Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2005.10.03
Pa City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL-SOl PRIMROSE ROAD At'510 BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 (65o)55&7200 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting - Monday, October 3, 2005 Page 1 of 2 REVISED CLOSED SESSION 6:45 p.m. Conf Room A Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)©)) a. Claim of State Farm Insurance 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Joint City Council/Beautification Meeting of September Approve 6, 2005 and Regular Meeting of September 19, 2005 5. PRESENTATION a. California Art presentation by Charles Bettencourt Presentation b. Proclamation for Relay for Life Day, October 8, 2005 Presentation C. Emergency Preparedness Presentation 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. Adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 6.16 to clarify regulations Hearing/Action regarding entertainment businesses b. Public Hearing and action on an Ordinance to change the Hearing/Action zoning designation for areas currently zoned C-3 in the Trousdale/Murchison neighborhood and the properties with lot fronts on the East and West sides of Marco Polo Way between Clarice Lane and Trousdale Drive from R-3 to TW 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. Introduce the proposed amendment to revise the animal Introduce control regulations in Burlingame City Ordinance, Chapter 9.04 to coincide with the newly amended changes in the San • City of Burlingame BUPILINGAME . 4`-" CITY HALL-SOt PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 9x010 (650)558-7200 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting - Monday, October 3, 2005 Page 1 of 2 REVISED Mateo County Animal Ordinance b. Discuss and review AB 438; Council to consider taking a Discuss/Direct position on this legislation C. Introduction of an Ordinance to amend the TW zoning Introduce regulations for Convalescent Facilities and Group Residential Facilities for the elderly and to correct an error in the boundary of the residential overlay along Marco Polo Way 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a, Resolution declaring October 7, 2005, California Arts Day b. Resolution awarding Bayside Ballfield Lighting Project to Republic Electric C. Final Condominium map for an 8-Unit condominium at 512-516 Primrose Road,Parcel 1, Block 5, Burlingame Land Company 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. OLD BUSINESS a. Potential shared Recreation services between the City of Discuss/Direct Burlingame and the City of Millbrae b. Consider extension of application period for Beautification Commission vacancies 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, August 16, 2005;Planning, September 26, 2005 b. Department Reports: Police, August, 2005 C. Two letters from Comcast concerning programming changes 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.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL-SOl PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 (650)558-7200 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting - Monday, October 3, 2005 Page 1 of 2 REVISED available at this site. NEXT MEETING—Thursday, October 13, 2005 CITY O� BURLJNGAME q, m b0 9p �AwTW Juu[6 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of September 19, 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 Ross Bruce. CLOSED SESSION: CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: Threatened Litigation(Government Code §54956.9(b)(1), (3)(c)) a. Claim of Andre Hawit b. Claim of Kathleen Ward C. Claims of Michael Martinez, David Tofokitau, Heikooti V. Mounga 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Galligan,Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 6, 2005 Council meeting; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. 5. PRESENTATION a. GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AWARD FinDir Nava advised that Burlingame was awarded the Government Finance Officers Association of America ranking of"Excellent" for our financial reporting requirements and auditing. 1 Burlingame City Council September 19,2005 Unapproved Minutes 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF OFF-PREMISE ADVERTISING AT 1400 BURLINGAME AVENUE Sr. Planner Brooks reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and take action whether the off-premise advertising is in violation of the sign ordinance which prohibits off-premise advertising. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. The appellant, Ashok Patel, owner of the business at 1400 Burlingame Avenue, stated that the off-premise advertising existed since before he leased the site and felt that the code enforcement action constitutes discrimination in enforcement. The following citizens spoke in support of the appellant: Clifford Brodie, Newlands Avenue and Don Lawrence, Drake Avenue. Charles Delgado complained that the bench fronting this site had been removed. DPW Bagdon explained the Special Encroachment Permit process required for placing benches on the sidewalk. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. After Council discussion, Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's determination that the off-premise advertising is in violation of the sign ordinance which prohibits off- premise advertising; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote 4-0. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS The following citizens spoke in favor of Item 8.k. (city website redesign): Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way; Alex Veech, 1800 Adeline Drive; and Don Donoughe, 100 Arundel Road. Dr. James Pertsch, 1875 Trousdale Drive, spoke on Item 9.c. (changing zoning designation), requesting that the new zoning include his address. There were no further comments from the floor. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Nagel requested Item 8.i. be pulled for discussion. CA Anderson advised that Item 8.f. must be approved before Item 8.e. f. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 64-2005 THE VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT COMBINATION AND MAP EXTENSION AT 1783 EL CAMINO REAL FOR THE MILLS PENINSULA HOSPITAL PROJECT Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Resolution No. 64-2005 approving Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for 1783 El Camino Real; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved unanimously by voice vote 4-0. a. ADOPT ORDINANCE NOS. 1766 and 1762 FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA AND ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN (i) ANZA AREA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND (ii) ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS CP Monroe requested Council adopt two ordinances for proposed zoning for the Anza Area and Anza Point South Zoning Districts to implement the Bayfront Specific Plan: (i) Ordinance No. 1766 Amending Title 25 2 Burlingame City Council September 19,2005 Unapproved Minutes to Adopt the Anza Area District and Make Conforming Changes to the Shoreline and Inner Bayshore Districts; and (ii) Ordinance No. 1762 Amending Title 25 to Adopt the Anza Point South District. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. b. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1763 TO AMEND BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA REGULATIONS TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE USES ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR WITH PERFORMANCE CRITERIA CP Monroe requested Council adopt Ordinance No. 1763 Amending Chapter 25.36 to Allow Real Estate Offices in the Broadway Commercial Area as a Conditional Use and to Remove the Sunset Clause on Allowing Financial Institutions as a Conditional Use in the Broadway Commercial Area. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. C. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1764 FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CP Monroe requested Council adopt Ordinance No. 1764 Amending Title 25 to Adopt a Trousdale West (TW) District and Establish a Standard Condition for Communications Access to Tall Structures in the City. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. d. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1765 TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE PORTIONS OF THE PENINSULA MEDICAL CENTER SITE: 1791 EL CAMINO REAL AND 1515 TROUSDALE DRIVE FROM C-1 TO UNCLASSIFIED (APNs 025-123-100 & 140) AND 1811 TROUSDALE DRIVE FROM C-3 TO UNCLASSIFIED (APN 025-123-120) CP Monroe requested Council adopt Ordinance No. 1765 Amending the Zoning Maps Incorporated in the Burlingame Zoning Code by Reclassifying the Properties at 1515 and 1811 Trousdale Drive and 1791 El Camino Real as Unclassified Upon Transfer to the Peninsula Health Care District, a Local Government Agency. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. e. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF 8.60 ACRE PARCEL ALONG EL CAMINO REAL 98.68 FEET SOUTH OF TROUSDALE DRIVE AND 1.328 ACRE PARCEL AT THE CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND TROUSDALE DRIVE ACREAGE SUBDIVISION, 1783 EL CAMINO REAL DPW Bagdon requested Council approve the subject lot merger as a tentative and final parcel map. g. APPROVAL OF OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ATTEND 2005 ICMA ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN MINNEAPOLIS FinDir Nava requested Council approve the Finance Director's travel to Minneapolis, Minnesota to attend the 91s'Annual Conference of the International City-County Management Association September 24-28, 2005. 3 Burlingame City Council September 19,2005 Unapproved Minutes h. RESOLUTION NO. 65-2005 AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FY 2004-05 BUDGET FinDir Nava requested Council approve Resolution No. 65-2005 Approving Transfer of Funds for Fiscal Year 2004-05. j. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested Council approve payment of Warrants #13793-14021 duly audited, in the amount of $1,716,662.23 and Payroll checks#163205-163514 in the amount of$2,570,183.81 for the month of August 2005. k. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 66-2005 AWARDING WEBSITE REDESIGN AGREEMENT TOVISION INTERNET PROVIDERS, INC. CM Nantell requested Council approve Resolution No. 66-2005 awarding Website Redesign Project to Vision Internet Providers, Inc. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Items a. through e., g., h.,j. and k. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. i. ADOPT APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR VACANCIES IN OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBER OR CITY CLERK CA Anderson requested Council approve Resolution No. 63-2005 to adopt application procedures for vacancies in office of City Councilmember or City Clerk. Councilwoman Nagel asked for clarification of Procedure Items l.c., 4.a. and 5.b.(1). CA Anderson provided clarifications. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve Resolution No. 63-2005 to adopt application procedures for vacancies in office of City Councilmember or City Clerk; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. 9. STAFF REPORTS a. CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS AT CORTEZ AVENUE AT SHERMAN AVENUE DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council consider adopting an ordinance to install stop signs on Cortez Avenue at Sherman Avenue. Traffic Engineer Chou presented data supporting the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission's decision to deny the request for 4-way stop signs at Cortez and Sherman Avenues. TE Chou presented various ideas for traffic calming which had been discussed at the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission meeting. Mayor Galligan opened comments from the floor. The following citizens spoke in favor of the stop signs: Mel Lipscomb, 1200 block of Cortez; Mark Pitre, 1240 Cortez; Andrew Sutton, 1268 Cortez; Ken Aron, 4 Burlingame City Council September 19,2005 Unapproved Minutes 1600 Sherman; Gloria Bordegaray, 1236 Cabrillo, read letters from Frank &Robin Knifsend, 1243 Cabrillo, and from Dr. Joel &Margaret Steinberg and read a petition signed by 14 citizens; David Rosen, 1221 Cortez, spoke; and a letter was received from Lorraine Canton, 1209 Cortez. Speaking against the stop signs was Howard Dunaier, 1244 Cortez. Stephen Warden, Chairman for the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, spoke in favor of a traffic-calming device for this site. There were no further comments from the floor. After Council discussion, Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to install temporary stop signs on Cortez Avenue at Sherman Avenue until March 2006 at which time the temporary signs shall be removed unless an ordinance authorizing permanent installation is adopted, and for staff to study the effects of the temporary stop signs and to provide the results of the study to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved by voice vote, 3-0-1 (Galligan abstained). b. INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6.16 TO CLARIFY REGULATIONS REGARDING ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance to amend Chapter 6.16 to clarify regulations regarding entertainment businesses. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 6.16 to update the Entertainment Business Permit Provisions of the Municipal Code. Councilwoman O'Mahony waived further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, 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. C. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR AREAS CURRENTLY ZONED C-3 IN THE TROUSDALE/MURCHISON NEIGHBOR- HOOD AND THE PROPERTIES WITH LOT FRONTS ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF MARCO POLO WAY BETWEEN CLARICE LANE AND TROUSDALE DRIVE FROM R-3 TO TW CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance to change the zoning designation for areas currently zoned C-3 in the Trousdale/Murchison neighborhood and the properties with lot fronts on the east and west sides of Marco Polo Way between Clarice Lane and Trousdale Drive from R-3 to TW. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to read the title of the proposed ordinance amending the Zoning maps incorporated in the Burlingame Zoning Code by reclassifying the C-3 areas in the Trousdale/ Murchison neighborhood to Trousdale West(TW) and the properties with lot fronts on the southwest side of Marco Polo Way between Clarice Lane and Trousdale Drive from R-3 to TW. Councilwoman O'Mahony waived 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. 5 Burlingame City Council September 19,2005 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. d. CASE FOR SHARED SERVICES IN SAN MATEO COUNTY CM Nantell presented a report on the issues behind the idea of shared services with other municipalities. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 11. OLD BUSINESS Councilwoman Nagel requested an update on the homeless situation in Burlingame. COP Van Etten stated that the police have devised a plan to acquire social services intervention, to keep the area monitored and to clean up the area. Councilwoman O'Mahony asked for the status on proposed legislation affecting Megan's Law. COP Van Etten advised that a staff report addressing this issue would be presented to Council in October. 12. NEW BUSINESS Councilwoman O'Mahony requested a resolution recognizing October 7, 2005, as California Arts Day in Burlingame. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety&Parking, August 11, 2005; Beautification, September 1, 2005; Planning, September 12, 2005 b. Department Reports: Building, August 2005; Finance, August 2005 c. Letters from Community Gatepath, CALL Primrose Center and Sustainable San Mateo County gratefully acknowledging the City's contribution to their organizations 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 6 Burlingame City Council September 19,2005 Unapproved Minutes CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE Central County Fire Department Disaster Preparedness Program CCFD Disaster Preparedness Goals • Identify potential threats both natural & man made that may affect our community. • Mitigate potential disasters whenever possible. • Develop & maintain competent, well trained disaster workers. • Provide disaster preparedness information & training to those who live and work in our community. • Prepare for an Efficient and Effective Recovery should a Disaster Occur. Potential Threats / Mitigation • Earthquake / Seismic Retrofits and Building Code Development • Storms & Flooding / Flood Control and Drainage • Terrorism / Anti-Terrorist Working Group and Homeland Security • Hazardous Material Releases / Hazardous Materials Mitigation Plans, HazMat Response Team. • Biological Attacks / Personal Protective Equipment for all First Responders, Emergency Vaccination Locations • Infrastructure Failures / Emergency Water Distribution Plan & Emergency Fire Flow Plan • Tsunami / Identify Flood Zones, Early Warning System Burlingame Emergency Plan • Consistent with the San Mateo County Operational Area Plan • Updated Annually - Phone Numbers , Re- Location Centers , Evacuations Routes , etc. • Module Concept with Check Lists of Responsibilities by Disaster Type . Disaster Response Personnel • First Responders — Police, Fire, EMS, Public Works, Parks • Support Personnel City Manager — Dir. Of Emergency Services City Clerk — Public Information City Council — Policy Group Human Resources — Volunteers Library — Support Staff Planning — Plans and Documentation Recreation — Logistics, including Sheltering Finance — Contracts, Recovery (FEMA) Volunteers — Ham Radio Operators Disaster Management • Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS ) — Required by California • Incident Command System ( ICS ) - Firescope • National Interagency Management System ( NIIMS ) — Required by FEMA Disaster Training Employees and Volunteers • SEMS for all new employees and volunteers . • Quarterly departmental training • Semi-Annual Disaster Exercises • Regional Disaster Training and Exercises — Operational Area Exercise — Regional Area Exercise — Grant Funded Training Disaster Training General Public • Schools — Monthly Fire/Evacuation Drills — Assist with School Disaster Plans — Prevention Month Activities — Information to Families through School Take Home Packets . Disaster Training General Public • Home Owners Associations • Condominium Associations • Service Clubs • Businesses • Neighborhood Groups • Boys Scouts & Girls Scouts • Press Releases Disaster Training Community • Ham Radio Operators • Intern & Cadet Programs from Police & Fire • Neighborhood Emergency Response Teams — Marginal Long Term Interest & Effectiveness . • Hotels & Business Community • November 12th Area Wide Information Faire Experience from Hurricanes Katrina & Rita • Strong Command & Control Essential • Visible Leadership • Early Emergency Declaration • Strong Mutual Aid System • Incident Action Plan • Clear & Redundant Communications Systems for Public and Emergency Responders . • Telecommunication