mmi("�'f�') o
STEEL CASINO - c 305 mm PVC
z _LENQ7H ¢04311 1, m, LENGTH 79.10
"US101" 187+34.3$,. ,Q IS ABANDON 150 mm (6") Cl
a .26 Q7-moi m Q
o -45 BEND ,-ABA DONEb'450 mm PVC
n. FRO ,INTERIM STAGE "01' 7+29.360 0.500 Rt
-US101 187+35 96
N 28.78 Rt m \
60 BEN
45° BEND I I 1\1 Q� 111 - -- 1mr PVC. f.FROM INTTERIM STAGE O Exist 6" PVC
z
s 305 mm PVC
„ 'L NGTH = 49.58
o "U5101" 187+35 �16EUGTH= 117.CO
30.61 Rt 1 "PL-2" 187+33,. - /��
CONNECT TO 1 I 11 2.52 Lt
T—f. Ola 8+47.178'0.517 Rt
C1t -- --- --
(6 d50 mm1 1 /90°
ff,
w COYOTE POINL Dr
\•`t ABANDON 150 mm (6") Cl
N
� a
WATER LINE UTILITY 60
SCALE 1:500 „o
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN U-25
rON EIS III MILLS WIGIETERS aL o r0 4o Eo .0 , _ CU 04245 EA 264201
SCALE IS IN MILLIMETERS 11 4lMta.ms—
NOTES: DIET EdMTY MITE TOTAL PROJECT N0, SNEETS
1.THIS PLAN ACCURATE FOR UTILITY WORK ONLY.
04 SM 101 21.7/28.5 405 1161
2.FOR GENERAL NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS,SEE SHEET U
10/01/05 '
able NCoFEsslax cInAC L ExcncEx i �°�It ;,,
`,+57.76* "APR-L" 8-21-06 67
1 i
i
.305 mm PYG' \', 10.84± m LT- PLANE APPROVAL DATE
L NC I' lam'07/71/o7`t,l!
H -51 5 \�. W2 LOL Ot00 SAN MATEO COUNTY \\
x ` \ 1405 nn1l TEE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY /�gLV•11'"
CONNECT TO EXISTING 1250 SAN CARLOS AVE, 3rd FLOOR"
SAN CARLOS CALIFORNIA 94070
�1
"APR-L"'186+56.528 5.347 Lt CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
'A CONNECT TO PROPOSED 305 mm WATER 1038 LEIGH AVENUE, SUITE 100
TEE
'm m SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95126
\, \ \ j 05 Im PVC ..+.+.+"ae•�wme..�..
t 441.
'1
65.23t 4L-2 \`
'1,743 m LT
x e: 60° BEND "9APRCL�187+00.259 4.985 Lt
wN o
a+ r BOG
' t " ' �1 _- �� ANDONE0 750 mm PVC
�m m
.- WEw PYC' •11 -"F OM INTERIM STAGE ,h' ) .i
LENGTH
Twp WATER LINE 1.524
w I i 150 mm CLDIP
uc .._........ .. \, v\ 30S mm PVC ,`�Iv.....
ANDD %50 PV Z -o` 'LENGTH 78.15
%IN M I T T c cA TYPICAL SECTION
1 I" FROM INTQR�IN STAGE i
+54.362 "PL-2"
8.26± m LT
N15° BEND.
i-' V• _ ` ARR L`,187+77.482 5.540 Lt ,pr
PVC PIPE
1N 610 305 mm PVC
STEEL CASINO 'I
_LENGTH,Tw_.¢0 3T I LENGTH-
ABANDON 150 mm (6") CI
'U51O1 18+34,.31{ !� r ,< / ,�
26.0.2-RtJ - m
�- 46°48END �; r i A..I: ._�rd, ,/ 'N
z I , ) !I ----� Il�AN00NEb q 50 mD PVC
yy'yN% ! :..FROM INTERIM$TAGE "O1" 7+29.360 0.500 Rt
H 'U�1 b1 18T+'� 96 brl '� ti',i' I�� i' ! •m . 0 B N❑
�g�7g r � 55 E
• < 2§!„Z,QRtl ,I �, it r 2 ! .. 305mm PVC :. /.CONNEC IO Exlst 6' PVC
45 BEND j: ..I R ' 306. pyt j Fii220M'1NYERIN STAGE
! 1LENGTH 49 58„
LLo 'US101' 187+75 96 1 ! 1 �! - I " .._/.Lam+'
30.61 Rt I i L i -"RL 2 187lj$ '— -
CONNECT't0 r i /'' I 12.52-Lt .: Otoi,+8.847 178"•'0:511
Ext + 1'50 mm;'!� �) `,
i
ABANDON 150 mm (6 ) Cl-�.,..:�,,. ,::`..� a ::•', � „..._. ... ....\
z ` a
o . .
+
:
i
,
WATER LINE UTILITY fo
<I SCALE 1:500
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN U-25 j
FR E
ORE D PLANS ORIGINAL 0 EO 4O 60 80
SCALE�5 IN NI LLIIETERS CU 04245 EA 264201
Agenda
Item # 9d
Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: November 6, 2006
411 111 . . , RAIIA�_ Item _J, )N�
SUBMITTED BY
APPROVED BY ' v
TO : HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE : OCTOBER 30, 2006
FROM : PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
VERTRANS ELEVATOR COMPANY FOR THE CITY HALL
ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT.
RECOMMENDATION : It is recommended that Council approve the attached
resolution awarding a contract to Vertrans Elevator Company for the City Hall
elevator replacement project in the amount of $ 103 , 000.
BACKGROUND: The elevator located in City Hall has reached the end of its useful
life and needs to be replaced . This elevator is 38 years old and was installed when
City Hall was originally constructed . Many replacement parts are no longer available.
DISCUSSION : The project was advertised on September 12, 2006 , and bids were
opened on October 5 , 2006 . A total of two bids were received ranging from
$ 103 , 000 . 00 to $ 107 ,495. 00 . Vertrans Elevator Company is the lowest responsive
bidder with a bid of $ 103,000 which is lower than the engineer's estimate of
$ 125 , 000 . Staff has checked references for Vertrans Elevator Company and
believes that they are qualified for performing work of this size and nature.
Construction is estimated to begin in February and last 6 to 8 weeks. Arrangements
are currently being made to accommodate deliveries and accessibility for the
disabled during this time.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Construction contract $ 103 , 000
Construction management 151000
Staff administration and oversight 5 ,000
Contingency ( 10%) 10 ,300
Total $1339300
Funds are available in the 2006/2007 Capital Facilities Rehabilitation Fund .
SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\city hall elevator.doc
EXHIBITS:Resolution
/4/1"14—
Philip Mona an P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
c: City Clerk,City Attorney, Vertrans Elevator Company
S:VA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\city hall elevator.doc
RESOLUTION NO. -
AWARDING CONTRACT TO VERTRANS ELEVATOR COMPANY FOR THE CITY HALL
ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for proposals for the - CITY
PROJECT - CONTRACT FOR THE CITY HALL ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT
WHEREAS, on OCTOBER 5, 2006, all proposals were received and opened before the City
Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, VERTRANS ELEVATOR COMPANY , submitted the lowest responsible bid
for the job in the amount of $103,000.
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 VERTRANS ELEVATOR COMPANY, for
said project in the amount of$103,000, and the same hereby is accepted; 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
S:\A Public Works Directory\Author,By Name\Peggy Adam Letters\ResolumAwardl.awd.wpd
Agenda
Item # 9e
Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: November 6 2006
SUBMITTED BY
APPROVED BY /Y
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2006
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: PROGRESS UPDATE ON THE MILLS CANYON SLIDE REPAIRS
PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 81720
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Public Contract Code 22035, Council awarded an
emergency construction contract to Hillside Drilling Company, Inc., for performing
repairs to the Mills Canyon mudslide at its meeting on September 5, 2006. This is a
progress update report provided in accordance with the requirements of Pubic
Contract Code 22035.
PROGRESS UPDATE:
The following progress has been made on the project:
■ Hillside Drilling Co., City contractor, completed construction of the retaining
wall.
■ Remaining work to be initiated week of October 23 includes: construction of
an improved drainage system on the hillside above retaining wall, planting,
seeding, and repair of private property landscaping.
Doug B
Senior Engineer
C: City Clerk, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, Hillside Drilling Company, Inc.,
A&G Services
SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\81720\StaffReportProgress Update102306.doc
SAN MATEO COUNTY
SUB-REGIONAL RHNA PROCESS
Organization
At the September meeting the following organizational structure was established.
1- RHNA Technical Advisory Committee - 21 Members - One member from each
city and the County. Composed of senior staff technical experts in the field of
housing and land use. Flexibility will be provided to use different technical
experts as a function of the subject being discussed. However, it is important that
there be good communications between the different representatives such that
issues do not need to be repeated or there are no conflicting positions from the
representatives. Primary role is technical development of the issues and solutions.
2- Cily Managers Association -Monthly reports will be provided to the City
Managers Association through the City Managers Association. This will allow
ongoing input by the City Managers in the process. The final product will be
presented to the City Mangers for approval. Primary role of top management is
practical assessment of the issues and solutions.
3- RHNA Policy Advisory Committee -21 Members - One member from each city
and the County. Composed of elected officials. It was suggested that the C/CAG
Board be used. However, some indicated an interest in appointing a different
representative. It appears that both requests can be met. Those want to use their
current C/CAG representative can and those that want to appoint a different
representative can also do so. Primary role is to review the RHNA TAC
recommendations and provide initial policy input to the process.
4- City Councils/Board of Supervisors - Primary role is the final review and
approval prior to submitting to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
5- Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG) - Final Approval of housing
shares.
Next Steps
1- Cities and County make appointments to the RHNA TAC and PAC by 10/27/06.
Contact Nancy Blair at 650 599-1406 or Richard Napier at 650 599-1420. A
written assignment of the representative would also be helpful.
2- Hold initial TAC meeting by 11/10/06. Subjects will be 1- Initial definition of the
RHNA Process and 2-Define the multiple planning levels for housing to request
from the cities and the County.
10/20/06
BURL i NO
Board of Trustees Minutes
September 26,2006
L Call to Order
President Toft called the meeting to order at 5:30pm.
II. Roll Call
Trustees Present: Nancy Brock, Deborah Griffith, Pat Toft
Trustee Absent: Bruce Carlton,Katie McCormack
Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian
Sidney Poland, Recorder
III. Warrants and Special Funds
The Trustees unanimously approved the Warrants. M/S/C
(Griffith/Toft)
IV. Minutes
The Trustees approved as written the minutes of the August 26,
2006 meeting. M/S/C(Griffith/Toft)
V. Correspondence and Attachments
Summer Reading Program-Sue Reiterman, Children's Librarian,
sent a letter of congratulations,along with a list of those students
who completed the program,to the principals of participating
schools. Participation of students from Washington School increased
157%over last year.
VI. From the Floor-No one from the public attended the meeting.
VII. Reports
A. City Librarian's Report-Highlights of.Report
1. Launch of New City Website-Library staff members
have been actively working on the Library's portion of the new City
Website and will have it ready for the Citizens' Group review
beginning on September 25th. The site address for the Library will
remain the same:www.burlingaxne.org/library.
2. Fall Children's Programs Underway-The Children's
Department has increased its programming to 7 story hours per
week. Story times will continue to be held at both Easton and the
Main Library and are funded by the Library Foundation.
48o Primrose Road•Burlingame•California 94010-4083
Phone(650)558-7474-Fax(65o)342-6295•www.bu4ingame.org/library
3. Interlibrary Loan and Direct Loan Statistics - In
regard to an inquiry by our City Librarian pertaining to statistical
counting procedures, we will now be able to count renewals the same
as check outs. This is an important decision in the Library's favor as
dt increases the circulation statistics by 30%.
4. Library Annual Report - This report is a yearly
requirement of the State of-Califomia and consists of compiling
specific Library statistics in accordance withcriteria determined by
the State.
5. Burlingame Library Building Anniversary - The year
2007 marks the 10th anniversary of the Library's occupation of the
"new building". The Trustees may wish to consider ways to tie in the
Library's celebration with the City Centennial Year.of 2007-2008.
B. Foundation Report
1. Fall Book Sale - Dates for the book sale are October 6th
through October 8th. Jim Cannon is Chairman of the event.
2. Foundation Website - The website address is www.
burlingamelibraryfoundation.org/library and is up and running. The
website is presently a "work in progress". Each board member will
soon receive his/her individual user name and login password for
access to restricted (board only) areas of the site.
C. Centennial Report - At the last meeting, a final list of events
was given to committee chairs. Friday October 13th, committee
members will meet with architects to discuss the possibility of a
permanent monument in recognition of Burlingame's 100 years.
