The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2005.11.07 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURLINGAME Regular Meeting- Monday, November 7,2005 CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Page 1 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 CLOSED SESSION: 6:00 p.m., Conference Rm A a. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Bob Bell Labor Organizations: Department Heads and Unrepresented Employees STUDY SESSION 6:15 p.m., Conference Rm A a. Retrofit audiovisual equipment in the Chambers Discuss/Direct 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of October 17, 2005 Approve 5. PRESENTATION a. Council recognition of Bobbi Benson for her efforts to Presentation beautify Burlingame's landscaped areas b. Library Award Presentation C. Central County Fire Department poster contest awards Presentation 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. Adopt an Ordinance to change parking time limits on Hearing/Action Howard Avenue b. Adopt an Ordinance making an editorial correction to Hearing/Action Municipal Code Section 23.01.050 regarding pool barriers C. Introduce an Ordinance affirming floor area ratio Introduce/Hearing computations for commercial development 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 which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. 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 Adopt Board of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District and declaring intention to establish assessments for the 2006 year for the District BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURLINGAME Regular Meeting- Monday, November 7,2005 CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Page 2 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 J650) 558-7200 b. (i) Adopt Resolution of Intention to consider addition of Adopt/Introduce the City of East Palo Alto to the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District and (ii) Introduce Ordinance amending District to add the City of East Palo Alto within the boundaries of District C. Consider Ordinance to modify number of members on the Introduce Beautification Commission 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Appointment of members of Advisory Board for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District b. Resolution approving fire surplus equipment donation to San Mateo Community College District C. Resolution accepting the 2005 sidewalk maintenance program to SpenCon Construction d. Resolution awarding contract to California Power Partners for co-generation power system at the Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility e. Recommendation to cancel the regular Council Meeting scheduled for December 19, 2005 f. Adoption of Resolution correcting the employer's contribution under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act for AFSCME, Locals 2190 and 829, BAMM, Department Head/Unrepresented, Police Administrators, IAFF, Teamsters and Fire Administrators g. Resolution approving minor revisions in the Second Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force h. Resolution approving salary increase for the City Manager and City Attorney and participation in Central Fire Department Merit Pay Plan i. Appointment of Rick Lyons to the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District(BID) Advisory Board j. Resolution accepting playground rehabilitation by Scapes, Inc. at Pershing Park k. Specify official functions for which reimbursement of costs of attendance is authorized 1. Termination of Criminal Justice Council BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City Of Burlingame BURLINGAME ' Regular Meeting- Monday, November 7,2005 CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD RPage 3 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 In. Request to attend out-of-state conference by three Library employees 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, October 24, 2005 b. Department Reports: Finance, September, 2005 14. 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.burlinsame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—Monday,November 21,2005 CITY G BURLJNGAME m Naee uNe 6. BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of October 17, 2005 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 Joe Galligan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Eric Mendell. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Galligan, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 3, 2005 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. HEARING ON AND CONFIRMATION OF REPORT OF REPAIRS AND COSTS FOR THE 2005 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and confirm the Report of Repairs and Costs for the 2005 Sidewalk Maintenance Program. DPW Bagdon requested a correction to the original report for 1011 Cabrillo Avenue. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke: Mike Mullery, 766 Walnut Avenue; Lori Zimmerman, 1614 Forest View Avenue and Lana Griffin, 1015 Cabrillo Avenue. A letter was submitted from Larry and Grace Guthrie, 1011 Cabrillo Avenue. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to approve the corrected Report of Repairs and Costs for 2005 Sidewalk Maintenance Program; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. 1 Burlingame City Council October 17,2005 Unapproved Minutes b. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 1769 TO AMEND THE TROUSDALE WEST (TW) ZONING REGULATIONS FOR CONVALESCENT FACILITIES AND GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES FOR THE ELDERLY AND TO REVISE THE BOUNDARY OF THE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ALONG MARCO POLO WAY CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 1769 amending the TW Zoning regulations for convalescent facilities and group residential facilities for the elderly and to revise the boundary of the residential overlay along Marco Polo Way. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Dr. Pertsch, 1875 Trousdale Drive, requested including "Surgical Hospitals" under Section 2 (b) as a health service. CP Monroe advised that this request would be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1769 amending Chapter 25.40 to make group residential facilities for the elderly a conditional use in the Trousdale West (TW) District and modifying the Marco Polo Way Overlay Restrictions to delete the parcel on the southeast corner of Trousdale Drive; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote 4-0. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. C. PUBLIC HEARINGAND ACTION TO AMEND AND REVISE THE CURRENT ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS TO CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDINANCE NO. 1770 AMENDING CHAPTER 9.04 TO COINCIDE WITH THE NEWLY AMENDED CHANGES IN THE SAN MATEO COUNTY ANIMAL ORDINANCE COP Van Etten reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 1770 amending and revising current animal control regulations in Burlingame to coincide with the newly amended changes in the San Mateo County Animal Ordinance. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1770 amending Chapter 9.04 to revise Animal Control Regulations to provide a more complete review, assessment and hearing process for dangerous and vicious dogs; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote 4-0. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mel Feldman, 1745 Sequoia Avenue, spoke on Comcast's offering of a senior subscriber discount. This item was referred to the Finance Director. There were no further comments from the floor. 2 Burlingame City Council October 17,2005 Unapproved Minutes 7. STAFF REPORTS a. APPROVAL OF PARKING STUDY RELATED ACTIONS INCLUDING (i) INTRODUCING AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE PARKING TIME LIMITS ON HOWARD AVENUE AND (ii) RESOLUTION NO. 69-2005 TO CHANGE PARKING TIME LIMITS AND RATES IN LOTS B1, F, G, N AND V DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council approve the Burlingame Downtown Parking Study short-term and long-term actions, introduce an ordinance to change parking time limits on Howard Avenue and approve Resolution No. 69-2005 to change parking time limits and rates in Lots B1, F, G, N and V. Traffic Engineer Chou made a presentation on the recommended short-term and long-term actions. Vice Mayor Baylock advocated creating short-term parking spaces in Lot G as suggested in a joint letter from UMC Nursery School, CALL Primrose and Peninsula Girls Chorus. DPW Bagdon advised that this request would be referred to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for consideration. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Leslie Ragsdale, 1509 Los Montes Drive, requested short-term parking in the area near CALL Primrose and UMC Nursery School. Eric Mendell, 235 Park Road, complimented enforcement staff and made various parking meter/enforcement suggestions. Joe Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue, complimented Public Works staff for the parking plan. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance fixing parking meter times and rates on Howard Avenue between El Camino Real and Highland Avenue. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to approve Resolution No. 69-2005 changing parking time limits and rates in Lots Bl, F, G,N and V; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. b. CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to appoint Laura Hesselgren and Michael Shanus to the Parks & Recreation Commission; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. C. INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE MAKING AN EDITORIAL CORRECTION TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 23.01.050 REGARDING POOL BARRIERS DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance making an editorial correction to Municipal Code Section 23.01.050 regarding pool barriers. 3 Burlingame City Council October 17,2005 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Municipal Code Section to correct possible safety issue on swimming pool barriers. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION NO. 70-2005 AWARDING MILLS TANK SEISMIC RETROFIT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 70-2005 awarding Mills Tank Seismic Retrofit construction contract to Anderson Pacific Engineering. b. RESOLUTION NO. 71-2005 APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KENNEDY JENKS CONSULTANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OF THE MILLS TANK SEISMIC RETROFIT PROJECT DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 71-2005 approving a professional services agreement with Kennedy Jenks Consultants for construction management of the Mills Tank Seismic Retrofit Proj ect. C. RESOLUTION NO. 72-2005 AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR BURLINGHOME EASTON WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT, PHASE III DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 72-2005 awarding construction contract to JMB Construction, Inc. for Burlinghome Easton Water Main Replacement, Phase III. d. RESOLUTION NO. 73-2005 APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH YEV PHILIPOVITCH, P.E. FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OF THE BURLINGHOME EASTON WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT, PHASE III DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 73-2005 approving a professional services agreement with Yev Philipovitch, P.E. for construction management of the Burlinghome Easton Water Main Replacement, Phase III. e. RESOLUTION NO. 74-2005 ACCEPTING BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE TWO BY WARCY AND HARTY CONSTRUCTION DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 74-2005 accepting Burlingame Park Subdivision Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase Two by D'Arcy and Harty Construction. 4 Burlingame City Council October 17,2005 Unapproved Minutes L RESOLUTION NO. 75-2005 ACCEPTING STREET SCRUB SEAL AND MICROSURFACING PROGRAM 2004 BY WESTERN STATES SURFACING DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 75-2005 accepting Street Scrub Seal and Microsurfacing Program 2004 by Western States Surfacing. g. APPOINTMENT OF ELIZABETH MOORE TO THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) ADVISORY BOARD CA Anderson requested Council appoint Elizabeth Moore to the Burlingame Avenue Area BID Advisory Board to serve an unexpired term to January 2007. h. APPROVE OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR FinDir Nava requested Council approve the Finance Director's out-of-state travel to East Elmhurst,New York, to attend the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council's Fall Meeting for November 2 through 4, 2005. i. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested Council approve payment of Warrants #14022-14551 duly audited, in the amount of $2,276,801.18 and Payroll checks #163515-163755 in the amount of$2,626,746.18 for the month of September 2005. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 10. OLD BUSINESS Councilwoman O'Mahony thanked Public Works staff for their quick response to a complaint on Oak Grove Avenue. Councilwoman Nagel requested a list serve mailing of information on the County's Emergency Preparedness Fair to be held on November 12, 2005. 11. NEW BUSINESS Councilwoman O'Mahony stated that C/CAG would be discussing the Ramp Metering Study at their next meeting. DPW Bagdon advised that Burlingame would be represented to ensure none of the local streets would be degraded. 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Parks & Recreation, September 15, 2005; Planning, October 11, 2005 5 Burlingame City Council October 17, 2005 Unapproved Minutes b. Department Reports: Building, September 2005 c. Letter from Burlingame Historical Society acknowledging the City's contribution d. Chinese Ministry of Finance and his delegation to visit Burlingame City Hall and meet with City's Finance Director on October 20, 2005 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. in memory of John McKimmie, father of Shauna McKimmie. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 6 Burlingame City Council October 17,2005 Unapproved Minutes eu1L1.NGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5a ITEM# MTG. 11 /07/05 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suBMI�'TED BY 1 1 DATE: September 26, 2005 APPRO FROM: Parks& Recreation Director (558-7307) BY ' SUBJECT: COUNCIL RECOGNITION OF BOBBI BENSON OR HER EFFORTS TO BEAUTIFY BURLINGAME'S LANDSCAPED AREAS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council recognize Bobbi Benson for her efforts to beautify Burlingame's landscaped areas. BACKGROUND: Bobbi Benson is a Master Gardener and has assisted many agencies both locally and nationally through her love for horticultural areas. In Burlingame,Bobbi has volunteered for many projects that beautify landscaped areas under the direction of the City, the Burlingame Avenue Merchants Association and Caltrans. Some of the volunteer projects Bobbi has performed for the City include: 1. Pruned the roses in J Lot 2. Trimmed perennials in the Broadway streetscape 3. Deadheaded agapantha beds in Washington Park 4. Routinely picks up trash and weeds public areas in Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Avenue Business districts 5. Coordinates plant selections for the Burlingame Avenue Adopt a Planter group This recognition is supported by the Burlingame Beautification Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY For Immediate Release Library Wins 4 National Awards The Burlingame Public Library was the recipient of 4 national awards for public relations from the American Library Association this month. The awards are given in categories of print public relations materials. The awards are sponsored by the Library and Administration and Management division. The first winner was the "Library Brochure" a multi-part brochure which can be used in whole or part. The vivid rust and yellow colors highlight a professional black and white photograph of the library's interior atrium • taken by noted architectural photographer Steve Whittaker. The second winner was for a Children's program offered last year with a Persian theme. The special family story time told an Old Persian tale with a modern twist. The large poster illustrated drawings from the stories. The third and fourth winners were items which were produced by and for the Burlingame Library Foundation, the fundraising arm of the library. The Foundation winners included the 2004 "Library Lines" the Library Foundation's annual newsletter. The newsletter features articles about the library and its activities, as well as a list of all the donors for the past year. It is mailed out to donors and friends in the community alike and is in itself a means of fundraising for the Foundation. 480 Primrose Road•Burlingame•CA 94010-4o83 Phone (650) 558-7474'Fax(650) 342-6295 The final item to win was "Support Your Library" a simple, colorful brochure highlighting ways in which community members can give to the library via: memorials, cash donations, stock, real property. LAMA, a branch of the American Library Association promotes outstanding leadership and management practices and identifies, encourages and nurtures tomorrow's leaders and managers. I praise the efforts of graphic artist Maryam Refahi for her efforts on behalf of the library. I would also like to congratulate the entire library marketing team including: Pat Harding, Tracy Hammond, Linda Santo, and Mary Beth James-Thibodaux. This occasion marks the 15th state and national awards for PR that the library has received in the past 5 years! Truly a great accomplishment! Al Escoffier City Librarian November 7, 2005 Agenda Item # 6a 00�� Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: Novem r7 2005 t" SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2005 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE PARKING TIME LIMITS ON HOWARD AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council hold a public hearing to: A. Adopt the proposed ordinance. B. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND: On October 17, 2005, Council introduced an ordinance to change the parking time limit on Howard Avenue, between Primrose Road and Highland Avenue to 4-hour metered parking, from the current 2-hour metered parking at $0.75 per hour. This action was based on study results from the June 9, 2005 Parking Study, as well as from public input at two Traffic Safety Parking Commission meetings, and one Council Study session held between April and June of 2005. The purpose of the change is to provide longer term parking at the underutilized parking meters on Howard Avenue. BUDGET IMPACT: The existing electronic meters are capable of being reprogrammed without additional capital expenditures. EXHIBITS: Ordinance Au,glistine Chou Traffic Engineer c: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Adopt Parking Ordinance On Howard Ave.doc I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FIXING PARKING METER TIMES AND RATES ON 3 HOWARD AVENUE BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL AND HIGHLAND AVENUE 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. The City Council has established parking zones with parking meters in certain 7 areas of the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Business Districts in order to encourage turnover 8 of parking spaces while ensuring convenient access to visitors and customers of the Districts. This 9 ordinance is intended to revise the metering program to encourage employees to park in City 10 parking lots, to place a higher value on more convenient parking, and to better meet the parking 11 needs within the District. It is also intended to clarify and affirm parking meter and time zones. 12 13 Section 2. Subsection 13.36.040(x)(15) is amended to read as follows: 14 (15) Howard Avenue, south side, from Crescent Avenue to El Camino Real and from 15 California Drive to the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way; 16 17 Section 3. Section 13.36.042 is amended to read as follows: 18 13.36.042 Four-hour parking. 19 It is unlawful for the driver of any vehicle to stop, stand or park such vehicle for a period 20 of more than four hours between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. of any day, Sundays and 21 holidays excepted, upon any part of the following streets or portions of streets: 22 (a) Adrian Court, both sides; 23 (b) Adrian Road, on the west side of the 1600 and 1700 blocks; 24 (c) California Drive, west side, between Trousdale Drive and Murchison Drive; and 25 (d) Gilbreth Road, both sides, between Cowan Road and Mahler Road; and 26 (e) Howard Avenue, from Primrose Road to Highland Avenue. 27 28 Section 4. The following parking meter rate is hereby established in the City: 1/17/2005 1 I 4-hour Parkin Limit imit 2 On the following street: Howard Avenue from El Camino Real to Highland Avenue 3 75 cents for each hour 4 5 Section 5. All other parking meter rates established in Ordinance No. 1719 shall remain 6 the same. 7 8 Section 6. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 9 10 Mayor 11 12 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 13 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17`h day of October, 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 14 day of , 2005, by the following vote: 15 16 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 17 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 18 19 City Clerk 20 21 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\parkingmeters-2005.pwd.wpd 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1/17/2005 2 Agenda ® Item # 6b Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: November 72005 Al� SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2005 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: ADOPT AN ORDINANCE MAKING AN EDITORIAL CORRECTION TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 23.01 .050 REGARDING POOL BARRIERS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council hold a public hearing to: A. Adopt the proposed ordinance. B. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND: Municipal Code Section 23.01 .050 regarding pool barriers conflicts with the 2001 California Building Code. The Municipal Code requires builders to limit openings in pool barriers to sixteen square inches which means that horizontal members have to be installed at 4" on center. This creates a ladder that children could use to climb over the protective fencing at swimming pools and in effect creates an attractive nuisance. As a result, staff recommends the attached ordinance which incorporates the Building Code language allowing pool barriers to be comprised of vertical members spaced "such that the passage of a 4" diameter sphere is not allowed." BUDGET IMPACT: None EXHIBITS: Ordinance Joe r Chief Building ficial c: City Clerk, Public Works Superintendent S:W Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Municipal Code 23.01.050.2doc.doc I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION TO CORRECT POSSIBLE SAFETY 3 ISSUE ON SWIMMING POOL BARRIERS 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1. The City has adopted strict standards for barriers around swimming pools 8 to enhance public safety. One ofthe requirements regarding maximum opening size,however,may 9 lead to creation of a possible safety issue. Therefore,this ordinance places the barrier requirement 10 spacing under the California Building Code and eliminates the maximum square size of opening. 11 12 Section 2. Subsection 23.01.050 is amended to read as follows: 13 (a)A fence entirely enclosing the pool,hot tub or spa or yard containing it shall be erected 14 and maintained. Such fence shall not be less than four feet six inches, nor more than six feet in 15 height. All gates must be self-closing and self-latching, and the latch or lock shall be located at 16 least four feet six inches above the surface of the underlying ground or floor. A space at least four 17 feet in width shall be provided between the line of the fence and the edge of the unit. Fencing is 18 to be constructed and approved before filling the unit. 19 20 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 21 22 Mayor 23 24 I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 25 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17`h day 26 of October, 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 27 day of , 2005, by the following vote: 28 1 1 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 City Clerk 5 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\poolcorrection.bld.wpd 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CITY AGENDA 6c ITEM# BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. oq DATE 11/7/2005 $AnTco+uuE bubo TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: October 31, 2005 APPROVED BY &yr FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AFFIRMING FLOOR AREA RATIO COMPUTATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION: Introduce ordinance restoring computation language for commercial floor area ratio (FAR) in Section 25.08.265 as follows: (a) Request the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance; (b) Waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; (c) Introduce the proposed ordinance and request the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least 5 days before the proposed adoption. DISCUSSION: In the comprehensive update to the Zoning Code in Ordinance No. 1586, Section 25.08.265 was amended to set out the computations used in arriving at the floor area ratio for commercial development as well as residential development. However, when Ordinance No. 1649 was adopted to amplify the calculations for residential development FAR, subsection (c) regarding commercial development was inadvertently omitted. The proposed ordinance would restore subsection(c) largely as it read in Ordinance No. 1586 and as FAR has been calculated since that time. The two changes are 1)to amend the format and language regarding the calculation of the FAR for commercial buildings that have clear space between floors, such as parking structures and large lobbies, but without a change in substance; and 2) point out that in commercial districts, there are often two FAR issues—a maximum FAR for a use and a maximum FAR for a lot. Attachment Proposed Ordinance Distribution City Planner I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 25.08.265 TO AFFIRM FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) 3 CALCULATION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1. Ordinance No. 1586 adopted calculation standards for determining the floor 8 area ratio for commercial development. However, when the section was revised for residential 9 development in Ordinance No. 1649,the commercial development subsection was omitted. This 10 ordinance affirms the previous standards and does not constitute a change in existing procedures 11 and standards as applied by the Planning Department. 