Emergency Notification System (TENS) AGENDA 6a � CITY G ITEM # ABURI ,NG" " AME STAFF REPORT " MTG. DATE 10/3/2005 ^natco+wc s f- TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: September 27, 2005 APPROV BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6.16 TO CLARIFY REGULATIONS REGARDING ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance that would clarify and strengthen the City's regulations regarding entertainment businesses and direct City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. DISCUSSION: For the past 25 years or more, the City has regulated entertainment or amusement businesses in the City. This is done through a business application that is reviewed by the Police Department and then by the City Council. Permits are approved with a set of conditions that have become somewhat standardized. The permits are then reviewed on a regular basis, usually in June or July of each year to ensure that the conditions are being met and that problems with patrons or noise are being addressed. Because entertainment is often viewed as a protected First Amendment activity, it is important to provide an approval and review process that is quick and evenly administered. It is also important to avoid involvement in restricting the actual content of the entertainment if possible. The current ordinance is very short and does not provide clear guidelines for processing or review. The proposed ordinance would establish a standard review process in the Police Department. Applications and reviews would no longer come to the City Council automatically. Instead, denials, suspensions, and revocations could be appealed to the Council. The ordinance would establish limited bases on which a permit could be denied, which does follow past practice. The standard conditions that the City has developed over the past 25 years would be put into the Municipal Code. These condition have and will continue to be directed at public safety concerns, such as hours for last call, notice to police of problems and so forth. In addition, standard conditions regarding noise and litter pick- up have been included. Additional requirements for security have been added, so that it is clear that clearly identifiable, minimum numbers of security personnel are in place. The ordinance that was introduced on September 19 lowered the Mayor and Council Re: Revised Entertainment Ordinance, Adoption September 27, 2005 Page 2 security requirements somewhat from what had originally been proposed. Lighting standards inside establishment have also been added. Much of the outline for the ordinance is taken from the City of San Mateo's experience. Because of that city's problems with private rooms, provisions to deal with such an issue should it arise have been included. The ordinance also distinguishes between video arcades,primary entertainment establishments (where entertainment is the predominant reason to be on the premises), secondary entertainment establishments (such as restaurants), and incidental entertainment (background music and non-amplified live entertainment), so that there are varying levels of security demands. A copy of the ordinance was mailed to each of the 22 entertainment permitholders in the City requesting their comments. We have received only comments from one of the establishments, and those comments are addressed in the revised ordinance. Finally, it should be noted once more that this office hopes that a part of the Burlingame Avenue specific plan process will look at the zoning regulations for entertainment venues in the Burlingame Avenue area to see if revised regulations would be helpful to the area's continued success. Attachment Proposed ordinance Distribution Chief of Police I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 6.16 TO UPDATE THE ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS 3 PERMIT PROVISIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1. The City has regulated entertainment businesses in the City for over 25 years 8 in order to ensure a safe environment for its citizens and visitors. This process has focused on 9 security,lighting,and operating hours. This ordinance updates those provisions in a way consistent 10 with both the City's practice and nearby communities. 11 12 Section 2. Chapter 6.16 is amended to read as follows: 13 Chapter 6.16 Entertainment Businesses 14 6.16.010 Purpose. 15 6.16.020 Definitions. 6.16.030 Permit required. 16 6.16.040 Exceptions. 6.16.050 Application requirements. 17 6.16.060 Investigation and action on application. 6.16.070 Permit denial. 18 6.16.080 Permits non-transferable. 6.16.090 Single event entertainment permit applications. 19 6.16.100 Investigation and action on single event permit applications. 6.16.110 Single event entertainment permit denial. 20 6.16.115 Reviews. 6.16.120 Suspension or revocation of entertainment permits and single event entertainment 21 permits. 6.16.130 Emergency suspension of permit. 22 6.16.140 Appeals and judicial review. 6.16.150 Performance standards for entertainment businesses. 23 6.16.160 Additional performance standards for entertainment businesses where alcoholic beverages are served. 24 6.16.170 Performance standards for amusement arcades. 6.16.180 Display of permit. 25 6.16.190 Inspections. 6.16.200 Compliance with other laws. 26 6.16.210 Interpretation of chapter. 6.16.220 Public nuisance. 27 6.16.230 Severability. 28 September 27,2005 1 1 6.16.010 Purpose. 2 This chapter is intended to regulate businesses that offer entertainment in order to protect 3 the health, safety, and general welfare of the city. Over the years, the city has had a variety of 4 businesses that offered entertainment at different locations in the city, and each location had a 5 number of issues involving security,patron safety,and interaction with nearby businesses,homes, 6 and public activity. The provisions of this chapter have neither the purpose nor effect of imposing 7 limitation or restriction on the content of any entertainment activity. 8 9 6.16.020 Definitions. 10 The following definitions apply to this chapter: 11 (a) ABC. "ABC" means the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 12 (b)Amusement arcade. "Amusement arcade"means any business or establishment which 13 has five(5)or more amusement devices on its premises for the purpose of being played,operated 14 or used by the patrons of the arcade on a prepaid basis or for money or tokens deposited in the 15 amusement machine played, operated, or used. "Amusement arcade" also means any premises 16 where twenty-five (25)percent or more of the public floor area is devoted to amusement devices, 17 whether or not amusement devices constitute a primary use or an accessory use of the premises. 