VIII. New Business
A. Change of November Meeting Date- The Trustees
unanimously passed the motion to change the November meeting
date from November 21, 2006 to November 28, 2006.,M/S/C
(Griffith/Toft)
B. Cancellation of December Board Meeting - The Trustees
unanimously passed the motion to cancel the December Board.
meeting due to lack of official business. M/S/C (Toft/Griffith)
C. Library Holidays 2007-2008 - The Trustees unanimously
passed the motion to approve the Library Holidays for the year
r 2007-2008. M/S/C (Griffith/Toft) -
D. Employee Achievement Awards Process - Trustees Toft and
Griffith will review the letters from staff recommending employees for
this year's achievement awards. Sidney will prepare the President's
letter and the form for these awards and give them to staff by
October 3rd.
Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2
September 26,2006
^ e
E'. Staff Recognition Dinner - Trustees, Toft, Griffith and
McCormack and some members of the Foundation Board will plan
the festivities for the event. This will include meeting with the
contact person from the Doubletree Hotel.
F. Dinner Entertainment- Manuel Caneri and Vicki Machado
will be asked to plan the evening's entertainment.
IX. Announcements
A. High School Layoffs- The City Librarian attended the San
Mateo Union High School District Board meeting on September 21 St.
The Superintendent of Schools stated that due to budget problems,
it would be necessary to lay off a combined total of 55 teachers,
librarians and maintenance staff.
B. Trustee Absence - Trustee Brock noted that she will be
unable to attend the November Trustee meeting due to travel plans.
X. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30pm. The next regular meeting will
be held October 17, 2006 in the Conference Room at 5:30pm.
M/S/C (Griffith/Toft)
Respectfully Submitted,
Alfred H. Escof ler
City Librarian -
Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3
September 26, 2006
BURL i NOAMf
City Librarian's Report
October 17,2006
The Kite Runner:One Book/One Community
The culmination of the"One Book/One Community"programming will be
the appearance of Khaled Hossein at the Performing Arts Center on
October 19th. The City Librarian will be taking the speakers to dinner
and introducing them at the event.
Burlingame completed one of over 50 programs around the"Kite Runner"
with the very successful presentation of the Emmy award winning film
maker Stephen Olsson's"Last Images of War"on October 11,2006 at 7
PM.The previous program,"The Beauty Academy of Kabul"was shown
on September 27th to a crowd of 65.
Book Sale A Success!
The semi-annual Book Sale,held by members of the Burlingame Library
Foundation,earned over$4,000.00 to help pay for library programs.
This was one of the more successful sales in recent memory.We own a
debt of gratitude to co-chairs Stephen Hamilton and Jim Cannon.
Fire Sprinkler Replacement
Over-60 fire sprinklers have been replaced in the atrium area of the
library.The heads were recalled by the manufacturer, sono cost other
than supervision has been incurred by the city. Facilities is tatting this
opportunity with 3 levels of scaffolding to clean the skylight and change
the bulbs in the chandelier. UBS will also do high ledge dusting and
general clean up.
Launching of New City Website
Work is nearly complete on a New City Website.A citizen's group will
review the site and make recommendations before it goes live. On the
new site you will be able to apply for a library card,reserve an internet
session or make a donation.The new site address will be the same:
www.burlingame.org/library.The Foundation's new website is:
www.burhngamelibrarvfoundation org.
Results of Downtown Charette on Displav
The results of the downtown Charette for SOBA(South of Burlingame
Avenue)are now on display in the main library lobby.The 12 large foam
boards display an array of ideas for a future downtown Burlingame.We
are pleased to display this important part of city planning in the library.
480 Primrose Road•Burlingame•California 94010-4o83 1
Phone(650)558-7474'Fax(650)342-6295 www.burlingame.org/library
Library Collection Valuation
The City Librarian was asked by the City Attorney to develop statistics on
the value of the library's collections for insurance purposes. The last
review was done in 1999. The total value of the collections only is over
$ 14 million. The library is truly a valuable city resource.
Assemblyman Leland Yee Visits PLS Council
Assemblyman Leland Yee visited the PLS Administrative Council meeting
on October 5th at the invitation of Al Escoffier. Assemblyman Yee is
reaching out to his constituents. We are especially pleased he is
interested in libraries, as we will be losing Jackie Speier from the Senate
this fall and it's important for local libraries to a voice in the legislature.
Assemblyman Yee was grateful to PLS for the work on the "One Book,
One Community" project.
Meeting with Architects on Centennial monument
The City Librarian will be meeting with the committee on the Centennial
monument on Friday, October 13th. This will help Council and staff get a
better idea what might be possible with such a monument and what the
costs might be.
Upcoming Events:
• Columbus Day Holiday, Monday, October 9, Closed
• "Images of War" film documentary with Stephen Olsson, October 11, 7 pm
• Library Board Meeting, Tuesday, October 17t�, 5:30 PM
• Centennial Events Committee, Tuesday, October 17th, 7 PM
• "One Book, One Community" Hosseini Event, Performing Arts Center, Delaware
Avenue, San Mateo, 7:30 PM
• Foundation Author's Luncheon bus, Saturday, October 28
• Halloween Story Time, Monday, October 30th, 7 PM
• Veteran's Day, Friday, November 10, Closed
• California Library Association Conference, November 11-13, Sacramento
Alfred H. Escoffier
City Librarian
October .10, 2006
2
BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 5,2006
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m.
by Chairperson McQuaide.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson McQuaide,Camey,Grandcolas(late),and Wright
Absent: Commissioners Ellis,Lahey(Excused),and O'Connor(Medical)
Staff: Director Schwartz,Superintendent Richmond,and Secretary Harvey
Guests: Dave Dockter,Managing Arborist,City of Palo Alto,John Faust(1712 Easton Dr.),
Donald Huff(2001 Easton Dr.),Stuart Coxhead(2316 Easton Dr.),Betty Jo&Lee
Wade (1608 Easton Dr.), Sherri Boismenu (1704 Easton Dr.), Jill Lauder (449
Bloomfield Rd.),Wayne&Susan Walder(1613 Easton Dr.),Helene Landry(1705
Easton Dr.),and Dawn Stefko(2012 Easton Dr.)
MINUTES—The Minutes of the September 7, 2006 Beautification Commission Meeting, were
approved as submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter to Ken&Susan Graven, 10 Clarendon Road,informing them that the Commission upheld the
appeal for the removal of a City owned Ligustrum tree,because of the noxious fruit complaint,and
recommended that a permit be issued to the Property Owners to remove and replace the tree with a
tree from the Official Street Tree list at their expense.
Flyer announcing the Community Meering,hand delivered by Commissioners McQuaide and Lauder
to the Easton Drive residents.
Letter from the Beautification Commission to the Easton Drive Residents, informing them of the
upcoming Community Meeting on October 5`b, at Our Lady of Angels Catholic School,to discuss
appropriate Eucalyptus varieties for the Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive.
Letter from Commissioner Jill Lauder to City Council stating that, after serving 5 terms on the
Beautification Commission,she would not be reapplying for another term.
Letter from Director Schwartz to the newly appointed Commissioner,Donna Wright,congratulating
her on the appointment to the Beautification Commission.
FROM THE FLOOR-None
COMMUNITY FORUM AND DISCUSSION
Long Ranee Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive-Chairperson McQuaide welcomed and thanked
those in attendance for coming to this community discussion. She stated that the existing Eucalyptus
trees are 100-150 years old and eventually when one of the trees needs removing, it will need
replacing. The Council has asked the Beautification Commission to work with the community to
develop a Long Range Reforestation Plan before any removals may occur on Easton Drive.
Commissioner Grandcolas reiterated that the"plan"is a vision of what might be planted when the
existing trees on Easton Drive reach the end of their natural life span and require removal,(on a one
to one basis)and that,this"plan"should not be confused with a wholesale removal and replacement
plan. Chairperson McQuaide explained that at the April 6a'Community Meeting approximately 35%
of the Easton Drive residents(from El Camino to Vancouver)were present.Primary to their concerns
were safety and maintaining a uniform look, while keeping the unique, grandeur look, with a
somewhat lower canopy,on the street.
1
COMMUNITY FORUM AND DISCUSSION - Lone Ranee Reforestation Plan for Easton
Drive—(Contd.)
Chairperson McQuaide continued that it was also the general consensus of those attending the first
meeting that a more suitable Eucalyptus specie (that would meet the criteria discussed), would be the
preferred specie for the reforestation plan. She reported that the Committee took the input from that
meeting to develop a list of appropriate Eucalyptus species as recommended by Eucalyptus expert
and Managing Arborist, Dave Dockter, from the City of Palo Alto.
Chairperson McQuaide then provided a list of the different Eucalyptus species to the audience and
introduced Dave Dockter to provide information on the trees while Director Schwartz showed a slide
presentation of the recommended trees. Mr. Dockter commented that all the trees were selected for
hardiness; he remarked on the importance of having at least 2 different varieties to avoid developing
a monoculture He provided information on the varying sizes, height, structure, canopy, and
characteristics of each of the following Eucalyptus varieties: Citriodora Lemon-Scented Gum;
Cladocalyx Sugar Gum; Ficifolia Red Flowering Gum; Microtheca Tiny Capsule; Nicholli Willow-
Leafed Peppermint; Saligna Sydney Blue Gum. Mr. Dockter noted that the Eucalyptus specie was
introduced in the late 1800's and was primarily used to provide wind breaks and that though it is not
native to California, it is considered"naturalized", adapting well to the California climate.
Following the presentation, an open forum discussion was held with the Commission, Staff, Dave
Dockter, and the audience. Items discussed were: the importance of retaining the ongoing testing and
drilling of the existing Eucalyptus trees; continuation of routine maintenance practices; differences
between El Camino planting sites and CalTrans maintenance practices on El Camino from those
planting sites on Easton Drive and the City of Burlingame's maintenance practices; historical
information on the Eucalyptus specie; desired height, trunk size, structure, character, etc., as well as
the pros and cons of the different varieties.
Following the discussion, Director Schwartz clarified the group's consensus that two of the species
be considered for Easton Drive: One being the already existing street trees, the Tazmanian Blue
Gum, and second, the Cladocalyx Sugar Gum to be used as the primary replacement street tree. The
consensus of the group for the type of accent tree to be used on the comers of the blocks was the
Nicholii Willow-Leafed Peppermint; although the Ficifolia Red Flowering Gum was to be
considered as a possible replacement for the Eucalyptus tree fronting the Easton Branch Library.
Director Schwartz commented that the group's consensus would be discussed at the next
Beautification Commission meeting on November 2°d, that photos and descriptions of the
recommended trees would be distributed to the residents before the meeting, and that all are
encouraged to attend. He concluded that based on the outcome of the November meeting, staff will
create an Easton Drive Street Tree list to be presented and adopted by the Council before the end of
2006.
Chairperson McQuaide thanked Dave Dockter for sharing his expertise and thanked the audience for
the input shared to help establish a consensus for the long range plan.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Chairperson McQuaide at 9:20 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Karlene Harvey
Recording Secretary
2
MEETING MINUTES
Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission
October 19, 2006
The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by
Chairman Dittman at 7:00 pm at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Castner-Paine, Comaroto, Dittman, Hesselgren, Larios, Muller, Shanus
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: Randy Schwartz, Parks & Recreation Director;
Joleen Butler, Account Clerk III;
Others Present: Anaselia Galli - 2321 Ray Drive, Dean Kahn — 1451 Cappuchino, Amy
Showen — 133 Valdeflores, Joel Samuels — 1290 Howard Ave, Rosemary
Rayburn — 500 Almer Rd. #304, Ed Paning, Sandy Comaroto — 1576
Cypress Ave., Caitlin and Peter Comaroto — 1576 Cypress Ave.
Schwartz introduced new Commissioners Castner-Paine and Comaroto and reminded the commission
that they needed to add the two new members to the Chair rotation. The Commission agreed that
commissioners appointed concurrently would be placed on the rotation alphabetically by last name.
Chairman Dittman invited the new and continuing Commissioners to introduce themselves to the group.
MINUTES
The minutes of the September 21, 2006 regular Commission meeting were approved.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
NEW BUSINESS
Youth Advisory Committee's 2006-07 Events (This item was moved to the front of the agenda by
Chairperson Dittman to accommodate the schedules of the Youth Committee members)
Three representatives from the Youth Advisory Committee presented activities that the group has been
involved in over the past year. The group organizes and hosts several dances during the school year for
the 7' & 8' graders that live or go to school in Burlingame. These dances are well attended at
approximately 350 - 400 kids per dance. They have also put on a Battle of the Bands, and they sell BBQ
for Music in the Park, sell snacks, popcorn and cotton candy at Movie in the Park and Art in the Park.