12 13 Section 2. Subsection 25.08.265(c) is returned as follows: 14 (c) Commercial development. 15 (1) In calculating FAR for commercial development the measurement shall apply to the 16 gross floor area of the building above the average elevation of the curb opposite the front wall and 17 does not include basements or cellars. 18 (A)For parking structures and buildings having enclosed space without floors,each twelve 19 feet in height shall be considered as a story. In addition,each fraction of twelve feet in height shall 20 be calculated as a fraction of a story. The calculated gross floor area of parking structures, 21 auditoriums and other buildings with large enclosed spaces shall be determined by multiplying the 22 covered lot area by the equivalent number of stories plus any fraction thereof. 23 (B) The floor area for the parking structure or building having enclosed space without 24 floors will then be added to the floor area of the other building space on-site and dividing by the 25 total lot area of the project. 26 (2) Exempted from floor area ratio computation for commercial development are: 27 (A) Chimneys, cupolas, flag poles; 28 (B) Water tanks, elevator penthouses or other mechanical appurtenances; and 1 I (C) Fire or hose towers. 2 (3) In some of the commercial districts in the city, a separate maximum floor area ratio is 3 established for a particular use on a lot as well as a maximum overall floor area ratio for a lot. 4 5 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 6 7 Mayor 8 9 I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 10 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 11 of ,2005,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 12 day of , 200_, by the following vote: 13 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 14 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 15 16 City Clerk 17 C:\FILES\ORDrNANC\commercialfar.pin.wpd 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CITY AGENDA 8S ITEM# BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. q DATE 11/7/2005 wE6 v TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMI BY DATE: October 31, 2005 APPROVE BY— FROM: Y 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 2006 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 2006 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. 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 2005 explaining the activities and accomplishments over the past year. The Board is recommending that the assessments for 2006 remain the same as in 2005. The resolution sets a public hearing for December 5, and the Convention and Visitors Bureau and the City Clerk will mail the resolution and the assessment details to all the included hotels. Attachments 2005 Annual Report from the Advisory Board Proposed Resolution Draft Assessments by Hotel Summary of Total Assessments by Agency Distribution: Anne LeClair, SMCCVB; Finance Director ATTACHMENT A San Mateo County Convention&Visitors Bureau Annual Report October 19, 2005 Activities/Accomplishments in last 12 months Overall: In the last 12 months, the Bureau has generated 389 "leads" for county properties—an increase of 25% over last year. We assisted our properties in booking 86,823 room nights, an increase of 7.2 % over last year. Year to date, we have "closed" 63% of the leads we have generated, a"close" figure 85% higher than the industry average. The estimated economic impact from these group bookings is $24,503,826. This total does NOT include individual corporate and leisure nights generated through advertising and promotion. Accomplishments in Group Sales: • Finished four sets of research surveys conducted at four different times of year, using professional research company to determine interests of individual travelers to the area; (results to be released November of this year.); • 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; • Participated in 53 trade shows, greatly increasing visibility of San Mateo County; • Held receptions for planners in Chicago,Washington, DC, Boston and New York to introduce our area to planners; • Conducted sales "blitzes" in Sacramento, Chicago and Washington; • Conducted a"fam" tour for senior tour operators; • Created a Bay Area experts database as tool to recruit groups to area; • Created hot dates/hot rates notification program sending last minute deals out to key meeting planners to assist area properties with filling in"need" dates; • Created electronic sales collateral on our area, allowing Bureau sales team and hotel sales managers to "sell" our area instantaneously through targeted electronic publications; • Conducted numerous targeted meeting planner outreach campaigns to various market segments, e.g. fraternal organizations, sports teams and coaches, tour and travel operators; • Joined "Team Japan", making information on our area available to Japanese tour operators and travelers in Japan; • Promoted our area to group of Japanese tour operators during their visit here; • 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; • Reached out 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, Ca1SAE; ASAE,NCSAE, MPI, HSMAI, 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: Meetings West(five editions), Smart Meetings (three editions), California SGMP &SGMP Directories, CalSAE&NCSAE Directories, Successful Meetings, Forum Chicagoland, Group Tour Magazine (three editions) ASAE and several MPI chapter newsletters. • Created promotional flyers for several booked clients to enhance attendance at their meetings in SMC; • Publicize 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(three editions) and local publications, such as High Tides Magazine. Total readership for all ads is well over 7.21 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 4,800 unique visitors per month, for an annual total of. 2,600,000 hits and 62,400 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 San Francisco Hospitality Expo; • Updated and/or created smaller guides on filming in San Mateo County, BART/CalTrain, 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; MEDIA OUTREACH • Attended three national travel writer shows in 2005 (North American Travel Journalists Association in Santa Fe, NM in May; Travel Media Showcase in Niagara Falls,NY, in September; Society of American Travel Writers in Las Vegas, NV, in September), meeting one on one with travel writers and pitching them on all types of stories including Wining and Dining in San Mateo County, Convention & Exhibition Centers, Family Travel, Holiday Escapes, Sun Destinations, SMC Conference and Meeting Facilities, SMC Convention and Visitors Bureau services; San Francisco International Airport; Nature Tourism; Family Travel; Golf; Spas and Luxury Travel; Romantic Coastside; Beaches; Coastside Drive; Trails (Walking, Hiking, Biking); "Togethering" in San Mateo County, and Entertainment and Nightlife. • Exhibited at the California Travel and Tourism Commission Marketplace to travel writers from all over California. • Generated articles in the "Travel 50 and Beyond Magazine," "Orange County Register," Worldwide Spa Review," Silicon Valley Home," "Odyssey Magazine," "Meetings West," "Special Living Magazine, " South Bay Accent," "TheTourOperator.com," "Trailer Life Magazine," "Enhance Magazine" and other publications, with additional pieces scheduled for future issues of several publications. Also responsible for a feature on Mavericks on"Out and About" Radio Show and several inclusions in CTTC (California Travel and Tourism Commission) releases, which go to hundreds of public relations and media outlets worldwide. • Toured with individual travel writers showing them San Mateo County attractions. • Won the "Journalists'Choice" Award at the 2004 Travel Media Showcase, the 2005 Bay Area Travel Writers' Award of Excellence for Travel Related Website, and the 2005 Society of American Travel Writers' Silver Award for Best Media Kit. • 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 to dozens 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.) • Generated mentions of our free visitor guides in various national newspapers. • Made presentations on SMC before the Bay Area Travel Writers and Society of American Travel Writers (Margi'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; • Doubled 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. • 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 Southwest Airlines commercial, which brought 45 professional filmmakers from LA to our county, commercial projects for CSAA and Greyhound Bus Lines; the independent film "When All Else Fails"; two History Channel productions (From Tactical to Practical and The Rescue), plus numerous commercials, videos and catalog shoots. • Worked to ensure 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; • Created online group dining guide to maximize use of San Mateo County restaurants and hotels by meeting planners; • Created outlets/warehouse sale guide to entice additional travelers to the area; • 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; • Successfully met with City of East Palo Alto and Four Seasons Silicon Valley, resulting in their request to join our Tourism Business Improvement District. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH AND LEVY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2006 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 2005 annual report and requested the Burlingame City Council to set the assessments for the 2006 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 2005 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 2006 year on hotels in the District, as the District is described in Ordinance Nos. 1648 and 1678, to pay for programs and activities of the District. 3. In addition,by resolution adopted at the same meeting,the City Council declares its intention to consider addition of the territory within the City of East Palo Alto in the District as part of Subarea A. 4. 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 1 District. 5. 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 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. 6. New hotels shall not be exempt from assessment. 7. A public hearing on the proposed assessments and programs for the year 2006 is hereby set for December 5,2005,at 7:00 p.m.before the City Council of the City of Burlingame,at the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 8. 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. 9. Oral or written protests may be made at the hearing. To count in a majority protest against the proposed assessment for the 2006 year,a protest must be in writing and submitted to the City Clerk at or before the close of the public hearing on December 5,2005. 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. 10. 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 2006 year, no assessment for 2006 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 2006 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, 2 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. 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, 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK C:\FILESUHotelBid\2006intro.res.wpd 3 EXHIBIT A SERVICES AND PROGRAMS TO BE PROVIDED IN 2006 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; 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. Using a San Francisco State intern to assist with advance prospecting and research; k. Conducting numerous targeted mail and sales blitzes, including two in Chicago, two in Washington, DC and two in Chicago; 1. Using testimonials to recruit additional planners; M. Enhancing/updating trade show booth decor and marketing materials; n. Increasing memberships in organizations/attendance at meetings with key, potential target visitors; o. Enhancing advertising in publications/web programs aimed at meeting planners; p. Creating additional specialty guides/promotional pieces aimed at target market segments (e.g. golf); q. Continuing to make contacts/build business in Washington, D.C., Sacramento, and Midwestern markets; r. Continuing efforts to focus on new feeder markets for discounted airlines into SFO, including Boston,New York and Calgary; S. Continuing in-house sales managers' focus on corporate, SMERF markets; t. Hosting "fam" trip for Sacramento planners; U. Broadening outreach to fraternal groups from Midwest; V. Targeting agricultural meetings; W. Continuing in-house sales managers' focus on corporate, SMERF markets; X. Creation of strong presence with tour and travel operators through conference attendance and ads in targeted T&T publications; A-1 Y_ Working with SFCVB and "Team Japan" to secure time on San Francisco Bay Area"fam" trips for Japanese meeting planners to tour our area; Z. Enhancing advertising in publications/web programs aimed at meeting planners; aa. 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. 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 2006 YEAR CATEGORY ZONE A—ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2006 ZONE B—ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2006 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 during fiscal 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 ---YEAR 2006 EXHIBIT C Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment Burlingame Embassy Suites A $ 360.00 346-$ 79,560.00 $ 6,630.00 _ Doubletree Hotel A $ 360.00 390 $ 91,260.00 $ 7,605.00 SFO Marriott A $ 360.00 685 $ 160,290.00 $ 13,357.50 Hyatt Regency SFO A $ 360.00 789 $ 184,626.00 $ 15,385.50 Sheraton Gateway A $ 360.00 404 $ 94,536.00 $ 7,878.00 Hilton Garden Inn A $ 180.00 132 $ 14,256.00 $ 1,188.00 Crowne Plaza SFO A $ 360.00 309 $ 72,306.00 $ 6,025.50 Holiday Inn Express A $ 90.00 144 $ 7,776.00 $ 648.00 Red Roof Inn A $ 54.00 212 $ 6,868.80 $ 572.40 Va abond Inn A $ 54.00 91 $ 2,948.40 $ _ 245.70 Burlingame Hotel A $ 54.00 41 $ 1,328.40 $ 110.70 Country House* A $ 54.00 27 $ 874.80 $ 72.90 _ Hampton Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 77 $ 2,494.80 $ 207.90 Bay Landing A $ 54.00 130 $ 4,212.00 $ 351.00 Room Total 3771 Total: $ 723,337.20 *Closed July 2005 due to fire, reopen unknown San Mateo _ San Mateo Marriott A $ 360.00 476 $ 111,384.00 $ 9,282.00 Radisson Villa Hotel* A $ _ 360.00 286 $ 66,924.00 $ 5,577.00 Residence Inn by Marriott A $ 54.00 160 $ 5,184.00 $ 432.00 Hilton Garden Inn A $ 180.00 156 $ 16,848.00 $ 1,404.00 Homestead Studio Suites A $ 54.00 136 $ 4,406.40 $ 367.20 Holiday Inn A $ 360.00 110 $ 25,740.00 $ 2,145.00 Best Western Los Prados Inn A $ 90.00 113 $ 6,102.00 $ 508.50 Comfort Inn A $ 54.00 111 $ 3,596.40 $ 299.70 _ Hillsdale Inn_ A $ 54.00 90 $ 2,916.00 $ 243.00 Howard Johnson A $ 54.00 57 $ 1,846.80 $ 153.90 Su er8 A $ 54.00 53 $ 1,717.20 $ 143.10 Avalon Motel A $ 54.00 48 $ 1,555.20 $ 129.60 Firestone Lodge A $ 54.00 46 $ 1,490.40 $ 124.20 San Mateo_Motel** A 33 $ - $ Coxhead House B&B A $ 54.00 4 $ J 64.80 $ 5.40 Wingate Inn SFO South A $ 54.00 99 $_ 3,207.60_ $ _ 267.30 Room Total 1978 _ *Possible closure 2006 _ Total: $ 252,982.80 **Closed March 1, 2005,future unknown 1 of 6 11/01/2005 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS ---YEAR 2006 EXHIBIT C Name of Property IZone Category/Assessment I #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment I Monthly assessment .9zim r; n South San Francisco _ Embassy Suites A $ 360.00 312 $ _ 73,008.00 $ 6,084.00 Comfort Suites A $ 54.00 166 $ 5,378.40 $ 448.20 _ Best Western Grosvenor Hotel A $ 360.00 206 $ 48,204.00 $ 4,017.00 Hilton Garden Inn A $ 180.00 169 $ 18,252.00 $ 1,521.00 Holiday Inn SFO North A $ 360.00 224 $ 52,416.00 $ 4,368.00 La Quinta Inn A $ 180.00 174 $ 18,792.00 $ 1,566.00 Larkspur Landing A $ 90.00 111 $ 5,994.00 $ 499.50 Good Nite Inn A $ 180.00 175 $ 20,475.00 $ 1,706.25 Residence Inn A $ 90.00 152 $ 8,208.00 $ 684.00 Travelod a SFO North (Airport E A $ 54.00 199 $ 6,447.60 $ 537.30 Airport Inn A $ 54.00 34 $ 1,101.60 $ 91.80 Americana Inn Motel A $ 54.00 17 $ 275.40 $ 22.95 Courtyard by Marriott A $ 180.00 197 $ 21,276.00 $ 1,773.00 Travelodge(EI Camino Real) A $ 54.00 49 $ 1,587.60 $ 132.30 _ 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 Hallmark House Hotel A $ 54.00 13 $ 210.60 $ 17.55 Hampton Inn A $ 54.00 100 $ 3,240.00 $ 270.00 Howard Johnson A $ 54.00 51 $ 1,652.40 $ 137.70 Inn at Oyster Point A $ 90.00 30 $ 1,620.00 $ 135.00 Quality Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 45 $ 1,458.00 $ 121.50 Royal Inn A $ 54.00 17 $ 275.40 $ 22.95 Motel A $ 54.00 117 $ 3,790.80 $ 315.90 Travelers Inn A $ 54.00 20 $ 324.00 $ 27.00 Holiday Inn Express Hotel&Suit A $ 54.00 87 $ 2,818.80 $ 234.90 Four Points by Sheraton Hotel& A $ 90.00 100 $ 5,400.00 $ 450.00 Ramada Limited Suites A $ 54.00 45 $ _ 1,458.00 $ 121.50 _ Room Total 2876 Total: $ 305,478.00 Millbrae _ Westin Hotel A $ 360.00 390 $ 91,260.00 $ 7,605.00 Clarion Hotel A $ 360.00 250 $ _ 58,500.00 $ 4,875.00 Best Western EI Rancho Inn A $ _ 54.00 306 $ 9,914.40 $ _ 826.20 Millwood Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 _ 34 $ 1,101.60 $ 91.80 SFO South Travelodge A $ _ 54.00 58 $ 1,879.20 $ - 156.60 _ Comfort Inn SFO A $ 54.00 100 $ 3,240.00 $ 270.00 Qualit Suites Millbrae A $ 90.00 80 $ 4,320.00 $ 360.00 Room Total 1218 Total: $ 170,215.20 2 of 6 11/01/2005 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS ---YEAR 2006 EXHIBIT C Name of Property IZone Category/Assessment #Rooms JANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment x Ypoll Foster City Crowne Plaza Mid-Peninsula A $ 360.00 356 $ 83,304.00 $ 6,942.00 Cou and by Marriott A $ 180.00 147 $ 15,876.00 $ 1,323.00 _ Room Total 503 Total: $ 99,180.00 . .; 14410MM Half Moon Ba " Beach House Hotel B $ 180.00 54 $ 3,888.00 $ 324.00 Ritz Carlton B $ 360.00 261 $ - $ - Best Western Half Moon Bay Lo B $ 180.00 81 $ 5,832.00 $ 486.00 Ramada Limited B $ 54.00 29 $ - $ - Holiday Inn Express B $ 54.00 52 $ - $ - Cameron's Inn B $ 54.00 _ 3 $ - $ - 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 $ _ - $ - 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 I 3 of 6 11/01/2005 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS ---YEAR 2006 EXHIBIT C Name of Property IZone Category/Assessment I #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment Unincorporated County 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 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 View Inn B $ 54.00 18 $ 243.00 $ 20.25 Harbor House B $ 54.00 6 $ 81.00 $ 6.75 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 Pillar Point Inn B $ 54.00 11 $ 148.50 $ 12.38 Princess Port B&B B $ 54.00 4 $ 54.00 $ 4.50 Seal Cove Inn B I $ 54.00 10 $ 135.00 $ 11.25 Estancia del Mar B $ 54.00 5 $ 67.50 $ 5.63 Pescadero Creek Inn B $ 54.00 4 $ 54.00 $ 4.50 Pescadero Creekside Bam B $ 54.00 1 $ 13.50 $ 1.13 Stillheart B $ 54.00 16 $ 216.00 $ 18.00 Atherton Inn A $ 54.00 5 $ 81.00 $ 6.75 Rose Cottage by the Beach B $ 54.00 1 $ 13.50 $ 1.13 SLCA Guest House A $ 54.00 112 $ 3,628.80 $ 302.40 Higgins Can on Hideaway B $ 54.00 1 $ 13.50 $ 1.13 Room Total 468 Total: $ 13,109.40 i 4 of 6 11/01/2005 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS ---YEAR 2006 EXHIBIT C Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment #Rooms IANNUAL Assessment I Monthly assessment Redwood City Sofitel San Francisco Bay A $ 360.00 _ 419 $ _98,046.00 $ 8,170.50 Best Western Inn A $ 54.00 26 $ 842.40 $ 70.20 Deluxe Inn A $ 54.00 27 $ 874.80 $ 72.90 Capri Motel A $ 54.00 50 $ 1,620.00 $ 135.00 Pacific Euro Hotel A $ 54.00 55 $ 1,782.00 $ 148.50 Comfort Inn A $ 54.00 52 $ 1,684.80 $ 140.40 Das Inn A $ 54.00 68 $ _ 2,203.20 $ 183.60 Garden Motel A $ 54.00 17 $ 275.40 $ 22.95 Holiday Good IInn A $ 54.00 123 $ 3,985.20 $ 332.10 Inn Express A $ 54.00 38 $ 1,231.20 $ 102.60 Pacific Inn A $ 54.00 75 $ 2,430.00 $ 202.50 Redwood Motor Court A 1 $ 54.00 12 $ 194.40 $ 16.20 Best Inn A $ 54.00 38 $ 1,231.20 $ 102.60 Sequoia Inn A $ 54.00 22 $ 712.80 $ 59.40 Super 8 Motel A $ 54.00 40 $ 1,296.00 $ 108.00 Towne Place Suites by Marriott A $ 54.00 95 $ 3,078.00 $ 256.50 Hampton Inn A $ 54.00 61 $ 1,976.40 $ 164.70 Room Total 1218 Total: $ 123,463.80 SWE ,Mv San Bruno Budget Motel A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30 Bayside Inn A $ 54.00 24 $ 777.60 $ 64.80 Super 8 A $ 54.00 54-s 1,749.60 $ 145.80 Sta Bridge Suites SFO A $ 180.00 95 $ 10,260.00 $ 855.00 Courtyard by Marriott A $ 180.00 147 $ 15,876.00 $ 1,323.00 Regency Inn A $ 54.00 32 $ 1,036.80 $ 86.40 Ramada Limited A $ 54.00 61 $ 1,976.40 $ 164.70_ i Ritz Inn A $ 54.00 23 $ 745.20 $ 62.10 Comfort Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30 Gateway Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 31 $ 1,004.40 $ 83.70 Howard Johnson A I $ 54.00 49 $ 1,587.60 $ 132.30 Das Inn A $ 54.00 48 $ 1,555.20 $ 129.60 Room Total 622 Total: $ 38,448.00 5 of 6 11/01/2005 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS ---YEAR 2006 EXHIBIT C Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment i Monthly assessment i KIh' ". lHoliday Belmont Mateo Motel A $ 54.00 23 $ 745.20 $ 62.10 nolod a Belmont A $ 54.00 23 $ 745.20 $ 62.10 Inn Express&Suites A $ 90.00 82 $ 4,428.00 $ 369.00 Motel A $ 54.00 273 $ 8,845.20 $ 737.10 Summerfield Suites A $ 90.00 132 $ 7,128.00 $ 594.00 Belmont Palms A $ 54.00 14 $ 226.80 $ 18.90 ExtendedSta America A $ 54.00 108 $ 1,749.60 $ 145.80 Kingsway Motel A $ 54.00 16 $ 259.20 $ 21.60 Room Total 671 Total: $ 24,127.20 San Carlos Count Inn&Suites A $ 90.00 50 $ 2,700.00 $ 225.00 Das Inn A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30 Homestead Studio Suites A $ 90.00 116 $ 6,264.00 $ 522.00 Fairfield Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 112 $ 3,628.80 $ 302.40 Best Value Inn A $ 54.00 32 $ 1,036.80 $ 86.40 Travel Inn A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30 Room Total 368 Total: $ 15,508.80 NEW East Palo Alto Four Seasons Silicon Valley A $ 360.00 200 $ 46,800.00 $ 3,900.00 Room Total 200 Total: $ 46,800.00 6 of 6 11/01/2005 SUMMARY OF AGENCY ASSESSMENTS--YEAR 2006 TOTAL OF AGENCIES Rooms 2006 ASSESSMENT Per Room Belmont 671 24,127 $35.96 Burlingame 3,771 723,337 $191.82 County of San Mateo 468 13,109 $28.01 East Palo Alto 200 46,800 $234.00 Foster City 503 99,180 $197.18 Half Moon Bay 575 9,720 $16.90 Millbrae 1,218 170,215 $139.75 Redwood City 1,218 123,464 $101.37 San Bruno 622 38,448 $61.81 San Carlos 368 15,509 $42.14 San Mateo 1,978 252,983 $127.90 South San Francisco 2,876 305,478 $106.22 TOTAL 14,468 $1,822,370.40 $125.96 CITY a AGENDA 8b t N ITEM # BURIJNGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. DATE 11 /7/2002 H�TEO JYNE 6� TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITT BY DATE: October 31, 2005 APPROVED , BY /' U FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO CONSIDER ADDITION OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND (2) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING DISTRICT TO ADD THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION: (1) Adopt resolution of intention to consider addition of the City of East Palo Alto to the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District and setting public meeting on November 21 , 2005, and public hearing on December 5, 2005; and (2) Introduce ordinance to add East Palo Alto to the District by: (a) Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance; (b) Waiving further reading of the proposed ordinance; (c) Introducing the proposed ordinance and directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 5 days before adoption of the ordinance. DISCUSSION: The City of East Palo Alto and the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau have worked together over the past year to welcome the upcoming opening of the Four Seasons Hotel at University Circle in East Palo Alto. The new hotel will have 200 rooms, including 27 suites. In October, the City Council of East Palo Alto adopted a resolution consenting to the inclusion of the City in the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. Attached is the letter from the Hotel Advisory Board requesting that the inclusion be considered by the City Council of the City of Burlingame. Staff requests the Council to first adopt a resolution of intention to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in East Palo Alto. The Brown Act requires the Council to hold two public hearings on the inclusion before reaching decision. In addition, the inclusion requires amendment to the BID ordinance, so staff requests the Council to introduce the amending ordinance at this meeting. Mayor and Council Re: Consideration of Addition of East Palo A lot to San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District October 31, 2005 Page 2 Attachment October 24, 2005 Letter from SMCVB Proposed Resolution of Intention Proposed Ordinance Distribution Anne LeClair, SMCCVB San Mateo Count y carve v o-n. a*4 visitors 6w-eau T4 9Z4x V�xC 544- ,f444.