18 (c) Amusement device. "Amusement device" means any device, game, or contrivance, 19 including, but not limited to pinball machines, video games, computer games, and electronic 20 games, for which a charge or payment is received for the privilege of playing,using, or operating 21 the same and which, as the result of such use, operation, or playing does not entitle the person 22 using,operating,or playing such device,game,or contrivance to receive the same return in market 23 value in the form of tangible merchandise each time such device, game, or contrivance is used, 24 operated, or played. 25 (d) Entertainment. "Entertainment" means any show, play, skit, musical revue, karaoke, 26 dance production, concert, opera, or the production or provision of sights or sounds or visual or 27 auditory sensations,which are designed to or may divert,entertain,or otherwise appeal to members 28 of the public who are admitted to a place of entertainment, and which is produced by any means, September 27,2005 2 1 including radio, phonograph, tape recorder, piano, orchestra or band, or any other musical 2 instrument,television,slide or movie projector,spotlights,or interruptible or flashing light devices. 3 (e)Entertainment business. 'Entertainment business"means any amusement arcade or any 4 place of business wherein entertainment is offered or given to the public, whether or not a fee is 5 charged for admission thereto,except businesses where only incidental entertainment is offered or 6 given and theaters. 7 (0 Incidental entertainment. "Incidental entertainment"means the use of radio,television, 8 or music recording devices or juke boxes in any establishment when used for background only. 9 In addition, this term includes non-amplified live performance by a performer (or performers). 10 This term does not include the use of the devices mentioned above by a disc jockey, or in 11 conjunction with karaoke, or in connection with dancing by patrons. 12 (g) Chief of police. "Chief of police" means the chief of police of the city or the chiefs 13 authorized representative. 14 (h)Primary entertainment. 'Primary entertainment" means entertainment provided at an 15 entertainment business where the predominant reason for patronage is to observe or participate in 16 the entertainment offered at the business, and admission to the establishment is charged either 17 separately, or as part of a cover charge, or minimum food or beverage purchase requirement. 18 (i) Security guard. "Security guard" means a uniformed person licensed under the 19 California Department of Consumer Affairs licensing and training requirements. 20 0) Secondary entertainment. The term "secondary entertainment" means entertainment 21 provided at an entertainment business where the observation or participation in the entertainment 22 offered is not the predominant reason for patronage, and no admission to the establishment is 23 charged either separately,or in the form of a cover charge,or minimum food or beverage purchase 24 requirement. 25 (k)Theater. "Theater"means an establishment that is primarily devoted to film or theatrical 26 performances and means a building, playhouse, room, hall or other place having permanently 27 affixed seats so arranged that a body of spectators can have an unobstructed view of the stage upon 28 which theatrical,movies,or live performances are presented,and where such performances are not September 27,2005 3 I incidental to promoting the sale of food,drink or other merchandise;and for which a city business 2 license for a theater is in full force and effect. 3 4 6.16.030 Permit required. 5 (a)It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in, conduct or carry on, or to permit to be 6 engaged in, conducted or carried on, in or upon any premises in the city, the operation of an 7 entertainment business unless the person first obtains and continues to maintain in full force and 8 effect a permit from the city as required by this chapter. 9 (b) It shall be unlawful for any person who owns, leases, or is in otherwise lawful 10 possession of property to permit or allow another person to arrange for and provide entertainment 11 on such property, unless the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession of the property first 12 obtains and continues to maintain in full force and effect a single event entertainment permit as 13 herein required. This provision shall apply to premises that are used on an occasional basis for 14 entertainment events conducted either: 15 (1)By persons who are not the property owners and who have not conducted such an event 16 at the property in the previous six (6)months; or 17 (2) By the property owners and who have not conducted such an event at the property in 18 the previous six (6)months. 19 20 6.16.040 Exceptions. 21 Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter,the provisions of this chapter shall not 22 apply to entertainment that is: 23 (a) Entertainment sponsored by the city, the County of San Mateo, the various public 24 boards of education, or by any other political subdivision of the state; or 25 (b) Entertainment sponsored by any nonprofit public benefit organization,whose primary 26 objective is the sponsoring and control of youth activities and child welfare.If the event is a dance, 27 the following requirements must be met: 28 (1) No person eighteen(18)years of age or older may be admitted as a guest,unless such September 27,2005 4 I person is a bona fide student at, or member of, the sponsoring agency or organization; 2 (2) No alcoholic beverages are served, consumed, or permitted on the premises; 3 (3) Chaperones from the sponsoring agency are present on the premises at the rate of two 4 adults,who are at least twenty-five(25)years of age or older, for every one hundred(100)guests; 5 and 6 (4) The event must finish by 12:00 a.m. and the premises and the adjoining parking lots 7 must be promptly vacated by all the guests; or 8 (c) Entertainment lawfully conducted under permit at any city park, building, or 9 recreational facility; or 