Other events organized by the group include a Lock-in, ropes course for team building, ski trips and
Disneyland trips. The group participated in the recent American Cancer Society's Relay for Life @
Burlingame High School. Approximately 14 YAC members participated.
Parks&Recreation Commission
October 19,2006 Minutes—page 2
OLD BUSINESS
Senior Resource Handbook
Chairman Dittman reported that the Senior Resource handbook was complete and would soon be
emailed. The updated book includes a section on Identity Theft and current websites for many
businesses.
Capital Improvement Projects
Director Schwartz explained a time schedule handout that includes the list of facilities in the City and
the typical life expectancy for each of the areas that require maintenance. A second handout includes
expected monetary totals for each year. The monetary total includes each item that requires replacement
in that given year. Schwartz explained that prior to 2001 the Department was receiving $700,000 per
year for capital improvement projects. When the economy took a down turn, no money was provided
for this purpose. The Department relied on bond monies and left over monies from previous projects to
complete any maintenance projects during the years 2001-2006. This year, the City was able to provide
$270,000 for CIP maintenance needs. The Department is now playing catch-up on maintenance that had
to be deferred. Commissioner Comaroto asked if the budget numbers were based on past experience.
Schwartz said that they were based on past experience or estimates from similar projects.
Schwartz said staff would be showing the Commission a 3-year plan regarding capital improvements at
the January or February meeting. Included on this plan is the plan to put a synthetic field on Bayside
Park ball field, making it a twelve month field. Commissioner Larios explained the savings of having a
synthetic field is generated by the additional use time on the field and the general maintenance. The
field would then be available for non-scheduled times to the general public. Commissioner Castner-
Paine asked how much of the synthetic field is actually for drainage. Schwartz said staff was still
getting the numbers together after talking to representatives from companies that would do the work,but
speculated that 75%of the cost of the field is in the sub-grade work.
Commissioner Hesselgren asked why the Laguna Courts were on the schedule to be re-surfaced in 2006,
but have not been completed. (This item is on the 2006-07 CIP list and staff will try to get the project
done by the end of the fiscal year)
Commissioner Shanus asked why Mills Canyon was not on this list and if Friends of Mills Canyon
(FOMC) organization has obtained non-profit status yet. Schwartz mentioned that FMOC has not
obtained non-profit status yet to his knowledge. Schwartz also stated that FEMA had re-imbursed the
City for the landslide.
Commissioner Muller asked for more specific information on Measures H & A that are on ballot for the
November election. Schwartz explained that Measure H, which City Council is endorsing, is the Flood
Measure to fix the storm drain system in Burlingame. The Bond is asking for $44 million. $37 million
would go to storm drains and $7 million would be used to repair ADA, safety and other regulatory or
health issues in City facilities. Commissioner Hesselgren said she thought that some of that $7 million
was earmarked for the Recreation Center. Schwartz said that the Recreation Center would receive some
of the money for much needed HVAC and electrical improvements, but the money was not to be used
for a new Recreation Center.
Parks&Recreation Commission
October 19, 2006 Minutes—page 3
Schwartz also explained Measure A on the ballot. This measure is a collaboration of San Mateo County,
the cities and three special districts to provide Parks & Recreation Departments with much needed
monies. The measure proposes a 1/8 cent sales tax increase that would then be distributed to all the
participating agencies. Burlingame's approximate share would be about $300,000 a year, increasing
with the cost of living. This measure does need a two-thirds majority vote to pass. Commissioner
Castner-Paine said it would be a great thing for Parks &Recreation if Measure A were passed.
Schwartz distributed an article regarding Path Parkways and the importance of keeping them maintained
for the safety of the public. Shanus asked if there were path lights at every park. Schwartz stated that
there were not path lights at every park. Castner-Paine asked if there was money in the budget for lights
in Washington Park to be replaced so people could safely walk through the park to the train station.
Schwartz stated that there are funds in the annual budget for routine maintenance projects such as this,
but the project on the CIP list referred to replacing the entire system.
Muller mentioned that her neighbor fell on the sidewalk in front of the Recreation center and that she
was disappointed with the patchwork manner in which the City used to repair the uneven pavement.
Schwartz stated that this matter should be agendized for the next meeting as it is not within the current
agenda parameters. Dittman directed staff to place the item on the November agenda.
Art in the Park
Butler distributed a summary handout from the Art in the Park Planning meeting that took place on
9/26/06. Hesselgren, Heathcote and Shanus were on the Sub-Committee that attended the meeting to
represent the Commission and report the main points of what was discussed. Schwartz explained that
Pacific Fine Arts is the vendor that is in charge of marketing, security, artist selection and clean up for
the event. The City handles the food/beverage, entertainment and music.
Dittman asked whose vision was listed on the handout. Hesselgren stated that the recorded vision was
derived from Pacific Fine Arts original vision combined with the City's vision. Shanus reported that
there was a fair amount of discussion regarding family type activities and merchandise for children to
purchase. Also discussed was the appropriate use of corporate sponsors. Hesselgren stated that sponsors
are needed to underwrite the event; however, the dilemma is where to place the booths. Artists do not
want to be next to a sponsor but the sponsors want to be near the foot traffic.
Larios asked if any local artist were turned down by PFA during the jurying of artist selection and if
there were any artists with materials of interest to children. PFA did not turn down any local area artists
that we know of and, although none was present,PFA has a list of artists for children to draw from.
Hesselgren mentioned that PFA felt that the family area should be separate from the artist area.
Schwartz stated one idea mentioned was an area for kids to have an "art experience" themselves while
parents shopped.
Parks&Recreation Commission
October 19,2006 Minutes—page 4
Castner-Paine thought using any extra booth space to present classes offered by the Recreation
Department would be a great addition to the event.
Comaroto asked what the 2006 net revenue was for the event. Schwartz said the event's net profit was
approximately $22,000; up from $18,000 in previous years.
Schwartz stated that there will be a Food/Beverage meeting on November 7, from 3:00-5:00 pm at the
Recreation Center. The information from this meeting will be brought back to the Commission at the
November meeting, after which a recommendation could be made to Council regarding the vision for
the event. He then asked for volunteers for a sub-committee. Hesselgren and Shanus volunteered to be
on the Committee.
REPORT'S/HAND-OUT'S
Staff
Schwartz reported that the Recreation Department has hired two new Supervisors. Tim Barry being
promoted from Coordinator to Supervisor and welcomed Stacey Poncia as a new Supervisor to the
Department. The search for a Recreation Coordinator is currently in progress and he hopes to announce
a new hire for that position at the next meeting.
AYSO opening day was September 9 and youth soccer season is fully underway with 2,000 participants.
Adult programs such as Private Piano, Cooking Classes, 40 and over Softball and Senior Citizens trips
are doing well.
Something new this year is a Fall Fashion Show and Luncheon for the Seniors on November 29 at the
Recreation Center.
Schwartz handed out "Law Principles for Public Servants", an article from the Institute for Local
Government explaining that it was for the general information of the Commissioners from the City
Attorney.
Schwartz also explained to the Commission that the Attendance Rule for City Commissions is based on
the calendar year. If a Commissioner is absent 1/3 of the calendar year or misses three meetings in a
row, they are to be removed from the Commission. Schwartz also stated that the City Council has
directed staff to indicate on the minutes if a commissioner is late for the meeting or leaves early.
Schwartz read an email he received from a citizen requesting that the Washington Park Basketball courts
be re-lined and have lighting added. The courts can be relined; however, lighting is costly and would
most likely be opposed by the neighbors. Schwartz stated that three requests for additional gymnasium
space came in during the past month. Castner-Paine asked about Victoria Park Basketball courts and if
they are used as much as in the past. Larios mentioned that a hoop was removed from the courts, as
there were large groups of teenagers congregating, being loud and getting out of control in addition to
using the courts for their intended purpose.
Parks&Recreation Commission
October 19,2006 Minutes—page 5
Commissioners
1. Commissioner Shanus asked about a Burlingame Intermediate School and Parks &
Recreation intramural program he read about in the BIS newsletter. Schwartz explained that
Parks & Recreation would be putting on various activities, such as free throw basketball
contests, during the 35-minute lunch break and a show choir program before school.
2. Commissioner Muller had heard that the business at Hoover School (Shinyoen program) was
not doing well and she thought it was a nice piece of property for the City to look into.
Schwartz explained that the current owner, Shinnyo-en, was moving their program to
Redwood City. The City has already rejected the idea of running programs out of the school
with the Burlingame School District due to the cost, a lack of parking and the property being
in a remote location.
3. Muller also asked about the condition of the tree worker that was hurt about a month ago.
Schwartz reported that employee was home from the hospital and recovering slowly.
4. Commissioner Larios asked about the possibility of installing strap swings next to the bucket
swings at Pershing Park as some parents have children of both ages that they take to the
park. Schwartz said does not think this is compliant with the current safety standards, but he
would confirm that information and report back to the commission. (update:playground safety
standards do not allow for a bucket seat and strap seat to be placed in the same bay)
5. Commissioner Dittman asked about the possibility of adding lap swim hours on Friday
evenings at the pool. Schwartz said he would ask the aquatics coordinator if this is a
possibility.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission is scheduled to be held on Thursday,
November 16, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at Burlingame City Hall.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Joleen Butler
Parks &Recreation Account Clerk III
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
October 23, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the October 23, 2006, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling,
Terrones
Absent: Commissioners: Vistica, arrived at 7:05 p.m.; C.Brownrigg left at
10:05 p.m.
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Maureen Brooks;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson;
III. MINUTES The minutes of the October 10, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved with a correction on page 11, second full
paragraph, text amended as follows: " ...biggest problem is probably the
good neighbor fence between the two properties not block the ability to
park;" C. Osterling noted that he would abstain from voting on the minutes
since he was not at the last meeting. C. Deal moved to approve the minutes
as amended. The motion was second by C. Auran. The motion passed on a
voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Osterling abstaining, C. Vistica absent)
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 2725 ARGUELLO DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (THOMAS BIGGS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ALBA LOPEZ,
PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners noted that they had visited the site and
viewed the story poles from the neighbor's perspective,the initial concern was view blockage and whether
this project would set a precedent for others in the area, noted that each case is reviewed on its individual
merits, in this case the impact on views appear to be minimal.
Commissioner Vistica arrived at 7:05 p.m.
This item was set for the consent calendar with no changes requested. Commissioners asked staff to call the
neighbor at 1600 Granada Drive to let them know the item was placed on the consent calendar and the
reasons why. The item concluded at 7:07 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
2. 1612 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND
FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(WEYMAN LEE,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;JD&ASSOCIATES ---�
DESIGNER)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Deal indicated that he has a business relationship with the applicant and will recuse himself from the
proceedings on this item. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. CP Monroe presented a
summary of the staff report. Commissioners noted that there is a 340 SF area and a 185 SF utility area that
are counted in floor area, are these areas created because of the slope of the lot? Yes,the area is more than
two feet above grade and does not qualify as a basement. Commissioners asked:
• Clarify which parts of the house are being counted in the floor area calculations.
• Clarify the hardship on the property for each of the three variances;
• It appears that the required setback can be met on left side,which would improve that elevation a lot;
• Suggest to applicant that there is now a large storage area under the house which is used as storage
area, including a large area under the deck, if he were to sink the family room down a few steps, it
would make the area under it unusable as future floor area, would feel better that the area under it
could not be converted to living space later.
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 7:15 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the dais.
3. 1441-1445 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING AND
TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW FOUR-STORY,20-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
(DALE MEYER, AIA, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BELLEVUE
ASSOCIATES, LLC C/O LITKE PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN
BROOKS
SP Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Would like an explanation from the applicant why the architecture changed so significantly;
• Concern with the rear elevation and the view from the common open space, architecture has been
watered down and detail been removed, that is a concern.
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.
4. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE#330/#350,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA B-1—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPLICANT;
MICHAEL NILMEYER, NILMEYER NILMEYER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; CORTINA
INVESTMENTS LTD PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER:RUBEN HURIN
SP Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners had no questions regarding the project.
Commissioners noted that in the future requests in such large buildings with sufficient parking might be -�
taken directly to action. This item was set for the consent calendar with no changes or information
requested. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m.
2
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
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.