� 949,Aw- v October 24, 2005 RECEIVED 3 -'3 Burlingame City Council OCT 2 7 2005 501 Primrose Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF BURLINGAME Dear Mayor Galligan and Members of the Council: We are coming to you as lead agency for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District to respectfully request that the City of East Palo Alto be added to the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. With the March 1, 2006 opening of the Four Seasons Silicon Valley just months away, the East Palo Alto City Council has requested that their city be included in our TBID. (Date of their resolution: October 18, 2005.) } The City of East Palo Alto and its new five-star hotel will be a great asset to the county, allowing our sales team to approach high-end groups to bring their meetings to our area. Once here,we will be showing them the whole county, encouraging them to bring other meetings here, as well. The entire county will benefit from their inclusion. - Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may answer any questions for you. As always, we greatly appreciate the outstanding support of Larry Anderson and your Finance Department team. Sincerely, r Anne LeClair President& CEO "La I MDU 1 lull; V/( ty Council CA please respond f�ty Manager Cc: Larry Anderson V City Attorney ❑ No Response Required Stan Moore k"Dir.Finance ❑ City Planner ❑ Dir.Public Works ❑ Human Resources ❑ Police Chief ❑ Fire Chief ❑ On Next Agenda San Mateo County ❑ Parks&Rec convention & visitors bureau ❑ Librarian PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR 111 anza boulevard RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK suite 410 TTC'TTTATTTT/lwTY burlingame CA 94010k phone 650.348.7600 800.288.4748 ' rww.visitsanmateocounty.com fax 650.348.7687 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO ENCOMPASS THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO 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 City Council of the City of East Palo Alto has adopted a resolution expressing its consent to the inclusion of the City within the boundaries of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District beginning in the 2006 year; and WHEREAS, the inclusion of the City of East Palo Alto in the District is in the public interest, NOW,THEREFORE,the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve,determine,and find as follows: 1. The Burlingame City Council intends to include the City of East Palo Alto in the boundaries of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District within Subarea A of the District beginning with the 2006 year. 2. A public meeting on inclusion of the City of East Palo Alto in the District is hereby set for November 21, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 3. A public hearing on inclusion of the City of East Palo Alto in the District is hereby set for December 5, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council Chambers at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 4. The Council will receive testimony and evidence at both the public meeting and 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. 5. Oral or written protests may be made at the meeting and the hearing. To count in a 1 majority protest against the proposed inclusion of the City of East Palo Alto, a protest must be in writing and submitted to the City Clerk at or before the close of the public hearing on December 5, 2005. 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. 6. If at the conclusion of the public hearing,there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the City of East Palo Alto which will pay fifty percent(50%)or more of the total assessments to be imposed within the City, the City shall not be included within the District. 7. Further information regarding the proposed assessments and changes 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. 8. 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 East Palo Alto in accordance with the requirements of the Government and Streets&Highways Codes and mailing them in accordance with those requirements and Ordinance No. 1648 as applicable. MAYOR 1, 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 , 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, TO 3 ADD THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO TO THE DISTRICT 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. 7 (a) Ordinance No. 1648 was adopted in February 2001 to form the San Mateo County 8 Tourism Business Improvement District pursuant to the provisions of the Parking and Business 9 Improvement Area Law of 1989, as codified in California Streets and Highways Code sections 10 36500 and following. 11 (b) The City Council of the City of East Palo Alto has consented to the inclusion of its 12 territory within the District. 13 (c) Pursuant to Streets & Highways Code sections 36523, copies of the Resolution of 14 Intention were duly mailed to all hotels within the City of East Palo Alto, and the Resolution of 15 Intention was duly published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of East Palo 16 Alto. 17 (d) Pursuant to the Resolution of Intention adopted by the City Council of the City of 18 Burlingame, the City Council held a public meeting and then a public hearing on the addition. 19 Following the hearing,all protests,both written and oral,were considered and were duly overruled 20 and denied,and the City Council determined that there was no majority protest within the meaning 21 of Streets & Highways Code sections 36523, 36524, 36525, and 36542. 22 23 Section 2. Section 4(1) of Ordinance No. 1648 is amended by adding "City of East Palo 24 Alto". 25 26 Section 3. Section 14(a)(6)of Ordinance No. 1648 is amended by adding"East Palo Alto". 27 28 Section 4. Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 1648, as amended by Ordinance No. 1678, is 11/7/2005 1 I amended by deleting the City of East Palo Alto from the exceptions to the Description of the 2 District. 3 4 Section 5. Except as expressly provided in this Ordinance and as amended by Ordinance 5 Nos. 1678 and 1725, all other provisions of Ordinance No. 1648 and implementing resolutions 6 shall remain in full force and effect. 7 8 Section 6. The assessments for the year 2006 for the San Mateo County Tourism Business 9 Improvement District shall apply to hotels in the City of East Palo Alto beginning upon the 10 effective date of this ordinance. 11 12 Section 7. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 13 14 15 Mayor 16 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 17 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 18 of ,2005,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19 day of , 2005, by the following vote: 20 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 21 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 22 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 23 24 City Clerk 25 26 C:\FILES\HotelBid\EPAaddtion.ord.wpd 27 28 11/7/2005 2 CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 8C ITEM# MTG. 11/7/05 q�AATEG JUNE 6 DATE 1 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: October 26, 2005 APPROV D FROM: Jim Nantell, City Manager 558-7205 BY l� SUBJECT: Consider Ordinance to Modify Number of Members on the eautification Commission RECOMMENDATION: Consider the potential of reducing the number of positions on the Beautification Commission from current seven to five. If the Council would like to proceed with reducing the number of positions on the Beautification Commission, then Council may introduce the implementing ordinance by the following: A. Request City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 5 days before proposed adoption. BACKGROUND: Recent recruitments for commission vacancies have not resulted in a high level of interest. The most recent recruitment for Beautification Commission vacancies had to be extended due to lack of applications and that extension has finally resulted in three additional applications. One of the applications is a second choice option for a Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission. The current Beautification Commission has struggled periodically in terms of getting a quorum, which suggests that some of the current members may not be finding the work as meaningful as they anticipated. It may be better to have a Commission of five that are truly interested in the work of the Commission vs. keeping it as a seven member commission and appointing people who are not as interested in the subject area. Changing the number to five would make it consistent with the number of positions on the Traffic, Safety, & Parking and Civil Service Commissions, as well as, the Library Board and would leave the Planning and Parks & Recreation Commission with a seven member make up. As you may recall the Parks and Recreation Commission was expanded from 5 to 7 members in 2001 when we merged the senior commission with the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Planning Commission is the one commission that seems to consistently generate more interest from people willing to serve. An ordinance that would reduce the number of positions to five commissioners is attached for the Council's convenience and could be introduced at this meeting. Council members have inquired about the difference in length of terms on different Commissions. The attached matrix illustrates the current situation. Please provide direction to staff if you wish to make them more consistent. BUDGET IMPACT Insignificant reduction in cost associated with less mailing of agenda packets to two commissioners. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance for introduction 2. Matrix of Existing Boards and Commissions I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REDUCING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION FROM 3 SEVEN MEMBERS TO FIVE MEMBERS 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1. The City has had difficulty finding persons interested in committing the time 8 and dedication necessary to serve on the Beautification Commission. The Commission acts as an 9 important appeals board for tree permit issues,and serves as the Council's key advisory agency for 10 the community's trees and appearance. A reduction in membership to five members would not 11 adversely affect the Commission's role and efforts. 12 13 Section 2. Section 3.28.010 is amended to read as follows: 14 3.28.010 Organization—Terms of members—Compensation. 15 There shall be a beautification commission in the city consisting of five (5) seven (7) 16 members,appointed by the council;their terms of office shall be for a period of three(3)years and 17 until their successors are appointed and qualified. At the time of their application for the 18 commission and throughout their terms as commissioners, they shall be registered, qualified 19 electors of the city. The members shall serve without compensation, but all necessary expenses 20 shall be paid by appropriate council action. 21 22 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 23 24 Mayor 25 26 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 27 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 28 of , 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1 I day of by the following vote: 2 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 5 6 7 City Clerk C:\FILES\ORDINANC\beautific ationmembers.p&r.wpd 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BOARD OR COMMISSION NUMBER OF YEARS IN NUMBER OF BOARD REFERENCE TERM MEMBERS/COMMISSIONERS BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION 3 years 7 Chapter 3.28 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 3 years 5 Chapter 3.48 LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES 3 years 5 Chapter 3.44 (Set by Cal.Ed. Code § 18911 (Five is the number set by I —in addition, Board members Ca1.Ed.Code § 189 10) Cal. Education Code §§ 18900 and are not subject to removal by following the mayor or council) PARKS &RECREATION 3 years 7 plus 2 non-voting members to Chapter 3.32 COMMISSION represent youth' PLANNING COMMISSION 4 years 7 Chapter 3.40 (Must be at least 5 under Cal. Gov't Code § 65101(a) TRAFFIC, SAFETY&PARKING 3 years 5 Chapter 3.22 COMMISSION 'In May 2001, the Senior Commission was dissolved, and two positions were added to the Parks&Recreation Commission(to 9) by Ordinance No. 1656 to represent senior concerns; in addition, two non-voting positions were added to represent youth. In September 2003, the Parks& Recreation Commission was reduced to 7 members by Ordinance No. 1722. CITY G AGENDA 9a ITEM# BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. DATE 11/7/2005 9gOxn wE 6,0o TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED 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 eight Advisory Board members for the years 2006-2008 for the San Mateo County Tourism BID, and affirm appointment of Advisory Board members for other terms. DISCUSSION: The Advisory Board for the San Mateo County Tourism BID is made up of 23 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, 2006. Term—2006, 2007, 2008 Stan Moore(SFO Marriott, Burlingame) Sandra O'Toole (South San Francisco Conference Center, South San Francisco) Stephen Algood(Radisson Villa, San Mateo) Chris Carpenter(San Mateo County Expo Center, San Mateo) Alan Waufle (Hiller Aviation Museum, San Carlos) Eric Buitenhuis (Sofitel San Francisco Bay, Redwood City) Mitch Postel (San Mateo County Historical Association) Ata Kashanian (Crowne Plaza SFO, Burlingame) Mayor and Council Re: Appointment of Advisory Board Members October 25, 2005 Page 2 There have also been a number of departures over the past year, so the Hotel Council is requesting affirmation of the following persons to the other terms of office: Term—2004, 2006, 2006 Len Almalech(Enterprise Rent-a-car) Ken Landis (Landis Shores, Unincorporated San Mateo County) Bruce Carlton (Doubletree Hotel, Burlingame) Kandace Bender(SFO) Bill Gillespie (Half Moon Bay Brewing Co., Half Moon Bay) Kurt Picillo (Best Western Half Moon Bay Lodge, Half Moon Bay) Richmond Richardson (Travelodge, South San Francisco) Eric Seise, Jr. (San Mateo Marriott, San Mateo) Term— 2005, 2006, 2007 Scott Castle (Crowne Plaza, Foster City) Tim Lusher (Westin Hotel & Clarion Hotel, Millbrae) Larry Ivich (Hillsdale Shopping Center, San Mateo) Rudy Ortiz (Embassy Suites, South San Francisco) David Lewin(Hyatt Regency, Burlingame) Sylvia Chu (Summerfield Suites, Belmont) Barry Ongerth(Travelodge San Francisco Airport, South San Francisco) Also attached is a list of the incoming officers to the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau for 2006. Attachment: San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau Officers, 2006 Distribution Anne LeClair, SMCCVB SMCCVB Board Officers: San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau Officers Slate for 2006: Chair: Tim Lusher, Westin and Clarion Hotels Chair-Elect: Bruce Carlton, Doubletree Hotel Immediate Past Chair: Stan Moore, SFO Marriott Vice Chair: Rudy Ortiz, Embassy Suites, South San Francisco Vice Chair: Ken Landis Vice Chair: David Lewin Vice Chair: Kandace Bender, SFO Treasurer: Stephen Algood, Radisson Villa Secretary: Eric Buitenhuis, Sofitel by the Bay CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 9b ITEM# m MTG. OqNA 0 JUNE6 9O DATE November 7.2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT r BY DATE: November 7,2005 APP OVED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY SUBJECT: FIRE SURPLUS EQUIPMENT DONATION TO SAN MAWO COLLEGE Recommendation: That the City Council approve a Resolution authorizing the donation of a surplus fire rescue vehicle from the City of Burlingame to the College of San Mateo. Background: Central County Fire Department has a surplus vehicle that they would like to donate to The College of San Mateo for use in their fire-training program. The vehicle is a 1985 Vanpelt Rescue Rig. It is placed on a 1985 International Cargostar chassis. The vehicle identification number is#FMC2HTNFHYP4GCB 10160 and the license number is 064102. The vehicle has been in reserve status for 18 months and is of no additional use to Central County Fire Department. The vehicle is donated in an"as-is" condition. All liability associated with the use of the vehicle after the College takes possession will be the sole responsibility of the College. Budgetary Impact: The vehicle has an estimated value of$12,000. Actual salvage value would be determined by auction. The $12,000 in potential revenue is foregone in exchange for assisting the College of San Mateo with their fire- training program. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF 1985 VAN PELT RESCUE RIG AND CHASSIS TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the Burlingame Fire Department has no further use for the 1985 Van Pelt Rescue Rig on and International Cargostar chassis, Lic. No. 064102; and WHEREAS, the Central Fire Department concurs in the evaluation; and WHEREAS, the College of San Mateo, a community college in the San Mateo County Community College District, conducts an ongoing fire academy program that the Burlingame Fire Department has participated in and benefitted from; and WHEREAS, donation of property for the common benefit is within the City's authority under Government Code § 37350, and transfers to community colleges are expressly recognized in Government Code § 50330.4; and WHEREAS, donation of the Rescue Rig to the District would aid its fire training efforts and provide benefit to the City and the communities of the Peninsula; and WHEREAS, this transfer will be on an "as is" basis at no cost to the City or the District, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1 . The City Manager is authorized and directed to transfer title and possession of the 1985 Van Pelt Rescue Rig mounted on International Cargostar chassis, VIN #FMC2HTNFHYP4GCB 10 160 to the San Mateo County Community College District without cost to the City or the District, and to execute such documents as necessary for an "as is" transfer. 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 . 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 1982'SEAGRAVE RESCUE PUMPER Page 1 of 7 Fenton Fire E ui men Global suppliers of quality pre-owned custom fire apparatus ani equipment. A, F T A CAII TOLL FREE: 1-866-310-2077 Email: Sales@,FentonFire.com Website Questions or Comments: Webmaster@FentonFire.com 1 http://fentonfireequipment.com/full%20page%20trucks/R0421/R0421.htm 10/27/2005 1982'SEAGRAVE RESCUE PUMPER Page 2 of 7 y , ti w : T MANKK•$ '" E � C p. L EI yt yµ}�51MMu �� uxilil I Vuuul III +r / http://fentonfireequipment.com/full%20page%20trucks/RO421/RO421.htm 10/27/2005 1982 SEAGRAVE RESCUE PUMPER Page 3 of 7 .4P., P a � s n 3 v .4 •ssfek.ttMaC' •• 1984 4X4 FORD/WELCH RESCU TRUCK 10,000 MILES GAS ENGINE REPLACED REAR END (SUMMER 2004) TRUCK COMES WITH GENERATOR 2 FLOOD LIGHTS 3 BOTTLE 220OPSI AIR CASCADE SYSTEM ASKING $13,000.00 CALL TOLL FREE 1-866-310-2077 http://fentonfireequipment.com/full%20page%20trucks/RO421/R0421.htm 10/27/2005 Used"Trucks - Southwest Page 1 of 1 NEW 9BNfLA#0 PIERCE PR'ODLICTS DELIVERIES CONTACT sf 4 J','11 Pierce Factory Midwest East Southwest Used Trucks _Southeast Northwest Canada Southwest 1970 Van Pelt custom cab Asking Price: 15,000.00 Cab Style: Custom Seats: 5 Transmission: Auto Engine Make: Detroit Engine Model: 8V71 Discharge: 6 Ladders: 35' Extension, 14'Roof Generator: no Tank Size: 500 Pump(GPM): 1500 gpm Foam Cell Size: n/a Aerial Height: n/a Aerial Certification: n/a Tow Hooks: yes Tow Eyes: no Winch: no ss Lights: no h ,.,. . A' Suctions: yes Compartment Depths: 12"deep Transverse Compartments: n/a Walk-In: no Additional Features: no Return to Southwest listings For more information contact: Samoa Peninsula Fire Department Attn: Chief Robert Durfee 1982 Gass Street Samoa, California 95564 Phone: 707-443-9042 E-mail: samoapen@firedept.ne_t http://www.piercemfg-com/used_trucks/usedtruck.cfm?Region=4&Truck=393 10/27/2005 `l}oo7d'Truokm - Southwest Page l of hivTo to Pivcv home page NEW PIERCE PRODUCTS DELIVERIES CONTACT SICIRITY Pierce Factory Midwest East Southwest Used s�� "" �� s Southeast Northwest Canada Southwest 1975Ford/Van Pelt C-8000 Asking Price: 10.000 Seats: 8 Front Axle Weight: 10.800 Rear Axle Weight: 10.040 Transmission:Allison Engine Make: Cat Engine Model: 3208 Ladders: 24' Extension 14' Roof 10' Roof Tank Size: 8UO Pump(GPM): 1000 GPM Hale Tow Hooks: yes Suctions:Yes Additional Features: 5OOGPM Hale PTO Pump, VW|d|andhose and nozzles,portable spot light booster reel E*ingunhero. Midland nodio, engine currently in service For more information contact: WeodVFD Attn: Lou |g|ooiao POBox 209 Return toSouthwest listings VVeott. California 95571 Phone: 707-946-2643 E'moi|:Ymxootvhd@_hun�ln|dt.net htt»://w`mvv.picroeruf*.cno /oacd_tnucka/uocdtnuck.cfm?0cgioo=4&cTrnok=4l0 10/27/2005 Agenda Item # 9c BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: November 7, 2005 SUBMITTED BY Awt'6� APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 25, 2005 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING 2005 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM, CITY PROJECT NO. 80960 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the 2005 Sidewalk Maintenance Program in the amount of $206,758. DISCUSSION: On February 22, 2005, SpenCon Construction, Inc. was awarded the contract for repairing and replacing sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter in the Burlingame Park No. 4 and 5, and Polo Field Subdivisions as well as portions of Easton Addition No. 2, and Town of Burlingame subdivisions as indicated on the attached map in the amount of $202,045. The project was successfully completed and is in compliance with project plans and specifications. BUDGET IMPACT: Expenditures: Construction (2005 Sidewalk Maintenance Program) $206,758 Construction (City Hall Improvements) 44,720 Miscellaneous (Supplies and Tools) 6,571 Engineering Administration 93,530 Total $351,579 Funds availability- 2003/04 CI P $266,150 2004/05 CIP 81 ,000 Property Owner Contributions 41 ,931 Total $389,081 SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80960acceptance.doc The remaining $37,502 will be transferred to the 2006 Sidewalk Maintenance Program. EXHIBITS:Resolution,Project Map, Final Progress Payment t Donald Chang,PE Senior Civil Engineer c: City Clerk, Finance,City Attorney SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80960acceptance.doc RESOLUTION NO. - ACCEPTING 2005 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM SPENCON CONSTRUCTION INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 80960 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1 . The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by SPENCON CONSTRUCTION, INC. under the terms of its contract with the City dated FEBRUARY 23, 2005 has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 80960. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Joe Galligan, 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 , 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEM 3ERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk S:\A Public Works DirectoryWuthor,By Name\Peggy Adam Letters\RESOLUTN.ACC.wpd 2005 SIDEWALK. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM VICINITY MAP r co /7wC � S [3 ,0 Y IV F� _ \✓ l _ �� %� CITY OF BURLINGAME \ SAN MATEo COUNTY CALIFORNIA _.- cwArwC scut I, SPENCON CONSTRUCTION CITY OF BURLINGAME DATE: October-26-05 t ADDRESS: 350 STAYSAIL COURT FINAL PAYMENT FOR THE MONTH OF: October FOSTER CITY, CA 94404 2005 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM PURCHASE ORDER # 13761 TELEPHONE: (650) 574-4197 FAX (650) 574-4137 CITY PROJECT NO. 80960 ++«« ++++***+*****«++++++*++++*+++«+++++«+++++++++++++««+«++++++++++++ +++«++++++++++***+*+***+ ««+«+++++++++++++++++«*+*++++++ +++++.++.