10 (d) Entertainment lawfully conducted entirely upon property owned or controlled by a 11 governmental entity; or 12 (e) Incidental entertainment only; or 13 (f) Entertainment provided for members and their guests at a private club having an 14 established membership when admission is not open to the public. For purposes of this section, 15 private club means corporations or associations operated solely for objects of national, social, 16 fraternal,patriotic,political,or athletic nature,in which membership is by application and regular 17 dues are charged,and the advantages of which club belong to members,and the operation of which 18 is not primarily for monetary gain; or 19 (g) Entertainment provided for invited guests at a private event such as a wedding 20 reception, banquet, or celebration, where there is no admission charge and the general public is 21 neither invited nor admitted; or 22 (h) Street performers, such as musicians, singers, or mimes; or 23 (i) Entertainment conducted or sponsored by any religious organization, bona fide club, 24 organization, society, or association that is exempt from taxation pursuant to Internal Revenue 25 Code Section 501(c)(3), when all proceeds, if any, arising from such entertainment are used 26 exclusively for the benevolent purposes of such religious organization,club,society,or association; 27 or 28 (j) Performances by the students at educational institutions as defined by the Education September 27,2005 5 I Code where such performances are part of an educational or instructional curriculum or program; 2 (k) Theaters; or 3 (0 Dance lessons, theatrical and performing arts lessons, and student recitals; or 4 (m) Book readings,book signings,poetry recitations,and any other similar entertainment 5 consisting of the spoken word, including plays; or 6 (n) The normal and customary fitness services provided by an athletic club or fitness 7 center; or 8 (o) Entertainment provided as at a conference or convention as part of the convention's or 9 conference's overall program and to which the general public is neither invited nor admitted; or 10 (p) An adult oriented business that is offering entertainment solely in conformance with 11 a current city adult oriented business permit. 12 (q)A remote broadcast by a television or radio station that consists of the spoken word; if 13 music is a part of the broadcast, the music shall either be non-amplified at the remote location or 14 shall last no longer than a total of five minutes during any fifteen minute period. 15 16 6.16.050 Application requirements. 17 (a)Any person who proposes to maintain,operate or conduct an entertainment business in 18 the city shall file an application with the chief of police upon a form provided by the city and shall 19 pay a filing fee, as established by resolution adopted by the city council from time to time,which 20 shall not be refundable. 21 (b) All applications shall include the following information: 22 (1) If the applicant is an individual, the individual shall state his or her legal name, 23 including any aliases, address, and submit satisfactory written proof that he or she is at least 24 eighteen(18) years of age. 25 (2)If the applicant is a partnership,the partners shall state the partnership's complete name, 26 address, and the names of all partners,whether the partnership is general or limited. 27 (3) If the applicant is a corporation, the corporation shall provide its complete name, the 28 date of its incorporation, evidence that the corporation is in good standing under the laws of September 27,2005 6 I California,the names and capacity of all officers and directors,the name of the registered corporate 2 agent and the address of the officer for service of process. 3 (c)If the applicant is an individual, he or she shall sign the application. If the applicant is 4 other than an individual,an authorized officer of the business entity or an individual with a ten(10) 5 percent or greater interest in the business entity shall sign the application. 6 (d) If the applicant intends to operate the entertainment business under a name other than 7 that of the applicant,the applicant shall provide the fictitious name of the entertainment business. 8 (e) The application shall contain a description of the type of entertainment business for 9 which the permit is requested and the proposed address where the entertainment business will 10 operate,plus the names and addresses of the owners and lessors of the entertainment business site. 11 (f)The application shall include the address to which notice of action on the application is 12 to be mailed; this address will also be used for contact and notices during the life of the permit 13 unless the permittee provides written notice to the police department that the address has been 14 changed. 15 (g)The application shall include a sketch or diagram showing the interior configuration of 16 the premises, including a statement of the total floor area occupied by the entertainment business. 17 The sketch or diagram need not be professionally prepared,but must be drawn to a designated scale 18 or drawn with marked dimensions of the interior of the premises to an accuracy of plus or minus 19 one foot. 20 (h) The application shall include a description of the lighting to be provided inside the 21 entertainment business; a sketch or site plan depicting the lighting and security measures to be 22 provided at all entrances and exits to the business; and a sketch of the site plan of any private 23 parking areas that will serve the entertainment business and the lighting and security measures to 24 be provided at those areas. 25 (i) A brief description of the entertainment to be offered and the hours during which the 26 entertainment may be offered. 27 0)The application shall describe the type of security and crowd management to be provided 28 for the entertainment business. This description shall specifically describe procedures for admitting September 27,2005 7 I and re-admitting patrons, checking identification, enforcing dress codes, and removal of unruly 2 patrons from the premises. 3 4 6.16.060 Investigation and action on application. 5 (a)Upon receipt of a completed application and payment of the application and permit fees, 6 the chief of police shall promptly investigate the information contained in the application to 7 determine whether the applicant shall be issued an entertainment permit. 