5a. 1535 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE(JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;GILBERT FITZGERALD
AND CAROL MURPHY,PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HUR1N
5b. 1461 ALVARADO AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; GEORGE AND ANDREA SCARBOROUGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (48 NOTICED)PROJECT
PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
5e. 1426 PALOMA AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE(POKO KLEIN,TRG ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
JENNIFER HAYDEN AND BILLY RYAN,PROPERTY OWNERS)(76 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:ERIKA
LEWIT
5d. 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE,ZONED R-3—APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW THREE-STORY,THREE-
UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (MIKE PRESCOTT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND
HUNT HALE JONES ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT)(88 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
a. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT;AND
b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP (ACTION TAKEN AT PREVIOUS MEETING—OCTOBER 10,
2006)
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. CP Monroe noted that she would like to amend condition 8 of
item 5d. 1459 Oak Grove Avenue,to include the wording"...and the trees along the rear neighbor's property
line shall be evaluated by a licensed arborist and protection measures defined and put into place before a
building permit shall be issued." Chair Brownrigg noted that he would encourage this applicant to replace
the tandem parking spaces shown on the original plans,because additional parking is always a benefit to the
future property owners. Since this is not required parking, it is the choice of the property owner.
C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners'
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and as
amended for 1459 Oak Grove and by resolution for each project. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
6. 1557 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACk
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE(RANDY GRANGE,TRG ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; JAY AND JANET GARCIA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report October 23, 2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Sixteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions
of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road, project architect; and Janet
Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue,presented the project,noting that the neighbor to the left had submitted a letter
in support of the plan as now proposed,outlined the changes made to the plans to eliminate the side setback
variance and to increase the front setback to the garage;the front entry was turned towards the street with a
rounded porch; a garage exit study was done for different configurations as requested by the Commission,
noting constraints with placing the garage doors at a 90 degree angle to the previous proposal and exiting the
garage through the narrow driveway at the front of the lot,if garage is pushed back to meet the setback,will
create other variances at the rear of the lot and encroach into the portion of the lot adjacent to the creek.
Public comment continued: Mark Hudak,216 Park Road,representing Otto Miller who owns property on
the block;Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa,do not have a problem with the housing having the maximum floor area
allowed,when ask for the maximum, should be able to build without a variance,it feels like the houses are
crowded and jumbled at the end of the block because of the street layout,the solution is to set the house bacl
to give the feel of a cul-de-sac and slide the garage to the left; there are options to redesign the floor plan,
could relocate the office to the rear of the house next to the media room,would have better visual approach
from the street,the garage would be hidden and you could see past it to the adjacent house. There are ways
to get enough back up space for the garage, the objection seems to be to the post between the two spaces,
would be better off to have a larger door without a post, could get in and out easier,porch would be at the
side of the garage facing the street;might be helpful to see a streetscape design to help make a decision on
what would fit in best. The issue with the fence is that it blocks parking options; this fence seems to be a
dispute between neighbors, have witnessed other hearings on this block, should grant variance for this
situation.
Additional public comment: Randy Grange,project architect,and Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake,noted that the
garage post is not the only problem with backing out, it has to do with the shape of the lot, house at 1547
Drake is not constrained by the driveway width on the street like this one and the side entry garage works
well; looked at moving garage 15 feet from front property line, caused variances at the rear of the lot, one
way or another, there will be a variance required,will have to pick the best option;there used to be a fence
between 1557 and 1561 Drake, a tree came down and flattened the fence, there are many houses that have
side entry porches and main entrance at the side,that is the case for 1561 Drake,it is considered a side entry
not front entrance, so not an issue that other house is close.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: Understand it would be difficult to rotate the garage 90 degrees, but stil.
concerned that the garage is too close to 1561 Drake,could it be ten feet from property line,that would help
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
a lot,as it is proposed,it will provide shadow to front door at 1561 Drake;mass of garage faces 1561 Drake,
two properties are now in same ownership,will not always be,should look at garage mass with different roof
style; this is a new house on a larger than standard lot, will have more back yard than most due to the lot
shape,have to determine the degree of variance,the lot has an odd entrance,when you drive in or back out
there has to be a lot of maneuvering; do not see need to set back the garage by 35 feet, even though we're
calling it a front it has the look of a side view, not agree with the need to reduce the mass next to 1561
Drake, it is like a side yard; can work with a garage without a post, for safety purposes, need to be able to
exit in a forward direction.
Commissioner comment continued: This is a congested street,have to use the same criteria for all houses,
when you allow houses to be built with extra bedrooms,will need more parking,there is no street frontage,
will need adequate on-site parking and turnaround, same criteria as applied on other projects on the block,
cannot approve as proposed; do not know if existing garage location is best location,creates a blunt end to
the street, learned tonight that there are configurations that can generate a great house and a better parking
configuration,convinced that there are better ways to lay the house out;proposing the maximum size house
on a 7,000 SF lot,but it is placed on a piece of the lot that is smaller than a typical lot,may have to encroach
into the "T" formation of the lot, it is possible that a variance is justified, but think there are better
configurations for parking and garage location; was in favor of current configuration, but have been
convinced that there are alternatives that will make a better project; as now proposed the garage door is a
major element; proposing to fit a large house on one-half of the lot, it does not fit, cannot approve as
presented, landscape plans need to be redone to match new design.
Further Commissioner comment: Do not have as much problem with the location of the garage, similar to
the way the existing residence is situated with a fore court and coach house,but still have a concern with the
massing of the garage,needless attic space presenting itself to the corner of 1561 Drake;do not see the need
to require more on-site parking than is required for others, do not think this house should bear the burden
because the street has a choke point,cannot create enough space to properly place the garage,didn't like the
original layout with the garage at the left rear corner of the lot;this is a workable plan if the massing can be
reduced on the right wing; think the applicant should look at pushing the house northerly adjacent to the
creek, house can extend into that area and be pleasant with a wooded setting, would give relief to the
bottleneck at the garage and driveway,house could be nestled in trees,has problems as now designed.
C.Vistica moved to deny the project without prejudice,with the direction given. The motion was seconded
by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: To clarify the intent,the garage could be put into different location,house could
encroach into area to the north, there could be leniency to the setback on the other side since there are no
houses adjacent there;there are reasons for a variance on lot,it is not the intent to make variances go away,
can be leniency in possibility of a different variance, there are plenty of options, architect is talented, can
address; if you look at aerial photo,there are no residences close by at the rear of the lot,the hardship is the
shape of the lot, house can be built in a different configuration that can relieve the congestion at the front;
will vote in favor of the motion only for reworking of the massing of the garage, not the location; oppose
motion, if just massing of the garage, could continue the item, would like to see more room between the
houses at 1557 and 1561 Drake,could increase the setback between the two houses,maybe a massing issue.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a
4-3 (Cern. Cauchi, Terrones and Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 8:30 p.m.
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
7. 1404 EDGEHILL DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LOT COVERAGE
VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY REMODEL AND NEW DETACHED CARPORT(DAVID
AND JANIS SPIVACK, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; LARRY KAHLE, METROPOLIF —IN'
ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECT)(70 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report October 23,2006,with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report,reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted that the
proposal is for an open carport, building code requires that there be no openings within three feet of the
property line,will this comply with building code? Planning staff noted that there are no specific comments
from the Chief Building Official on this issue,but would require compliance with the building code at time
of construction. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. David Spivack, 1404 Edgehill;Larry Kahle,900 High Street,
Palo Alto,represented the project,noting that at the last meeting gave direction to provide a covered parking
space, tried to design something that would work. When bought the house knew there were aspects that
were not ideal,want to make it into a house that can raise family in and get rid of the things which were done
improperly,would love to use that area for parking;originally applied for a parking variance because of the
unusual condition on the lot,there is only limited frontage on Capuchino,an enclosed structure would block
light and air,
Commissioners asked: there is an iron bar installed across the driveway; applicant noted that this was
installed by the previous owner and will be removed; would you consider installing an electric remote
control gate across the driveway? Yes. Did you consider putting a two-car garage forward of the dog leg
with enough space to come through the gate? Looked at that option and was an issue,if closer to the house,—,,
it would be an extension of the house and invade rear yard, having the parking parallel and adjacent to the
neighbor's garage makes more sense. Would you be prepared to accept a trade-off, with no carport and
installing an electric gate? The building code allows an open metal structure next to the property line,the
area is only 10'-3" wide, can meet code requirement with the open structure,but with walls,the interior of
the parking space would be too narrow, have not studied the two-car issue, but it would be hared to
maneuver. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Comment: proposing a carport structure with metal roofing,it will be an abomination,glad
to see that you're fixing up the property, but would rather see a structure with walls that will house a car;
what you will see from the house is a corrugated metal roof,if you had a simple structure nestled in the trees
it would be less of an eyesore;the applicant is now enjoying all the advantages of not having a garage,do not
think we have ever said not to put in a garage, think should have a garage with walls, could put in an
automatic garage door opener and would not need to have an electric gate and can try to make it look better,
if that is done, would be okay with the lot coverage and floor area ratio variances, cannot just say that
because the situation exists,you should get away with it;suggesting one car garage at end of driveway,could
have doors at both ends to provide access through to an uncovered space; need to have as much off-street
parking as possible, to have a garage out there for sake of meeting requirement does not make sense, can
have two uncovered spaces in driveway with gate; think can visualize a nice one-car garage, do not think
will be used,would rather see uncovered driveway with electronic gate used for off street parking.
C.Brownrigg moved to continue the item to allow the applicant time to redesign the project with one of the
following two options: 1)provide a single-car garage at the rear property line with an automatic door where-
the carport is now proposed;or 2)provide two uncovered spaces in tandem and provide an electronic gate a
the gate (will require parking variance); with the understanding that in either case the variances requested
6
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
would be tied to current circumstances and if new construction or a substantial reconstruction to the house or
parking were proposed, the variances would go away and the project would have to comply with code
regulations in effect at that time? The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m.
8. DETERMINATION ON SKIN CARE CLINIC AND SPA USE AS A 'PERSONAL SERVICE'. PROJECT
PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE
Reference staff report October 23, 2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report summarizing
the nature of the business requested and its consistency with the current definitions in the zoning code. She
noted that the issue here is the definition of the use. Once clearly defined, then the appropriate zoning
districts will be determined. In the end if the applicant wishes to add a new definition to the zoning code and
identify appropriate zones for that use,that is not a determination and would require separate application to
the commission to cancel the zoning code. Cers.Deal and Vistica both disclosed that they met with or were
made aware of this project by John Ward before tonight's hearing. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing.John Ward,792 Willborough Place,represented the applicant,
along with Jerry Winges, architect and urban designer, 1290 Howard Avenue, and Debbie Sharp of
SkinSpirit. They feel that their proposed use is a 'personal service' like a 'beauty salon' as defined in the
current zoning code; feel that they are not a medical service just because a cosmetic treatment offered
requires a registered nurse trained and under the leadership of a doctor;the number of patients actually seen
by a doctor on the site will be less than 1%, 25% of the customers see a nurse in the course of their
procedures at the site; they are not treating a disease on the site but providing a cosmetic procedure;this use
is not a lab or office,it is a skin clinic and spa,the existing definition of'personal service'is unclear and the
fact has not been tested before. Goal in the downtown area is to encourage a turnover of parking and provide
interest and activity on the street fronts,this use includes a retail and personal service,Botox treatments are
combined with cosmetology,if it meets the goals of the downtown should be allowed without regard for how
it is labeled as a use. Have a shop in Palo Alto which would like to replicate in Burlingame,25%of visitors
are walk-in, 80% are scheduled; 5 to 7 people working daily, 6 days a week, 3 to 36 appointments a day
ranging from 15 minutes to an hour,average appointment is 30-40 minutes,licensed staff includes registered
nurse,aestheticians,others include receptionist,retail sales clerk and leadership who is a licensed physician
who is on site 1 to 3 days a week. The doctor is an employee of the business and a principal in the business,
he is scheduled for training and available at client's request. Commissioner asked is insurance required and
what kind? Applicant responded registered nurse and doctor are provided malpractice insurance, other
licensed individuals are not required to have malpractice insurance,overall the business is insured; Botox
treatments average 28 per week,2 to 5 per day. Commissioner asked how bio-waste is handled;Botox is not
a bio-waste issue to her knowledge,delivered by FedEx,stored in a refrigerator,do not share needles used,
can be done on prescription or on request as an elective. This is not a Botox clinic,not the main purpose of
the business, overall spa and beauty,registered nurse does treatments,state requires a doctor to be a part of
the business, there are others doing Botox in Burlingame without a doctor being present;
Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Most places like this look like a beauty
shop,one on second floor of Crosby Commons and one in the 1400 block on the second floor,prefer to have
a doctor around for this treatment,might take a different tact if this is a health service can go in Subarea B,
the proposed site is adjacent to Subarea B,might look at moving the line between Subarea A and B, so use
would be allowed with a conditional use permit. Applicant noted that this applicant does not have the time
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
to request the relocation of the line between Subareas A and B or to add a new definition to the code,cannot
wait a year to have the study of the downtown completed. There were no further comments from the floor.
The public hearing was closed.