+++«+++«+++++++ +++++++++««««++++ ++++++++++++«++++ ++++++++++++++«++ ITEM; UNIT BID UNIT BID QUANTITY 4 AMOUNT PREVIOUS AMOUNT # ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE QUANTITY SIZE AMOUNT TO DATE PAID TO DATE PAID THIS PMT. A.TOWN OF BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION 1 REMOVE AND REPLACE SIDEWALK $7.20 4,900.0. S. F. $35,280.00 5,784.2 118.048 $41,646.24 $41,646.24 $0.00 2 REMOVE AND REPLACE DRIVEWAY $8.00 1,000.0: S. F. $8,000.00 2,095.10 209.51% $16,760.80 $16,760.80 $0.00 3 REMOVE AND REPLACE 14" CURB AND GUTTER $26.50 : 2,480.0: L. F. $65,720.00 1,346.60 54.308 $35,684.90 $35,684.90 $0.00 4 REMOVE AND REPLACE CURB $21.00 30.0: S. F. $630.00 17.00 56.67% $357.00 $357.00 $0.00 5 CROSS GUTTER $8.50 420.0 S. F. $3,570.00 1,591.50 378.93% $13,527.75 $13,527.75 $0.00 6 CONSTRUCT CURB RAMP $1,175.00 25.0: EACH $29,375.00 46.00 184.00% $54,050.00 $54,050.00 $0.00 7 REMOVE SIDEWALK AND REPLACE WITH TOP SOIL $3.00 820.0: EACH $2,460.00 544.50 66.40% $1,633.50 $1,633.50 $0.00 8 AGGREGATE BASE $25.00 25.0: EACH $625.00 0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 9 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE AND CONCRETE BASE $3.00 5,150.0: S. F. $15,450.00 5,189.30 100.76% $15,567.90 $15,567.90 $0.00 10 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE ONLY $35.00 5.00: S. F. $175.00 0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 11 NEW ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACING $135.00 240.00: TONS $32,400.00 170.70 71.138 $23,044.50 $23,044.50 $0.00 12 REPAIR IRRIGATION SYSTEM $875.00 1.0 L.S. $875.00 1.00 100.00% $875.00 $875.00 $0.00 13 SEWER CLEAN-OUT FRAME $75.00 1.0: TONS $75.00 0.00 0.004 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 14 REPAIR / REPLACE WATERLINE (10' MAX.) $100.00 2.0: EACH $200.00 0.00 0.004 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 15 ADJUST MANHOLES TO GRADE $200.00 1.0: L. F. $200.00 0.00 0.004 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 16 SIGN POST $300.00 1.0: EACH $300.00 0.00 0.004 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 17 PARKING METER POSTS $150.00 1.0: EACH $150.00 0.00 0.004 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18 DRAINAGE INLET RELOCATION/MOD. AT CURB RAMP $2,000.00 1.0: EACH $2,000.00 0.00 0.004 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 19 CONCRETE CUTTING OR GRINDING $38.00 120.0 L.S. $4,560.00 95.00 79.174 $3,610.00 $3,610.00 $0.00 ORIGINAL BID :__$202,045.00 $206,757._5_9J $206,757.59 $0.00 CHANGE ORDERS: CO 1 CO 2 CO 3 CHANGE ORDERS $0.00 DATE SUBTOTAL "*'********"""* * $202,045.00 ********* ********* $206,757.59 $206,757.59 $0.00 PREPARED BY: VICTOR VOONG 10-26-2005 LESS RETENTION ********* ********* $0.00 ($10,337.88) $10,337.88 CHECKED BY: SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS ********* ********* $206,757.59 $196,419.71 $10,337.88 APPROVED BY AMOUNT DUE FROM CONTRACTOR ****** ********* $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CITY ENGINEER: ++++++**** **++«+««++«+*++ +****+++***+**«« «++++++**+ **«««««+++ ---------------- APPROVED BY TOTAL THIS PERIOD *************** +******** ********* $206,757.59 $196,419.71 $10,337.88 CONSULTANT. _�___=-s=-_a=�s�_________ _________��a�sa ______-___ --------- -as-a:__��z S:W PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORY\PROJECTS180271SUMMARYads,(SHEET-FINAL PAYMENT) PAGE 1 OF 1 10262005,11:35 AM Agenda Item # 9d SSW Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: November 7 2005 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2005 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO CALIFORNIA POWER PARTNERS FOR A CO-GENERATION POWER SYSTEM PROJECT AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY — CITY PROJECT NO. 81510 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution awarding a contract for a co-generation power system project at the Wastewater Treatment Facility to California Power Partners in the amount of $912,039.25. BACKGROUND: The co-generation unit is a system that utilizes the methane gas produced in processing sewage to generate electricity for use at the plant. The existing system was originally installed in 1993 and has 55,000 hours of engine operating time. Although well maintained, the unit is past its life expectancy and is showing obvious signs of deterioration and failure. Staff spends extensive time cleaning up oil leaks and the unit has a low electrical output as well as experiences frequent system faults. In addition, the unit is no longer manufactured making it difficult to find repair parts. DISCUSSION: On September 6, 2005, staff issued a request for proposals for the installation of a new co-generation system which includes a new engine and related appurtenances. California Power Partners was selected based on their experience, responses to questions in the interview and their previous work done in a similar capacity. The scope of work involves design, construction and installation of a new power co- generation system including a generator, gas processing unit, piping and an enclosure building. The new system will generate 180 kilo watts of electricity, reducing the plant's PG&E bill by as much as $80,000 per year. The cost of the project is $912,039. Staff will pursue obtaining a grant or rebate from the California Public Utilities Commission which has typically approved these for agencies with projects that reduce electrical demand. Staff estimates that if granted, the City could receive a rebate of up to $180,000, reducing the City's cost to $732,039. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\81510_Co-gen. Unit.doc BUDGET IMPACT: Council has approved an inter-fund loan from the General Fund in the amount of$1,100,000 to be paid over 10 years. Expenditures: Construction $912,039.25 Contingencies 91,023.93 Staff administration and inspections 75,000.00 Total $1,078,243.18 EXHIBITS: Agreement with scope of services,and resolution. c: City Clerk, Finance,California Power Partners,W.Toci SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\81510_Co-gen.Unit.doc AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CO-GENERATION PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 81510 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on November 7, 2005, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and CALIFORNIA POWER PARTNERS, INC. , hereinafter called "Contractor," WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for PROPOSALS for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on OCTOBER 6, 2005 , after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsible Proposer for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this agreement for the construction of said improvements, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1 . Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Specifications entitled: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CO-GENERATION PROJECT, CITY JOB NO. 81510. March 31 , 2005 AGREEMENT - 1 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract consists of the following documents: this Agreement, Notice Inviting Sealed PROPOSALS, the prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law, the accepted Proposal Proposal, the complete plans, profiles, detailed drawings and Standard Specifications, Special Provisions and all bonds, and are hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND THIRTY NINE DOLLARS AND 25/100 ($912,039.25). This price is determined by the unit prices contained in Contractor's Proposal. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Proposal and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 5. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: SYED MURTUZA, ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 March 31, 2005 AGREEMENT - 2 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: CALIFORNIA POWER PARTNERS, INC. 650 ALPINE WAY ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 6. Interpretation. As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 7. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of three (3) pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, "CONTRACTOR" a Municipal Corporation By By City Manager- Jim Nantell California Power Partners, Inc. Approved as to form: City Attorney-Larry Anderson ATTEST: City Clerk-Doris Mortensen March 31, 2005 AGREEMENT - 3 ENGINEERING/DESIGN & TECHNICAL FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS lT `/ pFc) 3 CT NCS sl !: Calpwr Proposal to The City of Burlingame Engineerinq & Design Calpwr offers the following work scope on a Design/Build basis. This approach offers both the City of Burlingame and Calpwr the most cost-effective and fastest track project, while still allowing for an iterative and collaborative design approach. We will work closely with the City, the plant operator and our design staff to ensure the highest level of system optimization and performance while maintaining a reasonable timeline and cost structure. We have read, accepted and are willing to accept the terms described in "Agreement for Public Improvement" attached in the RFP. Burlingame System Design The existing 115 kW (rated) Waukesha cogeneration unit that is onsite was installed and made operational in September 1993 and as of a November engineering audit had 48,283 hours on the engine. This unit has been well maintained by the onsite staff, and had been rebuilt in 2003. Although well maintained, this unit is past its expected life and is showing obvious signs of deterioration and failure. The staff spends time everyday cleaning up oil leaks, topping fluids and generally keeping the unit running. This unit consumes oil excessively, as would be typical for a unit of its age. The most telling signs of the unit's imminent failure are its low 80 kW output and its frequent system faults. Since this unit is no longer manufactured by Waukesha (and has not been for a number of years), service and repair parts are scarce; many of the parts needed have to be sourced on the used equipment market. The existing cogeneration system also does not consume all of the available digester gas produced on site- the balance of any unused gas is flared. The maximum gas production for the site is approximately 4000 cubic feet per hour with a Btu value of the gas at approximately 625 Btu/cubic foot. This gas flow rate and Btu value will support a larger cogeneration system than is currently installed. "'T We propose an installation of a new Caterpillar 3406 generator to supplement (and substantially replace) the existing Waukesha cogeneration unit. This new unit will have a rated output of 200 kW, with a net system output of approximately 180 kW after parasitic losses. We propose installing the engine- „� generator in the storage area of the electrical switchgear building and a Bio-Spark System fuel-conditioning adjacent to the switchgear building on a concrete pad. The existing unit will be idled once the new unit is in place and operational, however left in place and "run-ready" to provide standby cogeneration when �af rocs io Spark Fuel the new system is down for service or if additional biogas ti — volumes are available. We will connect into the existing digester Al Ski o gas pipe (the red painted pipe in the photo adjacent) to feed the MY new fuel skid. Processed digester gas will then be fed into the new cogeneration system , with an additional connection into the existing gas line feeding the existing Waukesha cogenerator. Digester heating hot water lines from the new generators heat exchangers will be routed to the existing piping from the Waukesha. Also as part of our scope of work, we will construct a partition wall with a 2 hour fire rating, between the existing switchgear and the new generator room . We will include two doors to provide access to the new generator room from either side of the switchgear panels, as well as new ventilation louvers in the outside walls will be designed to limit noise emissions from the generator room. Since the existing system was installed prior to the current interconnect rules, we will not be able to re-use the current utility connections. As required under California's uniform interconnection rules, we will need to provide and install new protective relays and CT's at the point of connection to the utility to sense current flow. The system 2 of 6 Calpwr Proposal to The City of Burlingame will be configured to be fully integrated to the existing facility operational profile and able to be operated automatically. Also included are all required metering and disconnect to ensure compliance with the utility system requirements. As part of our turnkey costs and financial calculations, we have included costs for a three-year maintenance agreement, to qualify for the requirements as specified in the State of California Self Generation Incentive Funding program. This maintenance program includes all required periodic service to the engine as well as the fuel processing equipment. Installation of the units shall comply with all local codes, maintenance requirements, electrical code requirements, mechanical code requirements, and owner preference. We anticipate that the sound levels produced by the proposed equipment will not exceed 75 decibels at a distance of 30 feet from the equipment, and should not be discernable in the adjacent areas. Project Minimum Performance Standards 1 ) The Cogeneration system shall be designed and installed for continuous 24 hr/day operation. The system will be maintained to provide a minimum performance availability of 92% uptime. 2) Gas filtration system shall be designed to reduce destructive impurities in the digester gas such as moisture, hydrogen sulfide, siloxane, etc. in order to meet, at a minimum, the fuel quality requirements of the engine manufacturer. Manufacturer's recommendations should be exceeded where economically feasible. 3) System shall provide adequate heat to meet digester-heating requirements as currently provided by existing heat loop. 4) System emissions shall not exceed limits of the facilities Air Discharge Permit. 5) Engine operation and power output speed control to be linked to gas production. 6) The existing emergency backup generator shall be available for use at all times during construction with the exception of brief, pre-approved periods necessary for safety related to electrical work. Equipment Generators Selected generation equipment for installation at this site is a Caterpillar Continuous Duty Rated engine. Caterpillar is a Fortune 100 company and the world's leading manufacturer of diesel engines, natural gas engines and industrial gas turbines. Cat is also the world's largest manufacturer of medium speed engines . (the type of engine proposed here), boasting the country's largest and best educated service network. Cat also has arguably the broadest experience in bio-gas applications, having produced bio gas engines for over 20 years. There biogas engines produce over 5 billion kilowatt-hours per year and are used on more than half of the landfill gas to energy projects worldwide. We are confident that Cat's 24/7 parts and service availability for these engines will be the =� best in the business- and a major factor in their selection. Since this facility also has a Caterpillar back-up genset, we will be able to consolidate maintenance, service and parts; allowing for greater operational efficiencies. We propose to connect the generation system in parallel with the existing cogeneration unit, which will be left in place for backup cogeneration operation. 3 of 6 Gas Conditioning System Calpwr Proposal to The City of Burlingame When utilizing digester gas for generation there are critical process areas that must be addressed to ensure proper operation and longevity of the process and generation equipment- the most important area is in properly processing the gas before combustion. At the Burlingame facility, most of the problems and maintenance issues experienced with the existing cogeneration unit are not associated with the actual generator used, but instead the n problems are mainly traced to improper fuel processing . . n . , before combustion. It was necessary for us to fully evaluateSR 3 i r. all the available technologies that were available for the fuel treatment prior to utilizing the biogas in our new proposed generation equipment, analyze what worked and what did not F.-- in order to come up with a successful, reliable design. Since digester gas has many constituents that are detrimental to rotating equipment and power generation equipment, it is i paramount that these constituents be identified before the fuel processing equipment is designed to ensure proper removal from the gas. b Digester gas contains many contaminants, with the largest being a significant amount of entrained water in the gas which must be removed prior to compression and supply of this gas to the Co-generation equipment. One of the other major contaminates is Siloxane which must be removed to a very low level prior to being burned in any type of internal combustion engine. CO2 is also problematic due to it mixing with water in the gas and forming carbonic acid- which is extremely detrimental to most process equipment. There is also H2S which needs to be removed and should be remediated prior to the fuel processing and compression. To remove the entrained water it is critical the dew point of the gas be lowered significantly prior to the gas entering the gas compression cycle and then ensuring that this dew point is not approached until after the compression cycle is complete. Once the compression cycle is complete it is important that the dew point be further lowered to ensure all of the water is out of the gas prior to the gas being sent to the filtration system where the rest of the detrimental constituents be removed. We have specifed a Bio-Spark Biogas Processing Skid for installation at the facility. Bio-Spark skids are manufactured by us to meet the most stringent requirements of generation equipment. The Bio-Spark skid uses a proprietary design and process flow which has proven to remove harmful contaminants down to non-detectable limits. Each Bio-Spark skid is designed and built specifically for the particular site conditions (after a complete gas analysis) and is sized to carefully match the output and generation technology used. All Bio-Spark skids are designed to comply with all applicable NFPA, Federal and State codes. Incentive Rebates This project- as it is specifically proposed should qualify for a Level 3-R incentive rebate from the California Public Utilities Commission. The Self-Generation Incentive Program (SLIP) provides incentives to encourage customers to produce efficient, onsite energy using microturbines, small gas turbines, wind turbines, photovoltaic, fuel cells, and internal combustion engines. The incentives legislated under California AB 1685 will be funded through the end of 2007, as well as providing funding of approximately $500 million for these efforts. This project qualifies for a Level 3-R (renewable fuel, non-microturbine) rebate of $1 .00/Watt, with a system size maximum up to 1 .5 MW. This rebate requires a fixed contract for the first three years of maintenance. The most challenging aspect of this Burlingame project is securing the SGIP rebate for the proposed new system. Since this project was originally conceived as a system replacement, and not a new system, it typically would not qualify under the California SGIP rebate program . However, the program rules give us two options: 1 ) addition to an existing system, and 2) replacement of an existing system . We meet all the conditions of adding to an existing system, except we were informed there would have to be enough fuel production to run both engines simultaneously in a steady state mode — not either/or. There is not enough fuel available to do this. The second option is to replace the original engine, but the rule states it has to be off-line for 12 months IF it is being replaced by an equal or smaller engine — thus there is a caveat in the rules that we have been exploring with the SGIP administrators. However, the SGIP administrators do not always interpret the rules in unusual situations as we 4 of 6 Calpr Proposal to The City of Burlingame desire and they have not come across a situation like this to date. Until we apply for the rebate and the application is accepted, we cannot guarantee the rebate. Technical Functional Specifications Scope of Services Project is quoted as complete and turnkey, and is to include the following: Scope of Work - Mechanical 1 . Site Preparation a. Install new concrete equipment pads to facilitate the installation of the new Bio Spark System fuel conditioning equipment. b. Install Framing/Drywall partition with 2 doors to separate the existing switchgear from the Cogeneration System . c. Install Acoustically treated Louvers and Ventilation Fan 2. Provide and Install Bio Spark fuel treatment system: a. H2S removal vessel b. Siloxane removal vessels c. Dew Point Control Heat exchangers d. Refrigerated Dryer e. Blower f. Coalescing Filter g. Install all valves, fittings, piping and instrumentation for the fuel supply system . h. Insulate all piping as required, i. External pipe insulation will be covered with aluminum metal cladding. Access for maintenance will be provided. 3. Install Cogeneration System a. Provide and Install Caterpillar 3406 Continuous Duty Rated Engine Generator b. Install Engine Jacket water-Heat Rejection Heat Exchanger c. Install Engine Jacket Water-Digester Heat Recovery Heat Exchanger d. Install Required Pump and Proportioning Valve e. Install all hot water piping to interconnect the existing Cogen system piping. f. Install Critical Grade Stainless Steel Muffler exhaust system and pipe 4. Install Piping Systems a. Interconnect with existing gas supply line with like material in accordance with drawings. b. Interconnect hot water supply with existing Cogen hot water system . Scope of Work — Electrical & Instrumentation 1 . Provide and install all electrical components for the Cogeneration, Fuel Treatment and Cogen Ancillary systems. 2. Provide all require utility paralleling gear and protective relays 3. Provide all motor starters required for new cogeneration system and ancillaries. 4. Interconnect all Cogen electrical equipment into existing system . 5. Provide an integrated control system for the Cogeneration, fuel treatment and hot water system . Scope of Work — Administrative 1 . Develop and maintain a detailed Construction and Startup Schedule 2. Provide for all shipment of materials to the site in a timely manor to support Construction Schedule. 3. Maintain an acceptable and proactive Safety Program 4. Provide Customer Training 5of6 Calpwr Proposal to The City of Burlingame 5. Provide Operations Manuals for provided Equipment In-Progress Project Deliverables 1 . Engineering & Drawings for installation 2. Equipment Drawings including physical dimensions and connection points 3. Power Wiring diagrams 4. Plumbing and Mechanical diagrams 5. Control Wiring diagrams 6. Utility Interconnect Agreement 7. Technical interface with the electrical utilities 8. Rebate Incentive applications 9. Air Permitting Applications 10. Complete Installation 11 . Start-up & Commissioning Scope of Work — Warranty (Maintenance) 1 . First year Factory Warranty on Engine-Generator and Bio Gas Fuel System Major Components 2. End of 15t Year Head Replacement on Engine (If Required) 2 2nd Year Head Replacement on Engine 3. 3`d Year In-Skid Engine Rebuild 4. Required Bio Gas Fuel System Media Change-outs for all three years 5. Owner to Provide and Replace Oil/Filters and other Consumables for all three years Scope of Materials Materials Manufacturer Model Description Quand Unit Caterpillar G3406 LE 200 KW, genset 1 Ea. Bio Spark AKFTS-1 Bio Gas Fuel System 1 Ea. Bell & Gosset Pump Hot Water Supply Pump 2 Ea. Beeline TBD Net Gen Output Meter Panel 1 Ea. TBD TBD Plate/Frame HX St. Steel 1 Ea. TBD TBD Paralleling Breaker 1 Ea. Cutler Hammer Motor Controls Pum Controller 2 Ea. LNJ Flame Trap Flame Arrestor 1 Ea. Cutler Hammer Various Power Panel & Disconnects Lot Ea. Exclusions State and Federal Taxes. Removal and or remediation of any hazardous waste found during the installation of the equipment. Communications line to phone service. 6of6 RESOLUTION NO. - AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CO-GENERATION POWER SYSTEM PROJECT AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY TO CALIFORNIA POWER PARTNERS, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 81510 WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for proposals for the - CITY PROJECT 81510 - CONTRACT FOR CO-GENERATION POWER SYSTEM PROJECT AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY WHEREAS, on OCTOBER 6, 2005, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, CALIFORNIA POWER PARTNERS , submitted the lowest responsible proposal for the job in the amount of $912,039.25. 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 proposal of CALIFORNIA POWER PARTNERS, for said project in the amount of $912,039.25, and the same hereby is accepted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the successful proposer 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 proposer. Mayor 11 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 , 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk s:\apublicworksdir\projects\resolutionaward 4 41 &T=Y—kwl' STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9e QA0q a MTG. DATE 11/7/05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED „Q DATE: October 27,2005 BY APPROVED FROM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk By . 650-558-7203 SUBJECT: Recommendation to Cancel the Regular Council Meeting scheduled for December 19, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: To cancel the regularly scheduled meeting of December 19, 2005, due to lack of Council business. EXHIBITS: None CITY �.� STAFF REPORT By JNGAMEAGENDA I ITEM# 9f 2n m MTG. 9DAwTco,JUNE��O DATE 11/7/05 To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suBnnTTED BY �GvSi ti DATE: October 28, 2005 APPROVED _ ERoM: Jim Nantell, Acting Human Resources Director BY SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Correcting the Employer's Contrmution Under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act for AFSCME Local 2190 and 829,BAMM, Department Head/Unrepresented, Police Administrators , IAFF, Teamsters and Fire Administrators RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council approve the attached resolution increasing the City's contribution towards medical premiums for members of the above labor groups and associations. This change will be effective January 1, 2006. BACKGROUND: The above units met and conferred with the City regarding their medical plan options for 2006. The above units have either agreed to the City's tiered medical plan previously approved by Council or a single contribution plan. AFSCME Local 2190 and 829, BAMM, Department Head/ Unrepresented, Police Administrators and IAFF will have a maximum City contribution of $1012.39. Teamsters will have a maximum Citv contribution of $850.00 and Fire Administrators will have a maximum contribution of $1106.30. The attached resolution changes the maximum City contributions to the aforementioned. BUDGET LN1PACT: The cost of this benefit increase was included in the 2005/06 budget approved by Council. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME UPDATING THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22825.6 provides that a local agency contracting under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act shall fix the amount of the employer's contribution at an amount not less than the amount required under Section 22825 of the Act, and WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, is a local agency contracting under the Act for participation by members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 856 and AFSCME Local 2190, Burlingame Association of Middle Managers (BAMM), Department Head and Unrepresented Groups,the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) the Police Administrators,the Teamsters and Fire Administrators, therefore be it RESOLVED, that effective January 1, 2006 the employer's contribution for each employee or annuitant shall be the amount necessary to pay the full cost of his/her enrollment, including the enrollment of his/her family members in a health benefits plan up to a maximum of$1012.39 per month for AFSCME Local 856 and AFSCME Local 2190, BAMM, Department Head/Unrepresented, Police Administrators and IAFF. A maximum of$850.00 per month for the Teamsters and$1106.30 for the Fire Administrators respectively; Plus administrative fees and Contingency Reserve Fund Assessments. MAYOR 1, 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 day of October 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CITY CLERK W"' "T" STAFF REPORT BORLINGAME AGENDA 9 ITEM# g k MTG. ...m....•�••• DATE November7,2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: Jack Van Etten,Chief of Police Eo)DATE: October 28,2005 2� APPROVED FROM: Jack Van Etten,Chief of Polio BY: Jim Nantell,City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution approving minor revisions in the Second Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement(JPA)establishing the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force(NTF)and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Amendment by and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. BACKGROUND: In 1985,a Joint Powers Agreement between all Cities and the County of San Mateo established the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force.Since this is a JPA,any amendments or changes to the original document must be approved by all involved parties,namely the County of San Mateo and each of the cities in the County. The governing board of the San Mateo County NTF recently approved some minor changes to the JPA which were identified in the Second Amendment.This was done following notification and solicitation of comments from all involved parties.The minor changes include:adding the Broadmoor Police Protections District to the JPA;establishing the new fiscal year from July 1 of each year to June 30 of the following year;maintenance of insurance,penalties for withdrawing from the NTF JPA. The governing board has also recommended the execution and approval of the Second Amendment to NTF JPA by the county and all involved cities. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors approved the Second Amendment to the NTF JPA on October 18,2005.The final step in this approval process is for each of the involved cities to sign a resolution approving the Second Amendment to the NTF JPA.Once this occurs the Second Amendment to the NTF JPA will become effective. BUDGET IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: San Mateo County Second Amendment to the NTF JPA Burlingame Resolution Approving the Second Amendment to the NTF JPA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY NARCOTICS TASK FORCE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City joined the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force to provide a comprehensive approach to narcotics enforcement in the County; and WHEREAS, the Task Force has been an effective and efficient means to combat narcotics crime in the County and in the City; and WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement should be amended to clarify the responsibilities of the member agencies, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1 . The Second Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force as contained in Exhibit 1 to this Resolution is approved. 2. The Mayor is authorized and requested to execute the Second Amendment on behalf of the City of Burlingame, and the Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Mayor. 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 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK SECOND AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY NARCOTICS TASK FORCE THIS AMENDMENT to the agreement dated March 26, 1985, by and between the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,hereinafter referred to as "County," and the signatories to said agreement,hereinafter referred to as "City" or"Cities"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS,the parties have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement dated March 26, 1985, (Resolution No. 46673)which created the SAN MATEO COUNTY NARCOTICS TASK FORCE; and WHEREAS,that Joint Powers Agreement was first amended on February 23, 1988 (Resolution No. 50097) WHEREAS, it has become apparent that certain changes should now be made to the Joint Powers Agreement, and it is therefore the intention of the parties to further amend said agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREIN AGREED: 1. The Introductory paragraph of the joint powers agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "THIS AGREEMENT by and between the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO (hereinafter referred to as the "County") and those cities and law enforcement agencies within the County of San Mateo who become signatories to this agreement(hereinafter referred to as "the Cities" or"City" as the context requires), is made in light of the following recitals:" 2. Section 6 of the joint powers agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 6. Budget. Narcotics Task Force Staff shall prepare and submit to the Board each year a proposed operating budget, setting forth anticipated expenses, financing sources and proposed service levels necessary to carry out the purposes of this agreement. The Board shall review the proposed budget, modify as needed, and approve the Task Force's budget prior to the commencement of the new fiscal year. The fiscal year for the Narcotics Task Force shall be from July 1 of each year to June 30 of the following year unless the Board decides otherwise. Immediately after approving the annual budget, the Board shall recommend the budget to the governing body of the County and each of the Cities for the purposes of securing from each of them contributions and/or appropriations in accordance with each party's obligation as set forth in Section 7 below. It is expressly agreed and understood that the Board has no authority to bind any governing board to make the recommended contribution and/or appropriation and that this decision rests solely with each governing body. The County shall notify each parry of its yearly contribution, and each party shall deposit its monetary contribution to the budget with the County within 60 days after notification of the amount. 3. Section 13 of the joint powers agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 13. Withdrawal. Any parry may withdraw from this agreement by filing written notice of intention to do so with the Chairman of the governing board by April 30 of each year. The rights and obligations of such parry shall terminate at the end of the fiscal year in which such notice is given. The withdrawal of party from this agreement shall in no way affect the rights and obligations of the remaining party unless the withdrawal is by the County in which event this Agreement shall terminate. If a party withdraws from this agreement, such party shall not be entitled to the return of any funds contributed to the Narcotics Task Force nor to the return in cash or in kind of any materials or supplies (other than vehicles or communication equipment) until termination of this agreement. If a party withdraws from this agreement, its employees shall cease working for the Narcotics Task Force on the effective date of such a party's withdrawal. If a parry fails to make its contribution of either personnel or money in accordance with Section 7 of this agreement, it will be deemed to have withdrawn as of the end of the fiscal year in which it last made its contribution. 4. Section 20 of the joint powers agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 20. Insurance. The County shall continue to add the Narcotics Task Force to its excess liability insurance coverage and shall maintain such coverage in full force and effect during the life of this agreement. Said excess liability insurance coverage has a self-insured retention by the County. County shall provide for the defense of any claims or litigation against the Narcotics Task Force or its permanently assigned personnel within the self-insured retention. Permanently assigned personnel are those persons working under the supervision and direction of the Commander. Legal representation for any such claims or litigation will ordinarily be provided by the office of the County Counsel. Any out-of-pocket expenses or loss by way of judgment or settlement, arising out of the acts or omissions of the Narcotics Task Force and its permanently assigned personnel within the limits of the County's self-insured retention, shall be shared by the parties in accordance with the following formula: Fifty percent (50%) to be paid by the County and Fifty percent (50%) to be paid by the Cities in accordance with the formula set forth in section 7(b). Expenses shall not include salaries or office expenses of any County employees, including any attorneys from the office of the County Counsel. 5. Except as noted herein, all other provisions of the March 26, 1985 Joint Powers Agreement and the February 23, 1988 First Amendment thereto shall remain in full force and effect. 6. This Second Amendment may be executed in counterparts, and it shall be effective when each of the parties have executed the agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto by their duly authorized representatives have affixed their hands on this day of , 2005. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ATTEST: By: President,Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board TOWN OF ATHERTON ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of Town Council CITY OF BELMONT ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF BRISBANE ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF BURLINGAME ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF COLMA ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of Town Council CITY OF DALY CITY ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF FOSTER CITY ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF HALF MOON BAY ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF HILLSBOROUGH ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF MENLO PARK ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF MILLBRAE ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF PACIFICA ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of Town Council CITY OF REDWOOD CITY ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF SAN BRUNO ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF SAN CARLOS ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF SAN MATEO ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of City Council TOWN OF WOODSIDE ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of Town Council BROADMOOR POLICE PROTECTION DISTRICT ATTEST: By: Commissioner L:\CLIENT\N DEPTS\NARCOTIC\2005\2nd Amdment to JPA NTF.doc �A CITY 0R STAFF REPORT BURIJNGAME AGENDA 9h ITEM # "eD4q ,ADO MTG. 11/7/05 DNA,ED JuaE6 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY t� DATE: October 26, 2005 APPROVED f/ FROM: Lisa Zarubin, Human Resources BY '� SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Salary Increase for the City Manager and City Attorney and Participation in Central Fire Department Merit Pay Plan RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council approve the attached resolution granting a 3 .0% salary increase for the City Manager and a 3 .9% salary increase for the City Attorney effective December 4, 2005; and approve participation in Central County Fire Merit Pay Program which would provided a onetime bonus for the Fire Chief. BACKGROUND: The City Manager and City Attorney are unrepresented classifications that serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Salary surveys on both of these classifications were recently conducted. Consistent with Council policy and direction on salary increases for all units this fiscal year, the increases are to get the classifications at or close to San Mateo County market median. The City Attorney classification is 8.3% below market median. After consulting with the City Attorney he has proposed that since his comparable market has only five cities that we treat his position like the other Department Head positions. The MOU for the other department head positions calls for using the average amount of the department head positions are out of market median which is 3.9%. The ten city market comparison for the City Manager position shows a 3% adjustment to get to market median. The City of the Town of Hillsborough has recommended that the Fire Chief be included in the Merit Pay Plan that is provided to their department and division heads. The Fire Joint Powers Board met Tuesday November I st and concurred with the recommendation to include the Fire Chief in the Merit Pay Plan for the current year and to include both the Fire Chief and Deputy Chief in the Merit Pay Plan for 2006. The Hillsborough Council has already approved participation and now it is coming before our Council for your approval. As City Manager I fully support the merit pay plan for the fire department and believe that since the Fire Chief and Deputy Chief are managing fire service for two cities the additional merit pay is justifiable. BUDGET IMPACT The 2005-06 Budget included funding for a 3% salary increase. The 3.9% increase for the City Attorney will exceed budgeted 3% funds by $ 1000 for the current fiscal year and Burlingame's share of the merit pay for the Fire Chief would be about $ 10,000 beyond current budgeted funds. The difference of $ 11 ,000 will be funded by other salary savings due to vacancies. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Approving Salary Increases for the City Attorney and City Manager/Participation in Merit Pay Staff Report Re: Merit Pay Plan for Central County Fire RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING ADJUSTMENT TO SALARY OF CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY AND PARTICIPATION IN CENTRAL FIRE DEPARTMENT MERIT PAY PLAN RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City Council has considered its understandings with the unrepresented employees of the City and believes that adjustment in the salary of the City Manager to place the City Manager at median for the ten cities in the City's survey area, and adjustment in the salary of the City Attorney in the same percentage as the Department Heads Association would be fair and equitable; and WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough, the City's partner in the Central Fire Department, has a Merit Pay Plan that the Central Fire Department governing board has recommended be applied to the Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The changes in existing salary of the City Manager and the City Attorney as contained in Exhibit A hereto are approved. 2. Participation in the Central Fire Department Merit Pay Plan for the Fire Chief is approved. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of_ 2005,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 1 EXHIBIT A CHANGES IN SALARY OF UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES, CITY MANAGER CITY ATTORNEY City Manager Salary Adjustment effective December 4, 2005 — + 3.0% City Attorney Salary Adjustments effective December 4, 2005 + 3.9% A-1 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA MTG. ITEM# 7e. DATE 11/01/05 TO: JOINT POWERS BOARD SUBMITED BY: 01Ac X-Z'4� DATE: October 25, 2005 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer APPROVED BY: SUBJECT: Merit Pay Plan Recommendation: Approve the proposed Merit Pay Plan. The program would be effective immediately for the Fire Chief who would receive merit pay based on performance in the 2004/05 Fiscal Year. The program would add the Deputy Fire Chief in the-2005/06 Fiscal Year. Background: The intention of the Merit Pay Plan is to provide recognition for work performance and to provide an incentive to work at a high level. This program is in addition to cost of living (COLA) increases, which relate to maintaining salary levels in accordance with market conditions and survey information. It is proposed that Merit Pay be based on a fiscal year basis, while COLA will be handled on a calendar basis. The attachment summarizes the mechanics of the program and specifies the parameters and ratings. The program requires concurrence from both City Managers. The Fire Chief is supervised by the CAO and possible merit pay is a part of the confidential personnel evaluation process. The process includes notification of both the ratings and percentage of merit pay to the Fire Board. Since the CCFD is a new organization, it is recommended that the program be gradually phased in. It would be appropriate to initially recognize the Fire Chief, given his key role in managing the transition to the CCFD, for Fiscal Year 2004/05. The Deputy Fire Chief would be added to the program for Fiscal Year 2005/06. Budget Impact: A total of 8%of the salaries of the two positions will be budgeted in the future. In the current Fiscal Year,the total amount would be no greater than$16,807, representing the maximum possible. The actual amount will be allocated between the two cities using the 60%-40%formula. Attachment: Central County Fire Department Merit Pay Plan �r Central County Fire Department Merit Pay Plan Merit Program & Funding Merit Pay rewards performance in the immediately completed Fiscal Year. Funding for the Merit program will be included in the annual budget and is approximately 8% of the annual compensation of all eligible positions. Eligible Positions The following positions, based on current classifications, are eligible for consideration: • Fire Chief I • Deputy Fire Chief Effective Date The Fire Chief will be eligible effective immediately and will be considered for Merit Pay for work performance in Fiscal Year 2004/05. The Merit Pay for the Deputy Fire Chief will be effective for Fiscal Year 2005/06. Evaluation & Merit Guidelines Rating Performance Parameters Unacceptable Not Meets Job Requirements Performance Plan or Disciplinary Action Marginal Frequently Below Job Requirements Performance Plan Competent Meets Job Requirements 0% Pay Outstanding Frequently Above Job Requirements Merit P 1M/° to ay Merit Pay Exceptional Exceeds Job Requirements 8% to 10% Town of Hillsborough Page 2 Merit Pay Plan Evaluation & Merit Pay Process I Time Procedure Responsibility Frame August • Annual objectives formulated Fire Chief& CAO & approved } � . �r September,,,,:, 0 Objectives updated Employee &Immediate Supervisor, I to & completed } May June/July • Performance evaluation Fire Chief& CAO completed t July/Aug. • Merit Pay determined Both City Managers July/Aug. • CCWD Fire Board informed of CAO ratings & amounts Sept./Oct. • Employees paid Finance Directors r Payment Those employees receiving merit pay will be paid on a lump-sum basis. Payment is based on the percentage applied to the annual salary of the employee. CCWD 04/05 CITY AGENDA 9,1 1� °� ITEM# _ BURL,NGAME MTG. STAFF REPORT 01DATE 11/7/2005 oMnn uae 6 foo TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: November 3, 2005 APPROVED BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF RICK LYONS TO THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Accept nomination of Rick Lyons by the Burlingame Avenue (BID) and appoint Mr. Lyons to the Advisory Board to serve an unexpired term to January 2007. DISCUSSION: In September, the Council approved Ordinance No. 1761 providing that vacancies on the Burlingame Avenue Area BID Advisory Board would be filled by Council appointment on nomination by the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board has nominated Rick Lyons of Fortezza, Primrose Road, to fill one of the vacancies on the Board. Mr. Lyon's appointment would be for an unexpired term to January 2007. As the Council knows, the Board has been short-handed, and this appointment would help the Board extend its representation and capability. Mr. Lyons has previously held a number of executive positions with Gap, Kids Gap and Baby Gap and brings a perspective of large corporate stores as well as a new retailer who is operating on a side street to Burlingame Ave. Distribution Cheryl Enright � STAFF REPORT AGENDA BURLINGAME ITEM# 9j MTG. 11/7/05 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCH. SUB TED BY DATE: November 1,2005 APPRO D FROM: Parks& Recreation Director (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAYGROUND HABILITATION AT PERSHING PARK—PROJECT#81070 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the Playground construction at Pershing Park performed by Scapes, Inc. of Half Moon Bay in the amount of$151,718.41. BACKGROUND: On March 8, 2005 Scapes, Inc. was awarded the contract for this phase of the City's playground rehabilitation program. The work included demolition, grading, drainage improvements, installation of new playground equipment, and installation of new resilient surfacing. Three change orders to Scapes, Inc. totaled $12,949.76 were necessary due to inaccuracies in source documents, requiring a new survey and reconfiguration of some of the play equipment. The punch list has now been completed and the facility is open for public use. The consulting architect and staff are satisfied with the work and are recommending approval by Council. The total project cost is $232,093 (nearly $10,000 less than the authorized amount), with $220,000 being funded from State Proposition 40. Upon Council acceptance, Staff will obtain the balance of the approved State Bond funding. EXHIBITS: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: Design services not broken down by phases Construction $151,718.41 Design, document preparation, and construction administration 23,505.33 Playground equipment, including reconfiguration pieces 54,169.33 Miscellaneous costs, including survey 2,700 00 Total $ 232,093.07 Funds are available to complete this project. Project was authorized for$241,893. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING COMPLETION OF PERSHING PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION CITY PROJECT NO.81070 RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMIlVE as follows: 1. The Parks &Recreation Director of said City has certified that the work done by SCAPES, INC under the terms of its contract with the City of Burlingame dated MARCH 8, 2005, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by this Council therefor and to the satisfaction of the Parks&Recreation Director. 2. Said work is particularly described as #81070 PERSHING PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. 4. The city engineer is directed to execute and file for record with the County Recorder notice of the completion thereof as required by law. 