8 (b) The applicant is responsible for making an appointment with the chief of police to 9 discuss the security program for the entertainment business, and no application shall be approved 10 until such a meeting has been held. 11 (b) Within fifteen (15)business days of receipt of the completed application, the chief of 12 police shall complete the investigation, grant or deny the application in accordance with the 13 provisions of this section, and so notify the applicant as follows: 14 (1) The chief of police shall write or stamp "Granted" or"Denied" on the application and 15 date and sign such notation. 16 (2)If the application is denied,the chief ofpolice shall attach to the application a statement 17 of the reasons for denial. 18 (3) If the application is granted, the chief of police shall attach to the application an 19 entertainment permit together with the standard conditions of operation and any special conditions 20 developed in consultation with the applicant to address specific site concerns. 21 (4) The decision of the chief of police shall be placed in the United States mail, first class 22 postage prepaid, addressed to the applicant at the address stated in the application. 23 (c)The chief of police shall grant the application and issue the entertainment permit upon 24 findings that the applicant has met all of the development and performance standards and 25 requirements of this chapter and the application is not subject to denial pursuant to section 6.16.070 26 below. 27 (d) If the chief of police neither grants nor denies the application within fifteen (15) 28 business days after it is stamped as received, the applicant may begin operating the entertainment September 27,2005 8 I business for which the permit was sought, subject to strict compliance with the development and 2 performance standards and requirements of this chapter. If the applicant begins operating the 3 entertainment business because the chief of police has not granted or denied the application within 4 fifteen(15)business days,the chief of police may issue the permit after the fifteen(15)day period 5 has elapsed, and the permit shall be subject to suspension or revocation under the provisions of 6 section 6.16.120. 7 8 6.16.070 Permit denial. 9 The chief of police shall deny the application for any of the following reasons: 10 (a) The building, structure, equipment, or location to used by the entertainment business 11 does not comply with the requirements and standards of the health,zoning, fire and safety laws of 12 the city, County of San Mateo, and the state,or with the development and performance standards 13 and requirements of this chapter. However,approval of the permit by the chief of police shall not 14 be deemed to be a waiver by the city, the county, or the state of any such laws or a determination 15 that the building, structure, equipment, or location complies with such laws. 16 (b)The applicant,or an employee,agent,partner,director,officer,shareholder,or manager 17 of the applicant has knowingly made any false,misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact 18 in the application for an entertainment permit or the application process. 19 (c) An applicant is under eighteen(18) years of age. 20 (d) The required application fee has not been paid. 21 (e) Within the last five (5) years immediately preceding the date of the filling of the 22 application,the applicant,or an employee,agent,partner,director,officer,shareholder,or manager 23 of the applicant has either had an entertainment permit issued by the city or any other jurisdiction 24 revoked, or has engaged in conduct that would provide grounds for revocation of such a permit 25 under section 6.16.120 of this chapter. 26 (f) The applicant has failed to provide a complete application. If an application is denied 27 on this basis, the chief of police shall state the information that is needed to make the application 28 complete. September 27,2005 9 1 (g)The applicant has failed to make an appointment to meet with the chief of police within 2 five (5)business days of filing the application. 3 4 6.16.080 Permits non-transferable. 5 (a) A permittee shall not operate an entertainment business under the authority of an 6 entertainment permit at any place other than the address of the entertainment business stated in the 7 application for the permit. 8 (b) A permittee shall not transfer ownership or control of an entertainment business or 9 transfer an entertainment permit to another person. 10 (c)Any attempt to transfer a permit either directly or indirectly in violation of this section 11 is hereby declared void, and the permit shall be deemed revoked. 12 13 6.16.090 Single event entertainment permit applications. 14 (a)Everyperson who owns,leases,or is otherwise in lawful possession ofproperty and who 15 proposes to permit or allow another person to arrange for and provide entertainment on such 16 property in the city shall file an application for an entertainment permit under the provisions of 17 6.16.050(unless such person has already obtained an entertainment permit)and in addition, shall 18 file an application with the chief of police for a single event entertainment permit. The applicant 19 for a single event entertainment permit shall pay a filing fee,as established by resolution adopted 20 by the city council from time to time,which shall not be refundable. 21 (b) The single event entertainment permit application shall include the following 22 information: 23 (1)If the person who will arrange and provide entertainment is an individual,the applicant 24 shall state their legal name, including any aliases, address, and submit satisfactory written proof 25 that he or she is at least eighteen (18)years of age. 26 (2)If the person who will arrange and provide entertainment is a partnership,the applicant 27 shall state the partnership's complete name, address, the names of all partners, whether the 28 partnership is general or limited, and attach a copy of the partnership agreement, if any. September 27,2005 10 1 (3)If the person who will arrange and provide entertainment is a corporation,the applicant 2 shall provide its complete name, the date of its incorporation, evidence that the corporation is in 3 good standing under the laws of California,the names and capacity of all officers and directors,the 4 name of the registered corporate agent and the address of the registered office for service of 5 process. 