Commission comments: Sounds like cosmetology that is very careful and professional,what you would like
to see in such a business where surgery is included; agree sounds like cosmetology rather than health care
until discussed insurance, doctor and nurse both require medical malpractice insurance which is what is
required for a health service. Think this use is between personal service and medical, if personal service
there is no regulation of the extent of the business, someone with a Botox clinic could locate in Subarea A,
leery that there would be no regulation of such use at all. Regulation is inherent in the licensing process with
this type of use, cosmetic services being attached to it, without Botox this is a cosmetic/skin treatment
personal service. If this is called cosmetology then we will have Botox clinics all over town. If a registered
nurse is required then this does not look like a normal hair and nail care salon. This proposed use will
generate more traffic and parking than a beauty salon. Have relatives who are doctors,if need an doctor and
a registered nurse it is a health care business, can debate the classification of the business but registered
nurses consider themselves health care professionals whatever they are doing. Opposed because need
something more than a permitted use to have proper control of this use,need to provide guidelines for hours,
staffing level, intensity of use because a lot of businesses come and go, replaced by similar uses.
Chair Brownrigg made a motion to uphold the City Planners determination that this proposed use is a health
service use as defined in the Zoning Code. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to uphold the City Planner's determination. The
motion passed on a 4-3 (Cers. Auran, Terrones, Vistica dissenting)roll call vote. Appeal procedures were-�
advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m.
9. AMEND THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND REVISE AND
RECLASSIFY THE ZONING IN THE EL CAMINO REAL NORTH SUBAREA(271 NOTICED). PROJECT
PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE
Reference staff report October 23,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report reviewing the
background of the implementation of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the need to
clarify the language in the plan adopted in September 2004. She noted that three zoning districts implement
the plan Trousdale West(TW)and Rollins Road(RR)already adopted and El Camino North(ECN)which is
included for review and action at the public hearing tonight. The staff report includes a summary of the
proposed amendments to the specific plan and the text of the ECN zoning district, compliance of the
amendment with CEQA including Addendum to the Negative Declaration ND533-P,and compliance with
the adopted General Plan. She pointed out that there are three questions regarding the zoning that the
commission should address tonight after the public hearing. Three communications regarding the plan were
received after the packet was delivered and are at the Commissioner's desks this evening: David Moutoux,
letter,October 23,2006; Eileen Chow,CSE Investments,letter,October 19,2006;Larry Anderson,memo,
October 20,2006. Commission asked if the second letter submitted from Mr.Moutoux this evening is also
included in the correspondence; CA responded that the subject of that letter is not on the agenda for
discussion this evening. Commission asked if the portion of this planning area along El Camino Real would
be eligible to be integrated into a future El Camino Corridor plan and what would that mean to the city. CP
noted that this area could be integrated into a future El Camino Corridor Plan, and after that plan was -�
accepted by C/CAG and MTC a Burlingame El Camino Corridor plan would make the city eligible for
Transit Oriented Development(TOD) funds for each bedroom built within the corridor in the future. This
8
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
money would be used by the city to make the public improvements necessary to support future development
in the city. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Albert Guibara, property owner in Rollins Road area; Jim
Knapp, representing a client in the Rollins Road area; Eileen Chow, 1206-1220 Rollins Road; Pat Giomi,
1445 Balboa Avenue;Jennifer Pfaff,615 Bayswater spoke. Am a sculptor in the Rollins Road area do not
feel that animal shelters fit with industrial/warehouse/office uses or with the city's noise and odor ordinances.
Object to the proposed amendments to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan because
commission made a determination in 2005 that a veterinary hospital without boarding was similar to an
animal shelter,40 petitions and letters from property owners were submitted that suggested that the animal
shelter use does not fit when changed zoning in 2006;now you want to amend the specific plan,have filed a
lawsuit against the city,now amend general plan for animal shelter where everyone does not want one; feel
that this use would impact the area tremendously,not realize the impact of the sound,feel you are being fed
information,wherever it comes from,that is misrepresentative,want to give you direct information so you
can be educated and realize the impact,note letter from Mr.Moutoux submitted this evening points out that
there was not proper notice of your October 10, 2006, meeting, no study to speed this process which will
result in more litigation. Is this the first reading of this ordinance before the Planning Commission. CA
responded yes. Feel Brown Act not subscribed to by limiting comments to three minutes and fact no more
staff reports for this item are available at the rear of the chambers tonight, feel Bay Area Air Quality
requirements are violated by odor with PHS application, Burlingame city ordinances are violated with
housing of wildlife in that project, and city ordinances for noise and odor are also violated with that project
so any conditions will be violations, hope all commissioners will read the PHS environmental document
including the appendixes on the enclosed disc, see that standards are being violated. Concerned about the
Southern Gateway Entrance area in Rollins Road areas: would like the wording for this area modified to
promote continuation of existing industrial uses,do not want conditional use permits to be required for small
industrial tenants, and change wording in footnote 4 on page30 to remove words 'community approved'
before gateway features since the review needed is discussed in the text,if cannot remove the words replace
'community with'city. Comments on ECN district,medical office use should be expanded along El Camino
Real and allowed on more than just the first floor,existing medical office buildings may need to be replaced
in the future and should be allowed to do so? Plan does not allow health services on Marco Polo;does this
include the land owned by the hospital? How will veterinarians be handled in Burlingame Plaza,there is one
there now, there is also a pet store in the plaza? Concern is trees on El Camino Real, the street tree
recommendations on page 47 do not include the tree species selected since adoption for the reforestation of
El Camino, they should be changed. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing
was closed.
Chair Brownrigg apologized and noted that he had to leave and turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Deal.C.
Brownrigg left the dais and Council Chambers (10:05 p.m.).
Commissioner comment: feel that limiting health services to the ground floor is not the best use on
properties so close to the hospital; intent of ECN zone is to encourage mixed use;questions is should stand
alone office buildings be allowed; regarding animal shelters, they are called public services would public
services be expanded to include animal shelters if act tonight,appreciate comments heard,need more time to
consider and get a number of clarifications before can vote; also concerned about animal shelter is not a
veterinary hospital which is a medical type use with a different parking impact,feel should allow office use
in ECN up to two floors to encourage mixed use, existing medical offices can remain, ECN would then
`- allow stand alone residential uses and mixed use office and retail. CA noted that if the Commission wanted
to revisit animal shelters the plan and zoning need to be returned to the Subcommittee for study to change
9
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
the definition and amend the adopted Rollins Road zoning regulations; noted have been at the process of
planning for this area since 2002, ECN is the last implementing zoning district, there are a couple of—,
applications for large projects in the ECN area which need to be addressed, Rollins Road and TrousdalL
West zoning ordinances have been adopted, this request tonight is clean up language to be clear what is
expected and to clear up Southern Gateway Entrance issues.
Commissioner comment continued: clarify direction to the subcommittee regarding medical office in ECN,
do not want to encourage stand alone office buildings in this area, agree that can have medical office up to
35 feet in a building (0.5 FAR); in the design guideline criteria understand that want to establish that
guidelines are not regulations,but feel that in the language the'should'should not be changed to'can', `can'
includes too many inferences; front and side zero lot line setbacks should hold to 35 feet;need to determine
if the additional setback over 35 feet on the front and sides is optional or required, and how it should be
determined,diagram 5-6 does not show the bulb outs on Magnolia at Trousdale,should be corrected.These
issues should be referred to the subcommittee.
Vice-Chair Deal noted that this item would be continued to another meeting after the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road subcommittee has met and made recommendations on the issues raised this
evening. CP Monroe noted that since this item was being continued to a date uncertain,when it is brought
back for action staff would renotice the item in a newspaper of general circulation and send post cards to all
property owners in the specific plan area as they did for this item this evening. This item was completed at
10:25 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
KENDRICK LI PROPERTY OWNER)(63 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Commissioner Osterling noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and recused himself from the
proceedings on this item. He stepped down from the dais and left the chamber.
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked what the required width of the
driveway is; 9'-6" clear width is required. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Kendrick Li,2212 Hillside and Ben Behravesh,4 West Santa
Inez Avenue, San Mateo,project architect,presented the project,presented photographs of other homes in
the neighborhood; felt that this project would be compatible. Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater; Pat Giorni,
1445 Balboa;and Dennis and Delores Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue spoke;noting that the applicant's
first project in Burlingame was in my neighborhood, disappointed in how it turned out,it does not relate to
the neighborhood, the details on front appear very flat, a hodge-podge of styles, it looks cheap, it was
designed from the inside out; Hillside is one of the first views of Burlingame and its charm, connects
between Freeway 280 and El Camino Real,the proposal does not fit,would be a good house for Telluride,
but not on Hillside Drive,in direct conflict with the new house going in across the street;proposing a 700 SF
basement,what is to prevent this from becoming sleeping quarters,this extra 700 SF is exempted from floor
area; concerned with the Magnolia trees, on his other project the applicant did not install tree protection,
need to make sure measures are in place here before work begins; live right next door to project facing
Columbus,very concerned about the detached garage in the rear of the lot;none of the other houses on this
10
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
block have garages in the back, there is a long greenbelt of lawns to the rear of the houses that is used for
picnics and playing in yards; there is a lot of paving proposed in this project up to and beside the garage,
what prevents these areas from turning into a big parking lot; concerned with protection of the six
�-- pittosporum trees on our lot along the property line,it is proposed that Italian Cypress will be planted along
the fence,will affect the root structure of the pittosporum trees;if the fence is damaged,it should be replaced
and painted to match; design is not compatible with the area, the tower and rooflines are a concern, our
living areas are adjacent and the new house will be four feet from that property line.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project:
• Applicant showed four examples of houses in the neighborhood,these examples do not relate at all
to the predominant development in the neighborhood,the neighborhood has changed over time,there
used to be more variation,more recent styles tend toward Mediterranean and are not the traditional,
should look at older styles in other parts of Burlingame;
• Important that the house fit into the context of the neighborhood,this does not mimic what was built
in the 1920's and 1930's;
• Applicant states that this is an updated Craftsman style, appears to be more of a neo-Prairie style,
there are not a lot of prairies in this area;
• Concerned with the amount of concrete paving,it is not environmentally friendly to have that much
impervious surface;
• Concerned with large flat north wall;
• Materials are not called out on the plans such as brackets, sill head materials, there is a lot of
inconsistency in the detailing;
• Concerned with the cornice line and the way it wraps from one side to the other;
• Unclear how the light well works down to the basement, it appears that the light well intrudes into
the 9'-6" required driveway width;
• Plans call for Sierra Pacific windows,need to specify that they will be true divided lite or simulated
true divided lite windows;
• Massing is articulated,mass and bulk pretty good except the north elevation which is long and flat;
• First floor plate height should be no more than 9 feet,reduce second floor plate height to 8'-1";
• The encroachment into declining height envelope can be eliminated, this style does not justify the
exception, the special permit is meant for architectural character, this design is not limited by the
declining height envelope;
• Style does not fit neighborhood at all, need to rethink completely;
• We generally encourage detached garages because it is the predominant pattern in Burlingame, in
this case in deference to the neighbor would like to see driveway moved to the other side of the
property;
• In this case,maybe attached garage is more in keeping with what is on Hillside Drive,not opposed to
attached if that is consistent with the predominant pattern;
• Make sure the landscape plan does not include Italian Cypress, particularly next to the neighbor's
established shrubs and trees.
C. Cauchi made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Auran.
11
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
Comment on motion: Need to come up with new design and design reviewer would provide assistance to
help it fit the site and be consistent with the style of the neighborhood; have concern with sending it to a-�
design review consultant,it is a large burden to place on the design reviewer to help with such a significant
redesign; do not agree, the design review process is meant to provide assistance in difficult cases such as
this.
C. Cauchi amended the motion to bring the project back on action with a recommendation for denial with
prejudice. C. Auran accepted the amended motion.
Vice-Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar with a
recommendation for denial. The motion passed on a roll call vote 4-1-1-1 (C. Vistica dissenting, C.
Osterling abstaining and C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 11:00 p.m.
11. 220 PRIMROSE ROAD,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
FOR SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL OF AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR A RETAIL USE (DAVID A. LEVY,
DAVID A. LEVY & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT; ALI REZAEI, ARCHITECT; CHICKEN CHICKEN LLC,
PROPERTY OWNER) (29 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HUR1N
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked if this project proposes a change
to the sidewalk, yes, the applicant will be required to install streetscape improvements as outlined in the
Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Plan, this includes new sidewalks with a slight pink tone to them, will
match the sidewalks installed nearby in front of Parking Lot J. C.Terrones noted that he had occasion to see
a presentation of the project proposal at his office. -�
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. David Levy, 345 Springside Drive, Akron, Ohio; Ken
Nemeth, Senior Development Manager for Anthropologie, 26566 Paseo Del Mar, San Juan Capistrano,
California, and Robin Ostler, 531 W. 26`"Street,New York,New York,represented the project,described
the concept proposed and presented samples of the materials to be used, will create rhythm by alternating
materials since it is a 90-foot long street frontage, the face of the building recedes and comes forward and
creates visual and spatial texture;bench will be placed where the fagade steps back,windows open into the
store, can see what is inside; to enhance the pedestrian scale, a smaller window wraps around the corner
adjacent to entry;propose a screen set forward from the face of the building made of Ipe wood dowels and
copper backed by a hog wire screening, a manmade material which will give a cloudy feel, will be
illuminated from the back with a low level of light so the wall will glow.