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 7" day of November, 2005 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILUEMBERS: City Clerk CITY G AGENDA 9k Ct ITEM# BURL,NG,►ME STAFF REPORT MTG. °�qo DATE 11/7/2005 uwe 6.o TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY - C DATE: November 2, 2005 APPRO BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: SPECIFY OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS OF ATTENDANCE IS AUTHORIZED RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution specifying official functions for which reimbursement of costs is authorized. DISCUSSION: Chapter 700 of 2005 California Statutes requires the City Council to specify official functions for which reimbursement to Councilmembers is allowed. No specification is required if the function is a 1) meeting of the Council; 2) a meeting of an advisory body; or 3) a conference or organized educational activity that is open to the public conforming to certain Brown Act limitations. As this is new legislation, it is not clear exactly what may fit into the third category, so in order to clearly identify the official functions, it is appropriate to specify them in a public policy. Attendance at meetings and events organized by the following organizations are official functions of City Councilmembers: —Association of Bay Area Governments —Burlingame Chamber of Commerce —California Legislature —Cities Selection Committee —Council of Cities (Council of Mayors) —League of California Cities, both Peninsula Division and State —League of Women Voters (North San Mateo County and South San Mateo County chapters) —Metropolitan Transportation Commission —North County Council of Cities —Peninsula Policy Partnership — SAMCEDA — San Mateo County Convention&Visitors Bureau — San Mateo County Progress Seminar Attachment Proposed Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIFYING OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS OF ATTENDANCE IS AUTHORIZED RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS,the City Council has adopted a Purchasing Manual specifying the procedures and policies for reimbursement of expenses; and WHEREAS, the Chapter 700 of the 2005 California Statutes requires the City Council to specify what official functions are subject to reimbursement for attendance costs for Councilmembers if a function does not fit into the three narrow categories identified by the Legislature; and WHEREAS,attendance at meetings and events of the following organizations are an integral part of service as a Councilmember for the City in representing the City's interests and hearing and learning about and sharing the far-reaching concerns of the community: —Association of Bay Area Governments —Burlingame Chamber of Commerce —California Legislature —Cities Selection Committee —Council of Cities (Council of Mayors) —League of California Cities, both Peninsula Division and State — League of Women Voters (North San Mateo County and South San Mateo County chapters) —Metropolitan Transportation Commission —North County Council of Cities —Peninsula Policy Partnership — SAMCEDA — San Mateo County Convention& Visitors Bureau — San Mateo County Progress Seminar WHEREAS, reimbursement of the costs of attendance at these events and meetings to Councilmembers is appropriate and should be authorized, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved: 1. Reimbursement for the costs of attendance by Councilmembers at meetings and events of the following organizations is authorized: —Association of Bay Area Governments —Burlingame Chamber of Commerce —California Legislature —Cities Selection Committee 1 —Council of Cities (Council of Mayors) —League of California Cities, both Peninsula Division and State — League of Women Voters (North San Mateo County and South San Mateo County chapters) —Metropolitan Transportation Commission -North County Council of Cities —Peninsula Policy Partnership — SAMCEDA —San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau — San Mateo County Progress Seminar 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 , 2005, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: City Clerk 2 11,* CITY 0� STAFF REPORT BURLW4GAMIE AGENDA ITEM# 91 +oe MTC. ,,,,�• DATE November 7, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: Jack Van Etten, Chief of Police DATE: November 1, 2005 --� APPROVED FROM: Jack Van Etten, Chief of Police BY: Jim Nantell, City Manager SUBJECT: Termination of Criminal Justice Council RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of an amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Criminal Justice Council of San Mateo County, which amendment would disband the Criminal Justice Council. DISCUSSION: The JPA provides that upon termination of the Council, property and surplus money of the Criminal Justice Council shall, subject to the provisions of any federal or state grant agreement, be returned to the parties in the same proportions in which such parties made contributions to the Council. The JPA provides that the agreement may be amended at any time by the written agreement by and between the County and those signatory city governments representing collectively fifty percent(50%)of the total population within the County. The parties have agreed that the best course of action is to terminate the Joint Powers Agreement that established the Criminal Justice Council, to disband the Council, and to return the surplus funds pursuant to the formula set forth in the agreement. Disbanding the Criminal Justice Council of San Mateo County is an efficient use of resources, in light of the changed political and fiscal circumstances that have transpired in the thirty-five years since the Council was established. BACKGROUND: In 1971, both the county and the cities entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to establish the Criminal Justice Council of San Mateo County, the purpose of which was to administer programs and funding issued by the State Office of Criminal Justice Planning under the Federal Crime Control Act of 1973. The Council has functioned effectively for more than thirty years. However, the funding for said programs no longer exists, and therefore, there are no programs to be administered by the Criminal Justice Council. As a result, the governing body of the Criminal Justice Council has recommended that the JPA should be terminated and the Criminal Justice Council of San Mateo County should be disbanded. BUDGET IMPACT: Return of$1,212.00 to the Burlingame General Fund, which is a portion of Burlingame's share of the 2004-2005 funding from the CJC. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TO TERMINATE THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT RESOLVED,by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME,that: WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo and the cities in the county have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement(hereafter, "JPA")establishing the Criminal Justice Council of San Mateo County, the purpose of which is to administer programs and funding issued by the State Office of Criminal Justice Planning under the Federal Crime Control Act of 1973; and WHEREAS,the funding for said programs no longer exists, and therefore there are no programs to be administered by the Criminal Justice Council; and WHEREAS,the governing body of the Criminal Justice Council has recommended that the JPA should be terminated and that the Criminal Justice Council of San Mateo County should be disbanded, and all parties have agreed to terminate the Joint Powers Agreement that established the Criminal Justice Council; and WHEREAS,this Council has been presented for its consideration and execution an amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement, which amendment would enable the termination of the Criminal Justice Council,reference to which is hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS,this Council has examined and approved said Amendment as to both form and content and desires to enter into the same, NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED as follows: 1. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Criminal Justice Council as contained in Exhibit A hereto for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame, and the Clerk shall attest her signature thereto. Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolutions were introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: City Clerk CITY o� STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM# BURUNGAME Burlingame Public Library MEETING DATE: 11/7/05 o �HaTce June 6 November 2, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY: FROM: Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian APPROVED BY: SUBJECT: Request to Attend Out of State Conference Recommendation: To approve travel expenses for the City Librarian, Al Escoffier; Library Services Manager, Pat Harding; and Technical Services Manager, Barry Mills, to attend the Public Library Association Conference in Boston, March 21-25, 2006. Background: The biennial conference of the Public Library Association is being held in Boston this winter. The Public Library Association is an independent organization with ties to the American Library Association. There are a number of major programs at the conference that are relevant to Burlingame Public Library. Conference topics include: improving managerial competencies, collection building, providing more services with fewer resources, and learning more about new technologies. This is also a good opportunity to talk with vendors on new products and services for public libraries. There will also be sessions on development of adult programming and community outreach activities, which mirror the priorities in our library's Plan of Service. The PLA Conference is the best and most relevant conference for public librarians and I feel the managers will gain a great deal from attendance. Susan Reiterman, Youth and Branch Manager and Amy Gettle, Circulation Supervisor will be in charge in our absence. Budget Impact: The total cost(registration, hotel and airline costs) will be taken partially from the library general fund training budget and supplemented by the Trustees Special Fund. There are sufficient funds in the library budget for this expenditure. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame, CA October 24, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the October 24, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks ; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the October 11, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The minutes of the January 24,2005 meeting were amended as follows, item 4, 1453 Balboa, second paragraph last sentence to read: "Obscure glass will be used in bathroom and by the stairwell." CP Monroe noted that she had listened to the tapes and the correction reflects what was said by the applicant at the meeting regarding which windows would have obscure glass. Commission voted 7-0 on a voice vote to amend the January 24, 2005 minutes with the correction. `'—IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa,continue to hear from the Planning Commission that they cannot treat spec developers differently from homeowners;suggest that whenever there is a major remodel or replacement of an existing single family house that the city prohibit the sale of any such house for three years, this would be consistent with the maximum time you could extend a building permit;this requirement would not affect the homeowner who is going to live in the house anyway and would slow up, and discourage the spec developer and give the neighborhood time to evaluate and work out the issues with proposed new houses; also would reduce demands on staff; enforcement could be for the city to institute a penalty of up to 25% of the difference between the purchase and sale price of the house. Would like the Planning Commission to have staff research this idea and have a study session; don't know if its permissible. CP Monroe noted that there were a number of letters at the Commissioners' desks regarding 144 Costa Rica,some of which arrived today. These letters relate to the home occupation permit and staff will follow up through the code enforcement process. There are review criteria in the code provisions. Commission asked that if a letter is sent to the occupant at 144 Costa Rica, a copy be sent to each of the people who sent in letters expressing concern. It was noted that one letter was anonymous,feel that such communication is not helpful since cannot follow up. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 24, 2005 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1511 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A DRIVING SCHOOL IN AN EXISTING TRADE UNION BUILDING (VICTORIA & MOHAMMAD AZARSHAHY, APPLICANT AND LOCAL 1781 BUILDING CORPORATION PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Clarify the training provided,how does it work between the classroom and behind the wheel,what are the number of hours for each type of training? • Application notes that they will be open from Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,is that only for scheduling appointments,will there be training sessions/classes held during that time, what other activities, please clarify. • Of the 111 on-site parking spaces for the trade union use,what percentage of these spaces are now occupied; how many will be used by this business and how often for each use(on-site employees, cars of training drivers, storage of training cars, etc)? • There appears to be a number of existing businesses which operate from this building,please provide a list of all tenants, the number of employees, the square footage leased and the on-site parking commitment to each business. • Previously,there was an issue with recreational vehicles parked at the rear of the property and there appears to be RV's parked there now,what is the status of these RV's? • The application notes that if there is overflow, the union members will use parking spaces on the adjoining site,when does overflows occur, how frequently, is it on weekend or on weekdays? • Need more documentation regarding what happens with the vehicles used for teaching. • This business is moving from another location,provide information of how the business operates at that location,number of employees, number of cars parked on site, number of cars stored on site, impact on required parking, how the students arrive and depart, etc. • Staff should check to see if there have been any complaints about the operation of the existing business at 1300 Bayshore Highway. C. Osterling made a motion to put this item on the consent calendar when all the questions had been answered to the satisfaction of staff. The motion was seconded by C.Brownrigg,who withdrew his second. The second was then made by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: concerned about putting this on consent, there are a lot of questions whose answers could impact approval;think the questions are straightforward,factual,if impact is unacceptable can put over to action calendar and have a public hearing; consent can be interpreted as a"shoe-in",that is not the case here; given the comments on the motion,the second revoked his second on the motion,noting the problem in resolving issues could be with the building owner as well as with the tenant;C.Vistica agreed to second the motion,because this appears to be a minor parking issue and would like to see this use here; it was noted that this is a 600 SF use on a site with 111 on-site parking spaces. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to set this item on the consent calendar. This item was set -� when all the questions have been answered and staff has reviewed them. The motion passed on a 4-3 (Cern. Brownrigg,Deal and Keighran dissenting)voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 24, 2005 2e 1160 CAPUCHINO AVENUE,ZONED C-1,BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN AN EXISTING TENANT SPACE (ALICIA PARNELL, APPLICANT; CATHERINE NILMEYER,ARCHITECT;AND ANNE&DAVID HINCKLE,PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • not sure if this use is a food service as envisioned for the Broadway Commercial area,this appears to be more of a catering business appropriate to the light industrial areas not a retail operation,there are better places to site food preparation; • explain how this is a restaurant type business and not a catering operation,the customer base seems low for a restaurant; • there is no seating proposed, so don't see how this is an intensification of use,what if the applicant were to add a couple small tables and chairs, so that it might operate more like a traditional restaurant; • suggest that the applicant look into getting an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for outside seating if there is enough space on the sidewalk; • is there a history of this business in another location,how much of the business is retail customers, please provide a description of what they expect to sell,how a transaction will occur, etc.; Commission comment: CP noted that this use is similar to a take out business with no seating, these uses behave like food establishments,so when the code was revised,take-out food businesses are now considered food establishments; has the potential to have an impact with large turnover of customers. C. Keighran made a motion that this item be brought back on the regular action calendar when these questions have been -. answered and staff has reviewed them. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 3A. 214-216 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA—REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION FOR AN APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO CONVERT THE GROUND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING TWO- STORY HOTEL TO RETAIL (LORTON LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL KASTROP, THE KASTROP GROUP INC., ARCHITECT) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. CP Monroe noted that there was a letter at the Commissioner's desks from an engineer confirming the height of the story poles at 1718 Escalante Way. Commissioner asked a question about where the stone veneer is on the front of the house,the plans are unclear. The project at 1718 Escalante Way was put over to the regular action calendar for a public hearing. -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 24, 2005 C. Brownrigg moved approval of the consent calendar, 214-216 Lorton Avenue,based on the facts in the staff report,commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3B. 1718 ESCALANTE WAY,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(DAVID LUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PAUL NII, PAUL NII ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (37NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER(CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 11, 2005) Reference staff report of October 24,2005,with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report,reviewed the criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. David Lung,property owner,represented the project. He noted that the stone would be carried throughout the front in the areas shown on the plans by dark horizontal lines. Commissioner asked if the stone would be river stone, because the symbol on the plans looks like wood siding? No the stone will be horizontal flag stone. Commissioner asked if it was correct that the highest ridge of the roof would be extended 20 feet from where it is now and is that shown with the story poles?Yes the existing highest ridge is continued north 20 feet at the rear of the house, and that extension was not included in the story poles,thought you wanted to see the highest point over the garage at the front,did poles myself, did them incorrectly, fixed the poles and had a professional survey of the highest point over the garage, don't know who's view would be blocked by the extension of the highest roof ridge at the rear. Commissioner noted that the point is that the highest part of the new roof is not represented by the current story poles. He also noted that the octagonal window over the front door should be centered. Applicant noted that it could be centered. Commissioner noted that moving the window to the center could affect the location of the interior walls on the second floor, although it was noted that the affected wall was new and could be moved a few inches to fit the window so the outside would not be affected;because the extension of the highest ridge of the roof was not shown by the story poles do not know if the neighbors have a view issue or not,the code does not address how much view blockage is affected,to install story poles,it says to put up story poles and determine;applicant noted that if Commission explained what they want him to do he would do it. Commission noted that they need accurate drawings for the project,the size of the lumber used for the story poles is not a concern, the accurate outline of all that is new is a concern, should include the new 20 foot ridgeline, yes; first floor addition as well? yes, the entire outline of the new structure as was called for in the minutes of the last meeting where the story poles were discussed. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: story poles are a serious issue,neighbors do not know if there is a potential view blockage without them accurately documenting what will happen with the new structure,especially in this case where have not heard from neighbors;agree especially given the kind of out cry Commission receives when a view is blocked,lesson from this is to be clear in future motions if part of the outline is to be exempt from story poles;Commission asked for story poles because there may or may not be a view blockage,they need to be accurate so neighbors know if view will be impacted or not; this item should be set for a date -4- City of'Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 24, 2005 certain;concerned that this not set a precedent that what is on the site should match what is on the drawings; could continue this item to the November 14th meeting for installation of the poles outlining all additions and notice it so sure that the neighbors are aware. C. Vistica made a motion to have the applicant install story poles to outline the entire roof of the second floor,do not feel that the ground floor portion of the addition is an issue,center the octagonal window on the second floor over the front door with the plans amended to show change, including floor plans and note clearly on the plans,in all places where it is used,that the stone cladding on the exterior of the house will be horizontal flag stone. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Commissioner comment on the motion: OK if the octagonal window changes shape or some in size to fit in, it is key that it is centered over the front door. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the November 14, 2005 meeting with public notice providing story poles are installed which outline all of the second story portions of this addition, including the 20 feet at the rear and are properly surveyed, that the window on the second floor over the front door be centered on the front door allowing for a change to shape or size to make it work with proper documentation on the plans; that the plans be amended to document that all the stone work on the outside of the structure will be horizontal flag stone; and that the story poles be installed and their height documented with proper submittals to staff and the revised plans be submitted in time for staff review and scheduling for the meeting of November 14,2005. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 4® 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 — APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE GRADING AND PLACEMENT OF FILL (RICK JEFFERY, R & B EQUIPMENT,INC.,APPLICANT;JAMES MADDEN,PROJECT MANAGER,309 ASSOCIATES LLC, PROPERTY OWNER;AND BOHLEY CONSULTING,CIVIL ENGINEER)(16 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report October 24,2005,with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report on the history of the fill and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and reviewed required criteria for action. There are 12 mitigations required for the fill project and they will be included with the grading permit. Commissioners asked about the need for wind barriers for dust control; how will the watering be monitored; what will happen if it rains? Staff noted that the site would be watered regularly to control dust as required by the NPDES standards,the city would inspect to insure that these standards were being met and the site was not becoming over wet. Concerned about condition J and the replanting of the stripped area. Staff noted that once the site is regraded it will be planted to hold the soil in place, could require that the hydromulch be done within 30 days. Concerned that soil will not be friendly to hydromulch and will need attention to get grasses started. Staff noted that maintenance until the plants are established can be required. When will this grading be done, this is the lower wind season? Staff noted the grading to fill in the low spots using dirt already on the site will commence as soon as the environmental document is approved and the grading permit issued.What happened to the surface paving and how will the site drain? Staffnoted that storm drain lines will be placed in the fill and the water pumped to Sanchez Channel as it is now; this fill does not extend into the portion of the site within BCDC jurisdiction on the north side next to Sanchez Channel and that is where the pump is located. Will there be a grading permit required? Staff noted yes and it will include all the requirements for drainage,compaction, seeding,etc. There were no further comments from -- the Commission. -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 24, 2005 Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Rick Jeffery,R and B Equipment,representing the applicant was present to answer questions. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa also spoke. Commission asked why the site was --. filled? Site is low, the owner agreed to allow him to fill the site to within one foot of the existing street level, in the area outside of BCDC jurisdiction along Sanchez Creek; he is a demolition, excavation contractor and will bring in the remaining fill from elsewhere. How long will you be bringing dirt to this site? Because entering the rainy season may take 9 to 12 months to finish fill. CP noted that he was not going to fill the entire site, the area along Sanchez Channel would require a BCDC permit and a reconstruction of the channel wall; the toe of the slope of this proposed fill would end at the BCDC jurisdiction line. How much more fill to you estimate to complete this part? He moves about 500,000 cubic yards of dirt a year,but it will only take about 70,000 cubic yards to complete the work here, about 30,000 will come from 101 Ellsworth.CP noted that in the future no fill would be placed on this site which had not been tested and approved by the San Mateo County Health Department. No objection to fill, want a clarification that there will never be any housing on this site; appears that given the location and fill, liquefaction of soils may affect development in the future; specific plan for this area does not allow health services,except clinics for employees,would it allow veterinarian hospitals,this would be a better place than Rollins Road; can it be zoned for veterinary hospitals and not health services? There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C.Brownrigg noted that this is a straight forward report and would move its approval by resolution and with the mitigations included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to be attached to the grading permit with the following clarifications to the mitigation measures: 1)Construction staging areas shall be kept clear of all trash and other debris, etc; construction staging areas shall be located away from Airport Boulevard and adjacent businesses so they are not visible from public view; 2) During construction, an opaque security fence approved by the City of Burlingame, shall be placed and maintained around the perimeter of the --1 project parcel and removed immediately following construction work;3)Prior to commencement of grading and/or construction activities, the project sponsor shall submit a dust abatement program for review and approval by the Burlingame Public Works Department and the City's NPDES inspector. The project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement this dust abatement program;elements of the program shall include the following: a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily as determined necessary to control dust and meet NPDES requirements;b)Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard(i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer);c)Pave,apply water three times daily,or apply (non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites as determined necessary and required to meet NPDES requirements;d)Sweep daily(preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; e) If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets,the streets shall be swept(preferably with water sweepers);e) Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); f) Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers to exposed stockpiles(dirt,sand,etc.);g)Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour;h)Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways;i)Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible and within 30 days of completing grading and provide necessary maintenance of replanted area as determined by the City until the plant material is established; and;j) Designate a person or persons to oversee the implementation of a comprehensive dust control program and to increase watering, as necessary; 4) The project applicant shall be required to provide the San Mateo Health Service Agency(CHS)and City of Burlingame with information describing the origin of future fill to be imported to the project site. This documentation shall consist of letter(s) certifying the location (site address and/or Assessor's Parcel Number)from which soil was excavated for re-use at the project site and soil laboratory analytical data. One sample shall be collected from every 15 yards of soil to be imported to -6- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 24, 2005 the project site. Soil samples shall be sent to a California-certified laboratory for analysis of lead, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), pesticides, California Code of Regulations Title 22 metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Laboratory analytical reports shall be attached to the letter provided to CHS and the City of Burlingame. Soil sampling results shall demonstrate that the tested constituents do not exceed established Residential and Commercial Environmental Screening Levels(ESLs). In addition,the project applicant shall provide a written affidavit that no asbestos-containing materials are present at the site from which fill is being imported, or that asbestos-containing materials at the site have been appropriately disposed and document that disposed.One letter containing soil sampling data and an asbestos affidavit shall be provided for each site from which fill will be imported; 5)All site discharge materials created during and after construction must be in compliance with the City Municipal Code,Stormwater Water Management and Discharge Control Chapter 15.14 and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements to control pollutants from entering the storm drain system. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be required for review and approval by the Public Works Department. Examples of stormwater pollution prevention controls could include using hay bales at drains, covering and containing construction site materials, dry sweeping paved surfaces, cleaning up leaks and spills immediately, and filtering pumped runoff before it enters the storm drain system. Because of the proximity of this construction site to existing and ongoing active pedestrian activity,best management practices for dust and mud control will be required to reduce the impact on an ongoing recreation and businesses in the immediate area; 6)Survey markers shall be established by a licensed engineer and checked in the field regularly;7)To reduce construction noise effects, the applicant shall require the construction contractor to limit noisy construction activities to the least noise-sensitive times of the day and week(i.e.,Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.; and Saturday,9:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.;none on Sunday and holidays);8)The applicant shall require contractors to muffle all equipment used on the site and to maintain it in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. This measure should result in all non-impact tools generating a maximum noise level of no more than 85dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet; 9)Applicant shall require contractors to turn off powered construction equipment when not in use; 10)To the extent possible,the contractor will schedule truck trips outside of peak commute hours(i.e.,outside of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.,and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.); 11)Haul routes minimizing truck traffic on local roadways will be used to the extent possible; 12)Prior to construction activity, the project sponsor shall submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the City's Department of Public Works. This plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following items: a)Identification of routes for the movements of construction vehicles that would minimize the effects on vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian circulation in the area; and b) Provision of traffic control personnel and/or signage near the proposed construction ingress/egress to direct construction vehicles and alert the general public of construction traffic. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the filling of the site located at 301 Airport Boulevard. The motion passed on a 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ROLLINS ROAD DISTRICT REGULATIONS(NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 124 NOTICED) CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report October 24,2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report along with the letters of comment which had been sent to the Planning Commission's attention regarding the regulations for the Southern Gateway subarea,whether veterinarian hospitals and/or animal boarding should be allowed in the Rollins Road planning area,and whether the storage containers to provide self-storage should be allowed -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 24, 2005 in the drainage area under the PG and E lines in the Rollins Road area. Sixteen or so letters,most received after the packet was delivered commenting on animal boarding,were placed at the commissioners'desks,the majority were from property owners in the Rollins Road area. Commissioners asked: is it correct that the city cannot zone a use out by prohibiting it in all zoning districts? CA responded that is the tendency of the courts, but would extend to uses "reasonable" for this community to have such as a veterinarian hospital not a nuclear waste plant. Can boarding in a hospital sense be distinguished from a animal boarding facility?CA noted that it could be. On page 4 item in 3 there is an error, it says "no sale or service of alcoholic beverages",but that would preclude a wholesaler from giving tastings or a reception for clients,should it be revised to prohibit only the sale of alcoholic beverages? CP noted Commission may make that change if they wish. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. John Ward,representing two property owners, 1206-1220 Rollins Road and 1616 Rollins Road, in the Rollins Road area; David Moutoux, 1400 Rollins Road; Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Herman Christensen, 1429 Rollins Road; Henry Kuechler, 40-50 Edwards Court; Albert Guibara, 1400 Rollins and Marsten Roads;Art Michael,Prime Time,Rollins Road,spoke. Represent property owner in Southern Gateway area, 1206/1220 Rollins Road,three points in letter,understood in June 2004, when reviewed the draft plan and adjusted FAR to allow additional 1.0 FAR as an incentive in the Southern Gateway area,that it would be hard to combine parcels and for the incentive to be effective should either combine parcels or include a gateway feature;regarding land uses want industrial as well as retail and office in the gateway area to provide more options for redevelopment not make it more difficult;concerned about the kinds of retail allowed,want the full range pedestrian and auto oriented; should do this to fulfill objectives and goals of plan adopted in 2004. Concerned about section 25.44.030(p)which allows"doggie day care" e.g. the boarding of animals in the RR zone,based on the assumption that this use is similar to a -� veterinary hospital and on a determination made by the Planning Commission May 9, in fact there are no veterinary hospitals in the M-1 zone,there are two in the R-3 and C-3 zones but neither allows animals to stay overnight or board;feel commission's determination was not well considered before so should not be a justification for the proposed zoning,should re-examine the proposal since a majority of the business owners in the area are opposed. Commissioner asked if there is a distinction between veterinary hospital and boarding of animals? Feel its OK to keep them over night if it is necessary for their health,all right for sick for a night or two,not boarding. Boarding of animals is OK but opposed to breeding animals in the RR area; SPCA has a relationship with the county to provide animal control,not good on Rollins Road should be on Airport Blvd.on property nearer the existing facility,if they need more money for land could ask the County to help them,SPCA has to go someplace,don't see Burlingame saying no even if it is temporary,spend a lot of time at Coyote Point,cannot hear or smell the animals at the SPCA facility there,SPCA is not the same as boarding animals in Burlingame. Oppose an animal boarding function in Burlingame, it is a use that is incompatible with the area and its development potential and will not generate revenue for the City,Coyote Point is a great place for this use not our potential auto row. Tonight is a different issue from the SPCA, current language in zoning says no breed or boarding, determination cited as reason to broaden and allow boarding but not breeding,not comfortable with the determination being use in that way;concerned with the city's ability to enforce a conditional use permit, have business with one across the street and violates conditions all the time;concerned about sewage generated by SPCA and boarding use,the volume will over load the sewer system, if you allow SPCA to board animals how will you stop others, city is giving up revenue on$5.2 million for the property taxes and bearing the burden of higher sewer costs; unclear with boarding how long a dog would stay,this could become long term. Worked in a sewer treatment plant and sewage is a spurious issue,rate paid would be based on volume generated,if collection system not sufficient SPCA will have to pay to have it upgraded. -8- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 24, 2005 Public comment continued: Represent an owner of about 4 acres in the drainage easement under the PG&E lines., got a permit to use site for long term airport parking for a local hotel,market went away,now paved with all required permits, would like zoning to be modified to allow self storage in shipping containers elevated above ground 3 feet so the water would circulate under them, would be willing to hold the city harmless and assume all liability caused by flooding;currently RV storage is allowed in this area and storage if it is related to immediately adjacent uses,are asking for conceptual acceptance for self storage by change in zoning so can come forward with specific plan. Commissioners asked: was the auto storage approved under the PG and E lines,is self storage allowed in the zone?CP noted that it was allowed in the zone,but this request is for self storage in a drainage easement which needs to act seasonally as a holding basin. If storage were on pallets would it be allowed? CP noted any storage in any easement requires an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works as well as zoning compliance. CA noted that the uses permitted in the proposed zoning in the drainage area are those which can be moved quickly so that they are not damaged and do not impede the flow of water in the drain. Maybe trailers could be there if on wheels? CP noted when did the original Bayfront Plan set aside capacity in the Broadway/Rollins intersection for development in the Rollins Road industrial area but figured that there would be no use of the drain; uses allowed in the drain were those which did not increase the intensity of land uses outside of the drainage area; if the drain is now developed by uses which generate traffic themselves it will have a big impact on the Rollins/Broadway intersection. Seems that a storage use could come under the proposed zoning as a"similar to use",with a conditional use permit so access could be limited by timing on gate,etc. Applicant noted that would have to design for water to flow in drain,don't know now what that would be. CA noted that there is a$500,000 bill the city just settled regarding water in the drain, Commission could refer this issue back to staff and the subcommittee. Am an artist and property owner in the area, and think that the storage facility in South San Francisco where the container are stacked looks terrible,some property owners in the area have put a lot of money into making their buildings attractive, such storage would be a deterrent;remember in the past that drain being underwater when it rains and there are high tides. Own 4-5 acres in the drainage area,not now in the auto row overlay,only use is auto storage because of the PG and E lines,maybe the auto row overlay should be extended to include the drain. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: the storage use in the drainage easement should be referred to Public Works and come back to the commission; this ordinance includes commercial design review, this is an important regulatory improvement and will affect how any storage would be done in the drainage easement so review would include both Public Works and aesthetics;there has been a lot of testimony and discussion, should send back to subcommittee to look at;would like to hear from commissioners what they think;no problem with storage idea, have difficult design review standards they must meet, use may not be visible, need to work on a definition of"boarding of animals" see different between SPCA keeping for adoption to benefit public and private facility for boarding, opposed to private boarding facility,think FAR bonus at gateway should be and/or, don't feel that the gateway is the place for pedestrian retail,retail OK if associated with another type of use. Retail could be in multistory,mixed use building. One vision includes the change to the 101 interchange, this more possible with the end of the Broadway train station, then the north side of Broadway could become an extension of the Broadway Commercial Area. Agree with mixed use for retail; not like to see a precedent set for animal boarding facilities in the Rollins Road area, this is not the right location for kennels;storage facility OK as a conceptual idea,but problems could be hidden. Storage in the drain should be sent back to Public Works, concerned about veterinary hospitals and SPCA which boards animals until they are adopted,not want animals walked in area,with veterinary hospital animals are kept inside and the noise is addressed; the number of animals boarded needs to be regulated; if animals in the `— veterinary hospital need to be kept overnight it would fit,if SPCA with larger services and traffic associated are incompatible,is this where we want it? Storage is possible depending on Department of Public Works -9- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 24,2005 and history of flooding;property may not be available for consolidation of lots so for FAR bonus should be "or"gateway feature,mixed use would work well in this area,has the potential of being pedestrian friendly if -� the interchange includes pedestrian access, but we don't know how soon that will happen; definition of boarding needs to be clear,has a different impact if it is day care of animals or the SPCA proposed use. To determine the SPCA suitability need more information on noise and odor impacts from the environmental study; density at the gateway should depend upon the amenities provided like the idea of a threshold site size,so required to combine for FAR bonus if smaller than required site size;storage use in the drain is OK if the environmental concerns can be addressed. Discussion continue: would argue that commission make a decision tonight, consensus is good,the bright line is on boarding of animals and veterinary hospitals,need information from Public Works regarding the drain,at the southern gateway need to arrive at a minimum parcel size,like to see commission recommend ordinance to City Council for action with those exceptions;concerned about the veterinary hospital use,size should be limited; could replace the proposed veterinary hospital/ boarding provision with the current requirements for veterinary hospital in the M-1 which preclude boarding and breeding on site. CA suggested that Southern Gateway and drain regulations could be kept as proposed, and revisions brought back after staff and subcommittee review, auto row revisions to allow conditional use permit exceptions to performance criteria should be included in what is recommended. Commissioners noted SPCA project problem is the other things going on there the community education programs and the adoption and care facility; on page 3 talk about retail building/garden center,how does the 100,000 SF size regulation work? CP noted that site size constraints would require specific designs/format for such uses in Burlingame. CA noted that this use is being built at this size in other communities in the Bay Area. What about adding the area in the drain to the auto row overlay? CA noted could be addressed in the response regarding the use of the drain. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the ordinance as submitted with: • the change to make exceptions to the performance criteria for auto row subject to a conditional use not a variance; • the change to the requirements for retail sales and display areas (Page 4, item in (3)) to allow the service of alcoholic beverages but prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages; • Leave in current proposal for the drainage area, have the city staff, including the Public Works department review issues regarding allowing self storage uses in the drainage area under the PG and E lines in Rollins Road; • Leave in current proposed FAR wording in the Southern Gateway zoning provision but have the staff and subcommittee study what an appropriate minimum lot size might be to exempt a developer from having to both consolidate properties and provide a gateway feature in order to qualify for the 1.0 FAR density bonus; • Leave in the current proposal and have staff and subcommittee review and make a recommendation back to the Commission regarding what are appropriate retail uses,including mixed retail and other uses,for the Southern Gateway area,and whether industrial uses should be allowed on the Southern Gateway properties as well as retail and office uses. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the proposed Rollins Road zoning regulations as amended and revised to the City Council for action. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. CP Monroe noted that this ordinance would probably go forward to the City Council at their first meeting in December 2005. CA noted that the issues identified would go back to the subcommittee along with the other -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 24, 2005 zoning they are discussing for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Planning area. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. Chair Auran called for a break so the council chambers could be cleared. The meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 2518 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TINA & KEVIN VILLEGIANTE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES DESIGNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT C.Deal recused himself from this item because he has a business relationship with the applicant and left the dais and chambers. SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Whitney,JD&Associates presented the project and was available for questions. Commissioner comment: notice garage is one foot from rear and side property lines, leaving only one foot for maintenance is tight, could that be increased to two feet,yes;in the back corner, a Mayten tree is called out, this is an invasive species, should consider another type;the roof as proposed is too steep on Spanish Colonial style with tile, usually see a much gentler slope,when driving down the hill, you will see a lot of roof,the chimney is the only place where brick veneer is used,could it be carried through to another element at the front such as at the entryway to provide some linkage; for a corner house it is well articulated, softening the roof line will help; this is virtually a new house, am comfortable with extending the existing setback along the side,but it is important that real true divided light windows not simulated are used since this wall will be so close to the street,although the cost is high should build a house that will look good fifty years from now,is an important feature for a Spanish Colonial house. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C.Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. • Change the pitch on the roof from 6/12 to 4/12 or similar,roof is too steep for the Spanish Colonial style; • Add a brick veneer feature either along the base of the house or at the front entry to coordinate with the brick veneer used on the chimney; • Increase setback of garage from property line from F-0"to 2'-0" so there is enough room for future maintenance; • Use a different species of tree selected from the City tree list rather than a Mayten tree at rear corner; • Encourage owners to consider a one-car garage rather than a two-car garage to preserve more yard space; and • Since this is virtually a new house, true divided light windows should be used throughout. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 24,2005 C. Deal returned to his seat on the dais. 7. 21 CLARENDON ROAD,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SCOTT KUEHNE, SUAREZ- KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;AND TODD FRIEDMAN&MICHELE DOYLE FREEDMAN,PROPERTY OWNERS)(60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Scott Kuehne, project architect and Todd Friedman, property owner, and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa spoke. Applicant noted that the owners have had conversations with owners on the either side and across the street and they are in support of the project,this project is well under the allowable floor area, noted change that the windows will be wood clad rather than vinyl clad, all the windows in the house will be replaced. Commissioners asked if the pediment above the front door will be replaced?Yes,it is not in best of shape,new one will have same level of detail and be more in scale with the front elevation. A large second floor deck is proposed close to the property line, even though we can't control privacy,will look down on neighbors,particularly since it is off the second floor living area which will have more activity;plans show a privacy screen what material is proposed? The applicant noted that lattice will be used to provide screening and allow natural light on both sides,took into account where the deck is placed in relation to neighbors living spaces. Wisteria offers a very nice screen that give light in winter because it is deciduous and shade in summer when deck will be used,it will give a nice visual screen. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the following comments: • plans show both casement and double hung windows, choose one style and use throughout taking into account the possible need to modify windows to meet egress requirements; • there is a certain look at the front of the building, that is lost on the side elevations, need to carry through design elements and details that tie the front of the house to the rest; • need to better integrate the new with the old so it does not look like an addition; • roof lines on right hand portion of left elevation need work,the roof comes up and stops,it will look odd when it is built; • the addition of the window on the front fagade helps a lot, gives it a more traditional look; • concern with the appearance of the deck scupper and drain for the deck along the side elevation, could it be integrated better into the design; • consider bringing front porch feature closer to the front property line to add depth and enlarge the entry, make it more pronounced; • concerned with deck,need to add more vegetation on left side of deck for screening,as well as on the right side adjacent to the uncovered parking space;area is narrow,look at the Planning Department tree list for an appropriate species for the narrow space; • would like to see screen wall on deck to be fairly solid, tightly woven for privacy; • provide pictures showing how existing deck in this location addresses privacy of adjacent properties; • Mayten tree should not be used, it is not a good species for the yard. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 24,2005 8. 1213 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR DETACHED GARAGE (GARAGE SIZE,PLATE HEIGHT, HEIGHT, WINDOWS GREATER THAT TEN FEET ABOVE GRADE, PLUMBING CONNECTIONS AND A TOILET, AND TO BE USED FOR RECREATION PURPOSES)AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR THE GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(GRANT &KELLY MOHR, APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND DESIGNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT C.Keighran recused herself from this item because the applicant is on her campaign committee and left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Grant Mohr, 1213 Mills Avenue, applicant and designer, was available for questions. He noted that a two-story garage is proposed because the rear and side of the site is surrounded by two-story walls from adjacent development which tower over the existing garage,the house was made smaller to allow for the larger garage. Commissioners asked what type of windows are proposed? The applicant noted that he proposes that vinyl clad windows be used. Design of main house is very nice,but think vinyl windows will take away from it, wood window with true divided lights will make it stand out. Commissioners noted that generally don't like to see the possibility designed in so that a recreation room in an accessory structure can turn into a rental, did you give consideration to an alternative location for the recreation room,such as a basement room,feel this is hard to justify with so many exceptions; can't support the two-story garage, although there is a bad situation with the tall house to the right, that house will be removed someday, to build a tall garage to compensate is not justified;the accessory structure regulations allow a 15-foot roof ridge which will help screen the house to the back, having a recreation room on the second floor right at the property line is inappropriate;concerned with secondary structure,it is too massive,in commentary applicant notes that the garage structure will be built first to accommodate workers,that is troubling,it will be used as a second unit, needs to be decreased in size and moved off the property line;resounding"no"on the accessory structure,if issue is screening from adjacent structures, should start by using landscaping and making that a design element, in order to accommodate the pool table, the garage could be redesigned on the ground level by building a one-car garage, with some remaining room to be used for the pool table. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. • Change window type from vinyl clad to real true divided light wood windows; • make sure the bedroom windows meet the emergency egress requirements; • the staircase as designed doesn't have enough risers, will take up more room on floor plan than is shown, need to address in plan revision; • knee braces are either too little or too few,either make them bigger or add more,could use 6x6 for knee braces and 3x6 for strut, address in plan revision; • the saddle bag roofs on the side are a little flat,should have a pitch closer to the main roof,address in plan revision; • concern with detail for column and beam as shown on side elevation, not sure how will work out, show the detail in the plans; • show detail on fascia board,maybe a shadow reveal with a piece of trim; • provide a detailed landscape plan which incorporates screening for the adjacent tall buildings; • redesign garage to eliminate the second floor recreation room; -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 24, 2005 • need to decrease size of accessory structure; • increase setback on garage structure from 6" to 2'to allow for maintenance, show on plans; --� • consider redesigning the ground level of the garage to accommodate the pool table,could be one-car garage, show changes on plans; The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on motion: Commissioners noted that,this is a beautiful design for the main house,the changes requested to the house are moderate, no need to go to a design review consultant, applicant made a bold attempt on the garage that didn't pass muster,the garage needs to be redesigned and screening of the yard achieved by a good landscape plan. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as directed and checked by staff. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:05 P.M. C. Keighran returned to the dais and took her seat. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of October 17, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of October 17, 2005, noting that the Council adopted the amendments to the TW zoning district for group residential facilities for the elderly, convalescent care facilities and clarifying the boundaries of the Marco Polo residential area. CP Monroe -� noted that the correspondence for the Commission tonight included a letter from Mills Peninsula Health Services. The Mitigation Panel along with several other issues which conditions require the Commission to review will be placed on the November 14, 2005, agenda. Commissioner noted that the neighbors who wrote about 144 Costa Rica should receive a copy of any correspondence sent. Commissioner asked about whether it would be a good idea to develop a list of well designed houses which have been through the design review process for interested people to look at as examples. It was noted that this could be used as a recognition program. Concern was also expressed that such a list might result in all new houses looking alike. Staff noted that it would be up to the Commission to decide criteria and which houses would be on any such list. There were no further comments. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S.•I MINUTESI unapproved.10.24.05.doc -14- EXHIBIT"A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration. 301 Airport Boulevard Effective October 24,2005 1. Construction staging areas shall be kept clear of all trash and other debris, etc; construction staging areas shall be located away from Airport Boulevard and adjacent businesses so they are not visible from public view. 2„ During construction, an opaque security fence approved by the City of Burlingame, shall be placed and maintained around the perimeter of the project parcel and removed immediately following construction work. 3. Prior to commencement of grading and/or construction activities, the project sponsor shall submit a dust abatement program for review and approval by the Burlingame Public Works Department and the City's NPDES inspector. The project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement this dust abatement program; elements of the program shall include the following: a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily as determined necessary to control dust and meet NPDES requirements; b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer); C. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites as determined necessary and required to meet NPDES requirements; d. Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; e. If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept(preferably with water sweepers); f. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); h. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour; i. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; j. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible and within 30 days of completing grading and provide necessary maintenance of replanted area as determined by the City until the plant material is established; and k. Designate a person or persons to oversee the implementation of a comprehensive dust control program and to increase watering, as necessary. 4. The project applicant shall be required to provide the San Mateo Health Service Agency (CHS) and City of Burlingame with information describing the origin of future fill to be imported to the project site. This documentation shall consist of letter(s) certifying the location (site address and/or Assessor's Parcel Number) from which soil was excavated -2- i CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary September 30, 2005 Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. LAIF & County Pool 16,480,702.93 16,480,702.93 16,480,702.93 64.68 1 1 3.240 3.285 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 9,000,000.00 8,879,610.00 9,000,000.00 35.32 933 427 2.914 2.954 25,480,702.93 25,360,312.93 25,480,702.93 100.00% 330 151 3.125 3.168 Investments Total Earnings September 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date _ Current Year 68,396.02 226,411 .52 Average Daily Balance 26,834,036.26 29,292,081 .40 Effective Rate of Return 3.10% 3.07% 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 availability of some of these funds is restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds). Zo 10,5 cnFINANCE DIR./TREASURER Reporting period 09/01/2005-09/30/2005 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 10/14/2005 - 10:34 PM (PRF_PM1) SyrnRept 6.41 .202a Report Ver. 5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments September 30, 2005 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. 4,697,632.19 4,697,632.19 4,697,632.19 3.324 3.324 1 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 11,783,070.74 11,783,070.74 11,783,070.74 3.270 Aaa 3.270 1 Subtotal and Average 17,834,036.26 16,480,702.93 16,480,702.93 16,480,702.93 3.285 1 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 3133X9QV5 517 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/22/2004 1,000,000.00 985,310.00 1,000,000.00 3.500 Aaa 3.500 629 06/22/2007 3133XARN9 518 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/08/2005 1,000,000.00 991,250.00 1,000,000.00 3.390 Aaa 3.390 342 09/08/2006 3128X1605 513 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 11/17/2003 2,000,000.00 1,995,620.00 2,000,000.00 2.300 Aaa 2.300 47 11/17/2005 3128X2NA9 514 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 01/30/2004 3,000,000.00 2,939,100.00 3,000,000.00 3.000 Aaa 3.000 486 01/30/2007 3136175TJ0 515 FANNIE MAE 04/27/2004 1,000,000.00 980,630.00 1,000,000.00 3.100 Aaa 3.100 573 04/27/2007 3136F6FZ7 516 FANNIE MAE 10/18/2004 1,000,000.00 987,700.00 1,000,000.00 3.000 Aaa 3.000 747 10/18/2007 Subtotal and Average 9,000,000.00 9,000,000.00 8,879,610.00 9,000,000,00 2.954 427 Total and Average 26,834,036.26 25,480,702.93 25,360,312.93 25,480,702.93 3.168 151 Portfolio CITY Run Date:10/14/2005-10:34 CP PM(PRF_PM2)SymRept 6.41.202a Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Activity By Type September 1, 2005 through September 30, 2005 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance LAIF&County Pool (Monthly Summary) SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 3.324 0.00 1,000,000.00 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 3.270 0.00 2,900,000.00 Subtotal 20,380,702.93 0.00 3,900,000.00 16,480,702.93 Federal Agency Issues•Coupon Subtotal 9,000,000.00 9,000,000.00 Total 29,380,702.93 0.00 3,900,000.00 25,480,702.93 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:10/14/2005-10:34 PM(PRF_PM3)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 4 Activity Summary September 2004 through September 2005 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 2004 5 25,250,564.07 2.625 2.662 2.624 0 0 232 172 October 2004 6 28,964,592.72 2.629 2.666 2.618 1 0 240 181 November 2004 6 25,300,063.99 2.661 2.698 2.653 0 0 275 198 December 2004 7 30,433,082.99 2.695 2.732 2.673 1 0 259 188 January 2005 7 30,025,165.46 2.659 2.696 2.622 0 0 262 182 February 2005 7 30,076,952.25 2.728 2.766 2.717 0 0 262 174 March 2005 8 27,632,224.41 2.824 2.863 2.819 1 0 305 199 April 2005 8 28,872,808.56 2.864 2.903 2.880 0 0 292 181 May 2005 8 31,478,082.19 2.976 3.018 3.043 0 0 268 158 June 2005 8 31,826,904.29 3.006 3.048 3.085 0 0 265 147 July 2005 8 30,880,702.93 3.045 3.087 3.141 0 0 273 143 August 2005 8 29,380,702.93 3.048 3.091 3.151 0 0 287 141 September 2005 8 25,480,702.93 3.125 3.168 3.285 0 0 330 151 Average 7 28,892,503.82 2.837% 2.877% 2.870 0 0 273 170 Portfolio CITY Run Date:10/14/2005-10:34 P PM(PRF_PM4)SyrnRept 6.41.202a : a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 5 Distribution of Investments By Type September 2004 through September 2005 September October November December January February March April May June July August September Average Security Type 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 by Period LAIF&County Pool 76.2 75.8 72.3 73.7 73.4 73.4 67.4 68.8 71.4 71.7 70.9 69.4 64.7 71.5% 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 23.8 24.2 27.7 26.3 26.6 26.6 32.6 31.2 28.6 28.3 29.1 30.6 35.3 28.5% Federal Agency Issues-Discount 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:10/14/2005-10:34 PM(PRF_PM5)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 6 Interest Earnings Summary September 30, 2005 September 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: Interest Collected 16,950.00 61,950.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 71,007.49 71,007.49 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 65,799.16) ( 66,482.49) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 22,158.33 66,475.00 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 22,158.33 66,475.00 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 0.00 161,555.89 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 423,023.87 423,023.87 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 376,786.18) ( 424,643.24) Interest Earned during Period 46,237.69 159,936.52 Total Interest Earned during Period 68,396.02 226,411.52 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Total Earnings during Period 68,396.02 226,411.52 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:10/14/2005-10:34 PM(PRF_PM6)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 04BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary September 30, 2005 Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 100.00 1 1 3.278 3.324 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 100.00% 1 1 3.278 3.324 Investments Total Earnings September 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 288.86 14,000.43 Average Daily Balance 110,386.11 1,867,928.65 Effective Rate of Return 3.18% 2.97% Jesus Nava, Finance Dir./Treasurer Reporting period 09/01/2005-09/30/2005 Portfolio 04BD CP Run Date:10/14/2005-10:36 PM(PRF_PM1)SymRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 04BD Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments September 30, 2005 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts SYS85 85 Local Agency Investment Fund 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 3.324 3.324 1 Subtotal and Average 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 3.324 1 Total and Average 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 3.324 1 Portfolio 04BD CP Run Date:10/14/2005-10:36 PM(PRF_PM2)SymRept 6.41.202a )ort Ver.5.00 04BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary September 30, 2005 Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 100.00 1 1 3.278 3.324 Investments 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 100.00% 1 1 3.278 3.324 Total Earnings September 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 288.86 14,000.43 Average Daily Balance 110,386.11 1,867,928.65 Effective Rate of Return 3.18% 2.97% Jesus N a,Finance Dir./Treasurer Reporting period 09/01/2005-09/30/2005 Portfolio 04BD Run Date:10/14/2005.10:38 CP PM(PRF_PM1)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 04BD Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments September 30, 2005 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts SYS85 85 Local Agency Investment Fund 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 3.324 3.324 1 Subtotal and Average 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 3.324 1 Total and Average 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 3.324 1 Portfolio 04BD CP Run Date:10/14/2005.10:38 / PM(PRF_PM2)SymRept 6.41.202a 1 ( art Ver.5.00 CA*A01P CALIFORN I A ASSET STATEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM JOINT POW'F_RS AL?-r-HORITY 50 CALIFp RNIA STREET 23R0F1-(-3(-3R SAN FRANCISCO) CALIFORNIA.941 11 FOR ACCOUNT INFORMATION: 800-729-7665 STATEMENT DATE: 9/30/2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCOUNT NUMBER: 116-00 ATTN:TREASURER'S OFFICE WATER AND WASTEWATER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2004 FUND NAME: Cash Reserve Portfolio 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 Page 1 of 1 Statement Income Dividends Capital Gains Total Shares Account Date Paid This Year Paid This Year Owned Value 9/30/2005 $12,896.24 $0.00 463,597.500 $463,597.50 WIN W-11 Beginning Balance Purchases Reinvestments Redemptions Ending Balance $1,508,463.53 $1,000,000.00 $3,128.49 $2,047,994.52 $463,597.50 g ht ESIVNEE7� 09/01/05 Beginning Balance 1,508,463.530 09/01/05 9/1/2005 Redemption-Wire Red. $475,000.00- $1.00 475,000.000- 1,033,463.530 09/15/05 9/15/2005 Purchase-IndPortfol $1,000,000.00 $1.00 1,000,000.000 2,033,463.530 09/22/05 9/22/2005 Redemption-IndPortfol $1,498,508.27- $1.00 1,498,508.270- 534,955.260 09/28/05 9/28/2005 Indiv Portf Fees,July 2005 $486.25- $1.00 486.250- 534,469.010 09/29/05 9/29/2005 Redemption-Wide Red. $74,000.00- $1.00 74,000.000- 460,469.010 09/30/05 10/3/2005 Accrual Income Div Reinvestment-DIV $3,128.49 $1.00 3,128.490 463,597.500 Message Line: THE DIVIDEND YIELD FOR THE MONTH IS 3.43%. THE ANNUALIZED YIELD IS 3.49%. CAMP PROGRAM Investment Portfolio Information For CAMP - CITY OF BURLINGAME (116-00) Portfolio # 12510150 Section / Report Title A. Account Summary 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, 2005 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@pftn.com PFM Asset CAMP PROGRAM Account Summary: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: September 30,2005 MARKET%OF YTM AT YTM AT DURATION SECURITY TYPE PAR VALUE AMORTIZED COST MARKET VALUE PORTFOLIO COST MARKT TO WORST COMMERCIAL PAPER 2,000,000.00 1,984,468.89 1,983,161.54 15.063 3.676 3.947 0.203 FED AGY BOND/NOTE 3,800,000.00 3,785,024.45 3,774,687.50 28.671 3.987 4.328 0.783 FED AGY DN 7,560,000.00 7,417,743.20 7,407,630.27 56.266 3.790 4.026 0.480 TOTAL SECURITIES 13,360,000.00 13,187,236.54 13,165,479.31 100.000 3.829% 4.101% 0.525 TOTAL INVESTMENTS 13,360,000.00 13,187,236.54 13,165,479.31 100.000% ACCRUED INTEREST 28,668.05 28,668.05 TOTAL PORTFOLIO $13,360,000.00 $13,215,904.59 $13,194,147.36 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 d4v(month as supplied by F.T.Interactive Data,Bloomberg or Telerate.Prices that fall berwesr aata points are interpolated. Non-negotiable FDIC insured bank certificates of depositay ;ced at par. PFM Asset , Detail of Securities Held: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME(116-00) ('Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: September 30,2005 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 COMMERCIAL PAPER 90262CXE2 UBS FINANCE DELAWARE LLC COM 1,000,000 10/14/05 A-1+ 07/19/05 07/19/05 991,565.83 3.520 0.00 998,739.72 998,513.65 36959JBF9 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL COR 1,000,000 02/15/06 A-1+ 07/19/05 07/19/05 978,020.83 3.834 0.00 985,729.17 984,647.89 2,000,000 1,969,586.66 3.676 0.00 1,984,468.89 1,983,161.54 FED AGY BOND/NOTE 31359MJX2 FNMA BENCHMARK NOTES 1,000,000 5.250 06/15/06 AAA 07/18/05 07/19/05 1,011,340.00 3.958 15,458.33 1,008,870.78 1,006,250.00 31359MVP5 FNMA GLOBAL BENCHMARK NOTES 1,000,000 3.125 07/15/06 AAA 07/18/05 07/19/05 991,682.00 3.991 6,597.22 993,348.37 990,937.50 3133X85Z1 FHLB GLOBAL NOTES 1,800,000 2.875 08/15/06 AAA 07/18/05 07/19/05 1,778,891.40 4.002 6,612.50 1,782,805.30 1,777,500.00 3,800,000 3,781,913.40 3.987 28,668.05 3,785,024.45 3,774,687.50 FED AGY DN 313397PGO FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 11/15/05 A-1+ 07/19/05 07/19/05 988,430.56 3.541 0.00 995,625.00 995,262.04 313589QM8 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 12/14/05 A-1+ 07/19/05 07/19/05 985,405.56 3.603 0.00 992,702.78 992,142.06 313385RT5 FHLB DISC NOTE 1,000,000 01/13/06 A-1+ 07/19/05 07/19/05 982,200.00 3.665 0.00 989,600.00 988,759.58 313397UG4 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 03/15/06 A-I+ 07/19/05 07/19/05 975,270.14 3.819 0.00 982,927.08 981,601.65 313397VMO FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 04/13/06 A-1+ 07/18/05 07/19/05 972,276.89 3.830 0.00 979,931.78 978,158.44 313397WS6 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 05/12/06 A-1+ 07/18/05 07/19/05 969,260.50 3.844 0.00 976,919.50 974,822.29 313397G47 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,560,000 09/19/06 A-1+ 09/22/05 09/22/05 1,498,508.27 4,081 0.00 1,500,037.06 1,496,884.21 7,560,000 7,371,351.92 3.790 0.00 7,417,743.20 7,407,630.27 TOTAL SECURITIES $13,360,000 $13,122,851.98 3.829% $28,668.05 $13,187,236.54 $13,165,479.31 Issuers by Market Value Ratings by Market Value ❑FHLB 12,766,260 21.0% ■FHLMC $5,426,729 41.2% 13 FNMA 82,989.330 22.7% 11 A-1+ $9,390,792 71.3% 0 GENERAL ELECTRIC $984,648 7.5% 0 AAA $3,774,688 28.7% ®UBS AG $998,514 7.6% Total: $13,165,479 100.0% Total: $13,165,479 100.0% r B-1 I I PROGRAM I / I Fair Market Values & Analytics: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: September 30,2005 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 COMMERCIAL PAPER 90262CXE2 UBS FINANCE DELAWARE LLC COM 1,000,000 10/14/05 99.851 998,513.65 (226.07) 6,947.82 0.038 3.828 36959JBF9 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL COR 1,000,000 02/15/06 98.465 984,647.89 (1,081.28) 6,627.06 0.370 4.067 FED AGY BOND/NOTE 31359MJX2 FNMA BENCHMARK NOTES 1,000,000 5.250 06/15/06 100.625 1,006,250.00 (2,620.78) (5,090.00) 0.681 4.335 31359MVP5 FNMA GLOBAL BENCHMARK NOTES 1,000,000 3.125 07/15/06 99.094 990,937.50 (2,410.87) (744.50) 0.767 4.296 3133X85Z1 FHLB GLOBAL NOTES 1,800,000 2.875 08/15/06 98.750 1,777,500.00 (5,305.30) (1,391.40) 0.849 4.343 FED AGY DN 313397PGO FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 11/15/05 99.526 995,262.04 (362.96) 6,831.48 0.124 3.726 313589QM8 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 12/14/05 99.214 992,142.06 (560.72) 6,736.50 0.202 3.802 313385RT5 FHLB DISC NOTE 1,000,000 01/13/06 98.876 988,759.58 (840.42) 6,559.58 0.282 3.898 313397UG4 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 03/15/06 98.160 981,601.65 (1,325.43) 6,331.51 0.446 4.065 313397VMO FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 04/13/06 97.816 978,158.44 (1,773.34) 5,881.55 0.523 4.122 313397WS6 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 05/12/06 97.482 974,822.29 (2,097.21) 5,561.79 0.601 4.151 313397G47 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,560,000 09/19/06 95.954 1,496,884.21 (3,152.85) (1,624.06) 0.949 4.288 SUBTOTALS $13,165,479.31 ($21,757.23) $42,627.33 0.525 4.101 % ACCRUED INTEREST ON INVESTMENT 28.668.05 TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF INVESTMENTS $13,194,147.36 C-1 PFM Asset Mana I Cr RA M Security 'Transactions & Interest: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: September 30,2005 S&P MATURITY PRINCIPAL ACCRUED TRADE SETTLE TRAN TYPE SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP RATING PAR COUPON DATE AMOUNT INTEREST TOTAL 09/22/05 09/22/05 BUY FHLMC DISC NOTE 313397G47 A-I+ 1,560,000 0.000 09/19/06 (1,498,508.27) 0.00 (1,498,508.27) 1,560,000 (1,498,508.27) 0.00 (1,498,508.27) 09/15/05 09/15/05 MATURITY FNMA DISC NOTE 313589LT8 A-l+ 1,000,000 0.000 09/15/05 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 TOTAL SECURITY TRANSACTIONS (498,508.27) D-1 PFMAsset Management LLC- I PROGRAM 1 , I Cash Transactions Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: September 30,2005 CASH DATE TRANSACTION CODE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT 09/22/05 CC CASH CONTRIB 1,498,508.27 1,498,508.27 09/15/05 CW CASH WITHDRAW (1,000,000.00) (1,000,000.00) NET CASH CONTRIBUTIONS/(WITHDRAWS) $498,508.27 E-1 w k I A k 'A CAMP PROGRAM Realized Gains and Losses: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: September 30 2005 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 09/15/05 09/15/05 MATURITY FNMA DISC NOTE 313589LT8 1,000,000 0.000 1,000,000.00 5,284.44 0.00 TOTAL GAINS AND LOSSES $5,284.44 $0.00 F-1 PFMAssetManagementI PROGRAM I , I Cash Balance Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: September 30,2005 CASH BALANCE: $0.00 Earnines 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 10/06/05 Initial Jobless Claims 10/25/05 Consumer Confidence 10/07/05 Change in Nonfarm Payrolls 10/27/05 Durable Goods Orders 10/13/05 Initial Jobless Claims 10/27/05 Initial Jobless Claims 10/14/05 Consumer Price Index 10/28/05 GDP Annualized 10/18/05 Producer Price Index 10/31/05 Personal Income 10/20/05 Initial Jobless Claims 10/31/05 Chicago Purchasing Manager Market Commentary The market's expectations of future Fed activity varied greatly during the month of September. Concerns about the effect of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita on the economy led some to believe that the Fed coulc slow down their pace of future rate hikes. But as time passed and the damage was assessed the market began to realize the enormous amount of rebuilding that would be necessary. Many participants now believe that the rebuilding will help add to economic growth and contribute to a higher level of inflation in the future. This assessment supports the opinion that the Fed will continue to increase rates to control inflation. It is likely th economic data will be distorted in the next several months as the dislocation of millions will skew some economic releases. The Fed did increase the target Fed Funds level another 25 basis points t o 3.75%at the September FOMC meeting, There are two more FOMC meetings in calendar 2005. \ \ \ G-1