Commissioners asked: will the copper tubing maintain its patina or is the intention to let it oxidize? The
intention is to allow the copper to oxidize,the Ipe wood will also weather over time,but it take its time to
age, the copper tubing will be denser near the top, any runoff from the oxidizing copper will be caught by
wood dowels lower on wall. What is the environmental classification of Ipe wood, is it sustainably
harvested? It is not endangered; do not know the classification for sustainability.
Jennifer Pfaff,615 Bayswater,and Angela Johnson, 1528 Ralston Avenue,spoke regarding the project,likes
the project a lot,hope that not too many resin insets are placed in the concrete, they will be like jewels, so
should be sparse,agree that the scale is big and could be brought down at the entry;concern with the overall
size,will incorporate three stores into one,will dominate the entire block,is there away it can be broken up.
Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project:
12
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
• Design works well, is broken up into pieces, will read like different store fronts, the materials are
rich, the built-in bench is wondrous,works well with the two small windows.
• Very handsome design,concern is with the scale, some elements are ten feet tall,could something be
introduced at the entry and along windows at the eight foot line to provide a human scale;add some
nice horizontal element to bring down the scale.
• Fagade is 90 feet long, there is a lot of glass with large panes, concerned with the size of windows
• Would like to see some kind of treatment for the large expanses of glass and address how much light
comes out of them at night; could add sun screen to reduce energy gain.
• Like the design, except do not see it in Burlingame, does not have anything that tells me it's
Burlingame; also, as it goes up to the top, it does not have anything to stop your eye as most
buildings do in Burlingame.
• Recommend that the design plans and materials be posted either in the City hall lobby or on the site,
applicant should provide a press release to the newspapers to let people know what is proposed.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Terrones made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions
listed above have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Vice-Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-1-1 (C. Deal dissenting, C. Brownrigg
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:50
p.m.
X.COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
- There were no Commissioner's Reports for review.
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of October 16, 2006.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of October 10, 2006, noting that Council
discussed commission and board attendance requirements,noting the differences between Commissions
and asked that in the future all minutes reflect the attendance, late arrival and early departure of
Commission members. She also noted that a subcommittee of the City Council met with a representative
of Safeway to discuss a process for gaining input for a future project. CA handed out a handy reference
guide in procedure and ethics prepared by the League of California Cities for the Commissioners to use.
- FYI: 110 Clarendon Road—changes to a previously approved design review project.
Commission had no comments on this change to the project.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 11:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary VAMINUTESIunapproved 10.23.06.doc
13
_0-18-06 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE : 1
FOR: SEPTEMBER, 2006
Current Prev
Last Actual Actual YTD YTD
:rime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year . . YTD. . YTD. . Change % Change
4urder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0
4anslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0
Rape By Force 0 0 6 1 5 500 . 00
%ttempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0
Robbery Firearm 0 1 4 7 -3 -42 . 86
Robbery Knife 0 0 2 0 2
Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 1 2 3 -1 -33 . 33
Robbery Strong-Arm 1 2 15 9 6 66 . 67
Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 2 -2 -100 . 00
Assault - Knife 0 0 1 6 -5 -83 . 33
Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 0 1 22 13 9 69 . 23
Assault - Hands, Fists , Feet 1 0 7 4 3 75 . 00
Assault - Other (Simple) 22 7 137 128 9 7 . 03
Burglary - Forcible Entry 8 4 50 64 - 14 -21 . 88
Burglary - Unlawful Entry 9 7 71 48 23 47 . 92
Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 3 2 1 50 . 00
Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0
Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 2 0 2
Larceny Shoplifting 3 3 35 32 3 9 . 38
Larceny From Motor Vehicle 14 17 198 172 26 15 . 12
Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 9 11 95 105 -10 -9 . 52
Larceny Bicycles 3 2 14 26 - 12 -46 . 15
Larceny From Building 13 12 95 87 8 9 . 20
Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 1 1 10 17 -7 -41 . 18
Larceny All Other 2 9 52 87 -35 -40 . 23
Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 6 9 61 60 1 1 . 67
Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 1 10 7 3 42 . 86
Motor Vehicle Theft other 3 0 9 1 8 800 . 00
95 88 901 881
95 88 901 881
.0-18-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1
1'
CITY REPORT FOR: SEPTEMBER, 2006
Current Prev
Last Actual Actual YTD YTD
:rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change § Change
all Other Offenses 31 50 318 375 -57 -15.20
animal Abuse 0 0 0
0 0
'animal Nuisance 0 0 2 4 -2 -50.00
arson 8 0 34 8 26 325.00
kssists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0
3icycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0
Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0
Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0
Bomb Threat 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00
Bribery 0 0 0 0 0
Check Offenses 0 0 12 4 8 200.00
Child Neglect/prot custody 6 1 46 25 21 84.00
Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0
Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0
Credit Card Offenses 0 0 2 0 2
Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 2 2 0 0.00
Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00
Death Investigation 3 2 30 36 -6 -16.67
Disorderly Conduct 1 1 12 25 -13 -52.00
Driver's License Violations 0 0 3 5 -2 -40.00
Driving Under the Influence 2 6 49 55 -6 -10.91
Drug Abuse Violations 4 3 26 24 2 8.33
Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 3 0 3
Drunkeness 3 6 52 41 11 26.83
Embezzlement 0 0 4 7 -3 -42.86
Escape 0 0 0 0 0
Extortion 0 0 0 0 0
False Police Reports o 0 2 0 2
False Reports of Emergency 0 0 4 0 4
Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0
Forgery and Counterfeiting 3 1 31 34 -3 -8.82
Found Property 6 7 49 82 -33 -40.24
Fraud 1 3 20 21 -1 -4.76
Gambling 0 0 0 0 0
Harrassing Phone Calls 5 5 37 26 11 42.31
L0-18-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2
CITY REPORT FOR: SEPTEMBER, 2006
Current Prev
Last Actual Actual YTD YTD
grime Classification............ . ....... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change
Hit and Run Accidents 1 3 34 28 6 21.43
Impersonation 0 1 2 4 -2 -50.00
Incest 0 0 0 0 0
Indecent Exposure 0 3 9 6 3 50.00
Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0
Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0
Lewd Conduct 0 0 1 0 1
Liquor Laws 0 0 2 6 -4 -66.67
Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0
Marijuana Violations 2 4 15 18 - -3 -16.67
Mental Health Cases 4 5 72 57 15 26.32
Missing Person 4 3 40 37 3 8.11
Missing Property 7 12 73 72 1 1.39
Municipal Code Violations 5 4 54 56 -2 -3.57
Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 2 0 2
Offenses Against Children 2 0 6 3 3 100.00
Other Assaults 22 7 137 128 9 7.03
Other Juvenile Offenses 0 2 1 3 -2 -66.67
Other Police Service 1 4 40 55 -15 -27.27
Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0
Parole Violations 0 1 4 1 3 300.00
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 2 1 9 3 6 200.00
Prostitution and Commercial Vice 1 0 6 1 5 500.00
Prowling 0 0 4 2 2 100.00
Resisting Arrest 0 2 3 4 -1 -25.00
Restraining Orders 0 0 1 12 -11 -91.67
Runaways (under 18) 0 0 0 0 0
Sex Offenses 1 0 3 2 1 50.00
Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 1 1 0 0.00
Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0
Stalking 0 0 0 0 0
10-18-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3
CITY REPORT FOR: SEPTEMBER, 2006
Current Prev
Last Actual Actual YTD YTD
Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change % Change
Statutory Rape 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00
Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 4 0 12 4 8 200.00
Suspended License 2 0 24 22 2 9.09
Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0
Terrorist Threats 0 0 5 5 0 0.00
Towed Vehicle 25 21 270 297 -27 -9.09
Trespassing 0 0 9 7 2 28.57
Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00
US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0
Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0
Vandalism 20 19 209 186 23 12.37
Vehicle Code violations 1 1 11 24 -13 -54.17
Violation of Court Order 2 4 12 12 0 0.00
Warrants - Felony 0 2 9 11 -2 -18.18
Warrants - Misd 4 9 47 59 -12 -20.34
Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 1 2 9 9 0 0.00
Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0
----- ------- -------
184 195 1,874 1,917
I
184 195 1,874 1,917
10-18-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1
CITY REPORT
FOR: SEPTEMBER, 2006
Current Prev
Last Actual Actual
Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. .
Parking Citations 3404 3 , 026 27, 464 25, 885
Moving Citations 208 130 1, 888 1, 088
------- ------ ------- -------
3612 3 , 156 29, 352 26 , 973
3612 3 , 156 29, 352 26, 973
BURLINGAME
Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 10/18/2006 at 12 : 35: 40 PM
Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 09/01/2006 to 09/30/2006
Data Type Reported on: PARKING
Valid All Voids All
Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALVISO 355 1364 41.37 19 38.78 98.63
DOTSON 509 200 6.07 3 6.12 98.52
FEITELBERG 508 1055 32.00 15 30.61 98.60
GARRETT 501 519 15.74 9 18.37 98.30
MORAN 201 118 3.58 2 4.08 98.33
ROSCOE 503 41 1.24 1 2.04 97.62
Total 3297 49
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
September 30, 2006
Investments Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM
Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
LAIF&County Pool 16,534,028.87 16,534,028.87 16,534,028.87 54.18 1 1 4,439 4.500
Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 13,500,000.00 13,424,535.00 13,500,000.00 44.24 846 350 4.155 4.213
Federal Agency Issues-Discount 500,000.00 489,900.00 480,695.56 1,58 280 145 5.212 5.285
Investments 30,534,028.87 30,448,463.87 30,514,724.43 100.00% 379 158 4.326 4.386
Total Earnings September 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
Current Year 115,556.03 353,533.78
Average Daily Balance 31,343,836.41 32,143,446.15
Effective Rate of Return 4.49% 4.36%
Pursuant to State law,there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types,and
availa 'lity of some of these funds is restricted by law(e.g.Gas Tax,Trust&Agency funds,Capital Projects,and Enterprise funds).
SU NAV , FINANCE DIR./TREASURER
Reporting period 09/01/2006.09/30/2006
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date:10/13/2006-09:02 PM(PRF_PM1)SyrnRept 6.41.202a
Report Ver.5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 2
Portfolio Details - Investments
September 30, 2006
Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity
CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value'''' Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date
LAIF&County Pool
SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD, 10,933,547.61 10,933,547.61 10,933,547.61 5.023 5.023 1
SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 5,600,481.26 5,600,481.26 5,600,481.26 3.480 Aaa 3.480 1
Subtotal and Average 17,270,985.39 16,534,028.87 16,534,028.87 16,534,028.87 4.500 1
Federal Agency Issues-Coupon
3133X9QV5 517 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/22/2004 1,000,000.00 987,810.00 1,000,000.00 3.500 Aaa 3.500 264 06/22/2007
3133XDGM7 519 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/24/2005 1,000,000.00 995,940.00 1,000,000.00 4.450 Aaa 4.450 754 10/24/2008
3133XDNL1 520 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/17/2005 1,000,000.00 994,060.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 778 11/17/2008
3133XE2W8 521 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/28/2005 1,000,000.00 997,500.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 453 12/28/2007
3133XEUE 522 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/22/2006 2,000,000.00 1,998,120.00 2,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 82 12/22/2006
3133XFNM4 525 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/25/2006 1,000,000.00 999,690.00 1,000,000.00 5.280 Aaa 5.280 236 05/25/2007
3133XFRL2 527 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/22/2006 500,000.00 499,845.00 500,000.00 5.200 Aaa 5.200 82 12/22/2006
3133XGQM9 528 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/18/2006 1,000,000.00 999,380.00 1,000,000.00 5.400 Aaa 5.400 1,083 09/18/2009
3128X2NA9 514 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 01/30/2004 3,000,000.00 2,977,500.00 3,000,000.00 3.000 Aaa 3.000 121 01/30/2007
3136F5TJ0 515 FANNIE MAE 04/27/2004 1,000,000.00 987,810.00 1,000,000.00 3.100 Aaa 3.100 208 04/27/2007
3136F6FZ7 516 FANNIE MAE 10/18/2004 1,000,000.00 986,880.00 1,000,000.00 3.820 Aaa 3.547 382 10/18/2007
Subtotal and Average 13,166,666.67 13,500,000.00 13,424,535.00 13,500,000.00 4.213 350
Federal Agency Issues-Discount
313588CFO 526 FANNIE MAE 05/19/2006 500,000.00 489,900.00 480,695.56 4.964 Aaa 5.285 145 02/23/2007
Subtotal and Average 906,184.36 500,000.00 489,900.00 480,695.56 5.285 145
Total and Average 31,343,836.41 30,534,028.87 30,448,463.87 30,514,724.43 4.386 158
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date:10/13/2006-09:02
/// PM(PRF_PM2)SymRept 6.41,202a
)ort Ver.5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 3
Activity By Type
September 1, 2006 through September 30, 2006
Beginning Stated TransactionPurchases Redemptions Ending
CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance
LAIF&County Pool (Monthly Summary)
SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 5.023 1,300,000.00 750,000.00
SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 3.480 10,068.65 1,300,000.00
Subtotal 17,273,960.22 1,310,068.65 2,050,000.00 16,534,028.87
Federal Agency Issues-Coupon
3133XARN9 518 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 3.390 09/08/2006 0.00 1,000,000.00
3133XGQM9 528 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 5.400 09/18/2006 1,000,000.00 0.00
Subtotal 13,500,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 13,500,000.00
Federal Agency Issues-Discount
313397E23 524 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 4.900 09/01/2006 0.00 492,718.06
3135891-148 523 FANNIE MAE 4.900 09/27/2006 0.00 490,948.61
Subtotal 1,464,362.23 0.00 983,666.67 480,695.56
Total 32,238,322.45 2,310,068.65 4,033,666.67 30,514,724.43
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date:10/13/2006-09:02 PM(PRF PM3)SyrnRept 6.41.202a
Report Ver.5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 4
Activity Summary
September 2005 through September 2006
Yield to Maturity Managed Number Number
Month Number of Total 360 365 Pool of Investments of Investments Average Average
End Year Securities Invested Equivalent Equivalent Rate Purchased Redeemed Term Days to Maturity
September 2005 8 25,480,702.93 3.125 3.168 3.285 0 0 330 151
October 2005 9 26,721,256.73 3.268- 3.313 3.406 1 0 356 175
November 2005 9 26,614,225.47 3.484 3.532 3.521 1 1 344 206
December 2005 10 27,741,871.03 3.594 3.644 3.613 1 0 356 214
January 2006 10 29,203,493.47 3.692 3.743 3.767 0 0 338 192
February 2006 10 27,236,535.77 3.734 3.786 3.836 0 0 363 196
March 2006 11 28,865,253.49 3.750 3.802 3.721 1 0 361 192
April 2006 11 31,600,492.83 3.997 4.052 4.136 0 0 330 165
May 2006 15 34,904,265.49 4.169 4.227 4.293 4 0 317 155
June 2006 16 33,717,988.31 4.224 4.283 4.375 1 0 330 150
July 2006 16 32,218,943.80 4.307 4.367 4.539 0 0 346 143
August 2006 16 32,238,322.45 4.317 4.377 4.558 0 0 345 128
September 2006 14 30,514,724.43 4.326 4.386 4.500 1 3 379 158
Average 12 29,773,698.17 3.845% 3.898% 3.965 1 0 346 171
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date:10/13/2006-09:02 PM(PRF_PM4)SyrnRept 6.41.202a
Report Ver.5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Distribution of Investments By Type
September 2005 through September 2006
September October November December January February March April May June July August September Average
Security Type 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 by Period
LAIF&County Pool 64.7 62.6 66.2 64.0 65.8 63.3 58.4 62.0 58.6 55.6 53.6 53.6 54.2 60.2%
_....... __ __ _ _ ........__ .........
Certificates of Deposit-Bank
.......-- ........... ........ .......... ......... _.....-.._.. .:........... ....... ....................... _..........,.. ..,,,....
.
Certificates of Deposit-S&L
Certificates of Deposit-Thrift&Ln
_ ..... .........
Negotiable CD's-Bank
...... ..................._ ........... . . ..... ...... ., . .... ..... ................
..... ... .........
CORP NOTES
Bankers Acceptances
Commercial Paper-Interest Bearing
_ _ .... -.. ................_..................
Commercial Paper-Discount
Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 35.3 37.4 33.8 361 34.2 36.7 41.6 38.0 37.2 40.0 41.9 41.9 44.2 38.3%
.......
Federal ... _....
Agency Issues-Discount 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.5 1.6 1.5%
..................................... ... .......................................................:...............-................................ ..................... ............ ............. . ............................................... _...
Treasury Securities-Coupon
Treasury Securities-Discount
..... .... .......... ........................ ............_ _.. ................................................ ... ...
Miscellaneous Securities-Coupon
-.................. .. .............. . ........................
Miscellaneous Securities-Discount
Non Interest Bearing Investments
Mortgage Backed Securities
_._ .... _. _._. _
Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 2
Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 3
.........
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date:10/13/2006-09:02 - PM(PRF PMS)SyrnRept 6.41.202a
Report Ver.5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 6
Interest Earnings Summary
September 30,,,2006
September 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
CD/Coupon/Discount Investments:
Interest Collected 33,283.33 78,283.33
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 195,754.44 195,754.44
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 179,465.82) ( 119,852.38)
Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00)
Interest Earned during Period 49,571.95 154,185.39
Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00
Earnings during Periods 49,571.95 154,185.39
Pass Through Securities:
Interest Collected 0.00 0.00
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 0.00 0.00
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00)
Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00)
Interest Earned during Period 0.00 0.00
Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts 0.00 0.00
Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00
Earnings during Periods 0.00 0.00
Cash/Checking Accounts:
Interest Collected 0.00 200,955.49
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 452,238.68 452,238.68
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 386,254.60) ( 453,845.78)
Interest Earned during Period 65,984.08 199,348.39
Total Interest Earned during Period 115,556,03 353,533.78
Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00
Total Earnings during Period:; 115;556103'- 353,533.78
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date:10/13/2006-09:02 PM(PRF_PM6)SymRept 6.41.202a
Report Ver.5.00
PFMAsset - CAMP PROGRAM I /
Investment Portfolio Information For
CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME (116-00)
Portfolio #
12510150
Section/ Report Title
A. Account Sun-unary
B. Detail of Securities Held
C. Fair Market Values&Analytics
D. Security Transactions&Interest
E. Cash Transactions Report
F. Realized Gains&Losses
G. Cash Balance Report
For The Month Ending
September 30, 2006
CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME
CA
PFM Asset Management LLC*One Keystone Plaza*North Front&Market Streets,Suite 300*Harrisburg,PA 17101-2044*(717)232-2723
For more information,please contact your client manager: NSESA KAZADI (415)982-5544 KAZADIN@pfrn.com
PFM Asset I PROGRAM I / I
Account Summary: 12510150 CAMP-CITYOF BURLINGAME(116-00)
(Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: September 30 2006
MARKET%OF YTM AT YTM AT DURATION
SECURITY TYPEPAR VALUE AMORTIZED COST MARKET VALUE PORTFOLIO COST MARKET TO WORST
FED AGY BOND/NOTE 3,000,000.00 2,979,626.51 2,979,687.50 50.009 5.286 5.250 0.369
FED AGY DN 3,000,000.00 2,980,976.89 2,978,618.95 49.991 4.741 5.135 0.134
TOTAL SECURP US 6,000,000.00 5,960,603.40 5,958,306.45 100.000 5.013% 5.193% 0.252
TOTAL INVESTMENTS 6,000,000.00 5,960,603.40 5,958,306.45 100.000%
ACCRUED INTEREST 10,451.39 10,451.39
TOTAL PORTFOLIO $6,000,000.00 $5,971,054.79 $5,968,757.84
Disclosure Statement: PFM's monthly statement is intended to detail our investment advisory activity.The custodian bank maintains the control of assets and executes(i.e,settles)all investment transactions.The custodian
statement is the official record of security and cash holdings and transactions.Only the client has the authority to withdraw funds from or deposit funds to the custodian and to direct the movement of securities.Clients
retain responsibility for their internal accounting policies,implementing and enforcing internal controls and generating ledger entries or otherwise recording transactions.PFM recognizes that our clients may use these
reports to facilitate record keeping,therefore the custodian bank statement and the PFM statement should be reconciled and differences resolved.PFM's market prices are derived from closing bid prices as of the last
business day of the month as supplied by F.T.Interactive Data,Bloomberg or Telerate.Prices that fall between data points are interpolated. Non-negotiable FDIC insured bank certificates of deposit are priced at par.
/ A-1
I PROGRAM
Detail .13ecurities Held: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00)
(Excluding Cash)
MONTH ENDED: September 30,2006
SECURITY TYPE MATURITY S&P TRADE SETTLE ORIGINAL YTM ACCRUED AMORTIZED MARKET
CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE RATING DATE DATE COST AT COST INTEREST COST VALUE
FED AGY BOND/NOTE
31359MTXI FNMA GLOBAL NOTES(CALLABLE) 1,000,000 2.625 01/19/07 AAA 08/30/06 08/31/06 989,574.00 5.346 5,250.00 991,899.22 992,187.50
3134A4UN2 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 2.375 02/15/07 AAA 09/27/06 09/28/06 989,068.00 5.290 3,034.72 989,307.39 989,375.00
3134A4NW0 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 4.875 03/15/07 AAA 09/27/06 09/28/06 998,391.00 5.221 2,166.67 998,419.90 998,125.00
2,977,033.00 1 7. 0
FED AGY DN 3,000,000
313589M26 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 10/27/06 A-1+ 11/17/05 11/18/05 958,077.78 4,593 0.00 996,822.22 996,171.88
313397P47 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 11/14/06 A-I+ 12/21/05 12/21/05 959,246.00 4,663 0.00 994,533.00 993,628.62
313589T60 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 12/18/06 A-1+ 03/22/06 03/22/06 963,941.94 4.969 0.00 989,621.67 988,818.45
3,000,000 2,881,265.72 4,741 0.00 2,980,976.89 2,978,618.95
TOTAL SECURITIES $6,000,000 $5,858,298.72 5.013% $10,451.39 $5,960,603.40 $5,958,306.45
Issuers by Market Value Ratings by Market Value
FHLMC $2,981,129 50.0% 50.0%
FNMA $2,977,178 50.0% (3 $2,978,819 AAA $2,979,888 50.0%
Total; $5,958,308100.0% Total: $5,958,306100.0%
i
B-1
PFM Asset Management LLC- CAMP PROGRAM
Fair Market Values & Analytics: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00)
(Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: September 30,2006
SECURITY TYPE MATURITY FIRST CALL MARKET MARKET UNREAL G/(L) UNREAL G/(L) DURATION YTM
CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE DATE PRICE VALUE ON AMORT COST ON COST TO WORST AT MKT
FED AGY BONDINOTE
31359MTX1 FNMA GLOBAL NOTES(CALLABLE) 1,000,000 2.625 01/19/07 01/19/05 99.219 992,187.50 288.28 2,613.50 0.295 5.219
3134A4UN2 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 2.375 02/15/07 98.938 989,375.00 67.61 307.00 0.365 5.249
3134A4NW0 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 4.875 03/15/07 99.813 998,125.00 (294,90) (266.00) 0.447 5.283
FED AGY DN
313589M26 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 10/27/06 99.617 996,171.88 (650.34) 38,094.10 0.072 5.124
313397P47 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 11/14/06 99.363 993,628.62 (904.38) 34,382.62 0.120 5.130
313589T60 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 12/18/06 98.882 988,818.45 (803.22) 24,876.51 0.211 5.153
SUBTOTALS $5,958,306.45 ($2,296.95) $100,007.73 0.252 5.193 %
ACCRUED INTEREST ON INVESTMENT 10,451.39
TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF INVESTMENTS $5,968,757.84
C-1
PROGRAM
Security "transactions & Interest: 12510150 CAMP-Cly r OFBURLINGAME(116-00)
(Excluding Cash) '
MONTH ENDED: September 30,2006
S&P MATURITY PRINCIPAL ACCRUED
TRADE SETTLE TRAN TYPE SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP RATING PAR COUPON DATE AMOUNT INTEREST TOTAL
09/27/06 09/28/06 BUY FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 3134A4NW0 AAA 1,000,000 4.875 03/15/07 (998,391.00) (1,760.42) (1,000,151.42)
09/27/06 09/28/06 BUY FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 3134A4UN2 AAA 1,000,000 2.375 02/15/07 (989,068.00) (2,836.81) (991,904.81)
2,000,000 (1,987,459.00) (4,597,23) (1,992,056.23)
09/19/06 09/19/06 MATURITY FHLMC DISC NOTE 313397G47 A-1+ 1,560,000 0.000 09/19/06 1,560,000.00 0.00 1,560,000.00
1,560,000 1,560,000.00 0.00 1,560,000.00
TOTAL SECURITY TRANSACTIONS (432,056.23)
i
D-1
PFM Asset Management LL C- i i . i
AM
Cash Transactions Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00)
MONTH ENDED: September 30,2006
CASH DATE TRANSACTION CODE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT
09/28/06 CC CONTRIB 1,992,056.23
1,992,056.23
09/19/06 CW WITHDRAW
(1,560,000.00)
(1,560,000.00)
NET CASH CONTRIBUTIONS/(WITHDRAWS) $432,056.23
E1
C
PFMAssetManqgemj0LLC- CAMP PROGRAM
Realiz.... Gains and Losses: 12510150 CAMP-CITYOFBURLINGAME(116-00)
(Excluding Cash)
MONTH ENDED: September 30,2006
TRADE SETTLE PRINCIPAL REALIZED REALIZED
DATE DATE TRAN TYPE SALE METHOD SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP PAR VALUE COUPON PROCEEDS G/(L)COST G/(L)AMORT CST
09/19/06 09/19/06 MATURITY FHLMC DISC NOTE 313397G47 1,560,000 0.000 1,560,000.00 61,491.73 0.00
TOTAL GAINS AND LOSSES $61,491.73 $0.00
F-I
PFMAsset
Mitinagentent LLC
CAMP
PROGRAM I , I I
Cash Balance Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00)
MONTH ENDED: September 30,2006
CASH BALANCE: $0.00
Earnings Calculation Templates
Current Month-End Book Value + Add Coupon Interest Received +
Current Month-End Accrued Interest + Less Purchased Interest Related to Coupons
Less Purchases Add/Subtract Gains or Losses on Cost For The Mth +/_
Less Purchased Interest
Total Cost Basis Earnings For The Month
Add Disposals(Sales,Maturities,Paydowns,Sinks,etc.) +
Add Coupon Interest Received +
Less Previous Month-End Book Value
Less Previous Month-End Accrued Interest
Total Accrual Basis Earnings For The Month
Economic Calendar
10/06/06 Change in Nonfarm Payrolls 10/18/06 Housing Starts
10/06/06 Unemployment Rate 10/18/06 Building Permits
10/11/06 FOMC Minutes 10/25/06 Existing Home Sales
10/12/06 Beige Book 10/25/06 FOMC Meeting
10/13/06 Retail Sales 10/26/06 Durable Goods Orders
10/17/06 Producer Price Index 10/26/06 New Home Sales
10/18/06 Consumer Price Index 10/26/06 Third Quarter GDP
Market Commentary
The Fed remained on hold at their September meeting leaving the Fed Funds rate at 5.25%. The markets expected the Fed to leave rates unchanged and the reaction to the decision was limited. Both the equity
and bond markets did react to weaker than expected economic data though. Disappointing economic data and contained inflation expectations have convinced the market that the Fed doesn't need to increase
rates further and may need to lower rates in the future. Housing data took center stage in September. Both new homes sales and housing starts were lower than expected signaling the potential for further slowing
in the residential real estate market. The prices of most commodities declined in September with crude oil and gold leading the way. Crude oil traded below$65 a barrel for the first time since February 2006 and
gold is trading$150 below its peak seen in May 2006. Meanwhile the equity and bond markets performed well. The Dow Jones Industrial Average reached its all time high for a period in September. Treasury
yields continued to decline pushing their prices higher as bond investors bought bonds of all maturities on expectations of future rate cuts. Although the markets are expecting a rate cut the Fed hasn'6ignaled its
intention to do so yet,
G-1
City of Burlingame
OCTOBER PERMIT ACTIVITY
Permit activity was strong in October due to a significant increase in both residential and commercial alterations. Residential alterations were up 60% and commercial
alterations were up 160%. Kitchen and bathroom upgrades were down substantially from the same month last year.
There were no requests for pre-application meetings during the month of October.
THIS MONTH
THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2007 F. Y.2006 DIFF
'ermit Type # # % # # %
CATER HEATER 1 950 4 3,358
-72 12 14,020 21 9,408 49
3WIMMING POOL 1 79,000 1 40,000 98 2 86,500 5 103,800 -17
SIGN 3 3,500 2 15,000 -77 21 78,395 13 44,437 76
ROOFING 19 270,389 36 459,390 -41 116 1,736,079 114 1,413,686 23
RETAINING WALL 1 100,000 2 28,717 248 2 262,020 3 148,717 76
PLUMBING 20 54,040 22 77,282 -30 73 193,805 69 139,519 39
NEW SFD 1 400,000 2 742,000 -46 8 3,534,000 9 3,169,000 12
NEW COMMERCIAL
NEW 5 UNIT APT OR CO 1 85,000
NEW 3 OR 4 UNIT APT
MECHANICAL 5 20,405 5 28,985 -30 15 211,915 20 55,585 281
KITCHEN UPGRADE 1 15,000 3 108,000 -86 12 443,100 12 370,000 20
FURNACE 1 3,907 5 15,045 -74 2 14,754 11 19,285 -23
ELECTRICAL SERVICE 2 3,400 2 5,600 -39 10 22,150 3 8,200 170
City of Burlingame
OCTOBER PERMIT ACTIVITY
THIS MONTH
THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F.Y. 2007 F.Y.2006 DIFF
Permit Type # # % # #
ELECTRICAL 4 44,200 5 16,200 173 18 91,675 33 96,617 -5
BATHROOM UPGRADE 4 41,500 6 79,000 -47 18 278,500 14 283,600 -2
ALTERATION RESIDENTI 41 2,201,877 28 1,374,578 60 138 6,512,580 187 7,158,572 -9
ALTERATION NON RES 8 468,000 1 180,000 160 29 5,985,000 29 3,282,376 82
Totals: 112 3,706,168 124 3,173,155 17 476 19,464,493 544 16,387,802 19
TO: Burlingame City Council
FROM: Terry Nagel
DATE: November 6, 2006
RE: Emergency Preparedness ideas
On September 16, Russ Cohen and I discussed several ideas that would help residents be
better prepared for emergencies:
• Inviting them to free classes and training offered by the American Red Cross and
the county (first aid, CPR, CERT)
• Inviting residents to presentations by the Police Department and Fire Department
(now offered, but not publicized)
• Doing a program on Comcast about emergency preparedness
• Sharing San Mateo's radio frequency to offer local programming on events and to
also make it available for emergency communication
• Making residents aware of crimes in their neighborhoods
• Creating a volunteer posse to patrol the city and communicate via radio
• Encouraging neighborhoods to work together to be prepared for emergencies
Taking this last idea to heart, on Poppy Drive we are creating a Neighborhood Network
as a pilot project. At our first meeting, there was a lot of interest due to a recent robbery
on our street. We discussed:
• The importance of calling 911 if you notice a stranger who appears suspicious
• The benefits of sharing information quickly about crimes in the area — for
example, breaking into cars to steal the garage door opener to gain access to a
house
• Other safety and security ideas outlined in free Police Department handouts that
we distributed
• Changing habits by consensus: trying not to move our cars on our regular street
sweeping days so that oils and toxins from leaking cars are picked up and aren't
carried into the bay.
• The value of getting to know one another better. One example: Four families
created "Camp Poppy" last summer and took turns watching each other's children
for a day. The children now carpool and walk to school together.
We plan to:
• Publish a neighborhood directory that lists names, addresses, phones and any
other info we wish to share. So far 22 families have submitted information.
• Send out occasional Poppy Drive newsletters via email, with hard copies
delivered by volunteers to those who do not use email
• Inventory supplies and expertise we could make available during an emergency
• Create a list of neighbors and pets that might need help during a disaster and
designating block leaders who would perform certain roles, such as helping
people safely turn off their gas
• Hold annual block parties and other gatherings to get to know one another
We are interested in learning more about:
• Neighborhood Watch
• Citizens Emergency Response Team (CERT) training
• A free city workshop on disaster preparedness
• Community events and developments—Many signed up for the city's listsery
Tonight, I would appreciate hearing from other council members regarding what
direction, if any, you believe we should go in order to better prepare citizens for
emergencies.
Poppy Drive Neighborhood Network
Please fill in the information below so that our neighborhood can communicate and work
together to assist one another during emergencies. At the end of this form are options for
receiving other notifications. NOTE: This information will only be known to your Neighborhood
Network team leaders and city safety workers; it will not be shared with others in the group
unless you give permission in the last section below.
Last Name: First Name:
Address:
Names of others at this residence (and ages of children):
Pets at this residence:
Home phone: Work phone:
Cell phone:
Email (primary contact method unless you say otherwise):
If I am injured, please contact the following individuals (list name and best contact info):
Do you have any skills that would be helpful during an emergency, such as medical training,
CPR/First Aid training, CERT training, ability to speak other languages, crisis counseling
training, Web design expertise, child care training?
(over)
Do you have equipment you would be willing to share during an emergency, such as first aid
supplies, other medical supplies, bedding/blankets, tent/cots, lanterns/lighting, generator,
portable TV/computer, hand tools,power tools?
Please check appropriate boxes if you would like these options:
❑ I would like to learn more about Neighborhood Watch.
❑ I would like to sign up for First Aid and/or CPR training.
❑ I would like to attend a seminar with police and fire representatives to learn how
Burlingame residents can prepare for emergencies.
❑ I would like to learn more about Citizens Emergency Response Team (CERT) training so
that I can assist during emergencies.
❑ I would be willing to distribute flyers to neighbors.
❑ I would like to sign up for the city's free e-newsletter to receive occasional messages
about city news.
❑ I would like to sign up for Vice Mayor Terry Nagel's free e-newsletter to receive
occasional messages about city news and issues.
Please CIRCLE all the information that you would like included in a Poppy Drive
directory that would be circulated only to neighbors:
Your name Names of others at your home Pets Email address
Phone numbers (which ones?)
Feel free to add a short description of your family, such as:
The Kennedys moved to Burlingame in 2002. Tom is a software engineer at Oracle. Mary
teaches third grade at Tower School in Belmont. Their daughter, Suzanne, began kindergarten at
Franklin School this fall and plays AYSO soccer.
Please return this form to:
Terry Nagel
2337 Poppy Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
Home: (650) 347-3576
Email: TerryDNagel@aol.com
Dear Poppy Drive Neighbor:
In late September, our neighborhood gathered to discuss a recent burglary on our street
(and a similar one on Vancouver) and how we might work together to protect our
neighborhood. We enjoyed getting together and came up with some ideas for getting
better acquainted and keeping communication lines open, namely:
1. Publish a neighborhood directory that lists our names, addresses, phones and any
other info we wish to share.
2. Send out an occasional Poppy drive newsletter that would be distributed via email
or, if you prefer, on paper to keep everyone informed. Betsy Watson offered to
create this newsletter, as well as send it out to an email list. Katie O'Brien, Bret
Johnson and Jane Trainor volunteered to hand out hard copies.
3. Take an inventory of supplies and expertise we could make available during an
emergency. For example, the Byrds and Janet Jones have generators; Shar
Beckheyer-Arnold has supplies under her outside stairs; several people have
medical training.
4. Create a list of neighbors and pets that might need help during a disaster and
designating block leaders who would perform certain roles, such as making
rounds to help people shut off their gas, if necessary.
5. Hold annual block parties. We hope to have one on the lower block of Poppy
sometime next spring or summer.
Several people brought up suggestions for helping our neighborhood function better:
1. Don't be afraid to call the Burlingame Police at 911 if you notice a stranger
snooping around who appears suspicious. We are also looking into setting up a
Neighborhood Watch program
2. Our street will be much cleaner if we all make an effort to move our cars during
our regular street sweeping time, Wednesday morning. If oil and other toxins
leaking from cars aren't picked up, they are carried into the bay when it rains.
3. Anyone can sign up for Citizens Emergency Response Team (CERT) training,
which is available at no charge from the county. (Details to be announced.)
4. Attend a free city workshop on disaster preparedness. (Details to come.)
5. Sign up for Burlingame's free city listserv, which sends out occasional emails
about city events and developments. To do so, email City Clerk Doris Mortensen
at dmortensengburlin ame.org.
(over)
If you haven't already done so, please fill out the enclosed form and return it to me at the
address shown below.
In addition, please note that you are invited to "Coffee and Conversation" at our house on
Sunday, October 29, from 3 to 4:30 p.m. We'll pool our knowledge so that we can all
vote more intelligently. I will have more copies of the handouts that were available at the
first meeting on how to prepare for an emergency and what to do when one occurs.
I also want to invite you to sign up for my own city newsletter, which I sent out about
once a month to keep people informed about city news and issues. To sign up,just send
an email to terrygterrynaeg l.com.
Hope to see you on October 29!
Terry Nagel
2337 Poppy Drive
Home: (650) 347-3576
terrygterryna eg l.com