6 (4) The application shall contain a description of the type of entertainment for which the 7 permit is requested,the proposed address where the entertainment will be provided,including the 8 names and addresses of the owners and lessors of the property, and the date and the hours during 9 which the entertainment will be conducted. 10 (5) The application shall include a description of the lighting to be provided inside the 11 entertainment venue; a sketch or site plan depicting the lighting and security measures to be 12 provided at all entrances and exits to the venue; and a sketch of the site plan of any private parking 13 areas that will serve the entertainment venue and the lighting and security measures to be provided 14 at those areas. 15 (6) The application shall describe the type of security and crowd management to be 16 provided for the entertainment venue. This description shall specifically describe procedures for 17 admitting and re-admitting patrons,checking identification,enforcing dress codes,and removal of 18 unruly patrons from the premises. 19 (7) The application shall include the address to which notice of action on the application 20 is to be mailed; this address will also be used for contact and notices during the life of the permit 21 unless the permittee provides written notice to the police department that the address has been 22 changed. 23 (8) The application shall disclose whether the person who will arrange and provide 24 entertainment has in the past been issued an entertainment permit by the city, or by any other 25 jurisdiction, and if so, shall disclose the issuing agency, the dates during which the permit was 26 valid. In addition, the applicant shall disclose whether the person who will arrange and provide 27 entertainment has ever had an entertainment permit,or similar authorization revoked or voluntarily 28 surrendered because of the violation of permit conditions. September 27,2005 11 I (c)The applicant is responsible for scheduling a meeting with the chief of police within five 2 (5) business days of filing the application to discuss security arrangements. No permit shall be 3 issued unless such a meeting has occurred. 4 (d)The entertainment authorized by a single event entertainment permit shall be limited to 5 the type and location of entertainment specified in the permit application. The permittee shall not 6 permit or allow entertainment not described in the permit application to be provided. 7 8 6.16.100 Investigation and action on single event permit applications. 9 (a)Upon receipt of a completed application and payment of the application and permit fees, 10 the chief of police shall promptly investigate the information contained in the application to 11 determine whether the applicant shall be issued a single event entertainment permit. 12 (b) Within fifteen (15)business days of receipt of the completed application, the chief of 13 police shall complete the investigation, grant or deny the application in accordance with the 14 provisions of this section, and so notify the applicant as follows: 15 (1) The chief of police shall write or stamp "Granted" or"Denied" on the application and 16 date and sign such notation. 17 (2)If the application is denied,the chief of police shall attach to the application a statement 18 of the reasons for denial. 19 (3) If the application is granted, the chief of police shall attach to the application an 20 entertainment permit together with the standard conditions of operation and any special conditions 21 developed in consultation with the applicant to address specific site concerns.. 22 (4)If the application is granted or denied,the decision and the permit,if any,shall be placed 23 in the Unites States mail,first class postage prepaid,addressed to the applicant at the address stated 24 in the application. 25 (c) The chief of police shall grant the application and issue the single event entertainment 26 permit upon findings that the applicant has obtained an entertainment permit and met all of the 27 development and performance standards and requirements of this chapter, unless the application 28 is denied for one or more of the reasons set forth in Section 6.16.110 below. The permittee shall September 27,2005 12 I post the permit conspicuously in the entertainment business premises on the date of the single 2 event. 3 (d) If the chief of police grants the application or if the chief of police neither grants nor 4 denies the application within fifteen(15)business days after it is stamped as received,the applicant 5 may conduct the single event for which the permit was sought, subject to strict compliance with 6 the development and performance standards and requirements of this chapter. 7 8 6.16.110 Single event entertainment permit denial. 9 The chief of police shall deny the application for any of the following reasons: 10 (a) The applicant has not obtained an entertainment permit. 11 (b) The building, structure, equipment, or location proposed for the single event does not 12 comply with the requirements and standards of the health,zoning, fire and safety laws of the city, 13 the County of San Mateo, and the state, or with the development and performance standards and 14 requirements of this chapter. 15 (c)The applicant,or the person arranging and providing the entertainment,or an employee, 16 agent, partner, director, officer, shareholder, or manager of the applicant or the person arranging 17 and providing the entertainment have knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent 18 statement of material fact in the application for a single event entertainment permit. 19 (d)An applicant,or the person arranging and providing the entertainment,is under eighteen 20 (18) years of age. 21 (e) The required application fee has not been paid. 22 (0 Within the last five (5) years immediately preceding the date of the filing of the 23 application,the applicant,or the person arranging and providing the entertainment,or an employee, 24 agent, partner, director, officer, shareholder, or manager of the applicant or the person arranging 25 and providing the entertainment have either had an entertainment permit issued by the city or any 26 other jurisdiction revoked,or have engaged in conduct that would provide grounds for revocation 27 of such a permit under section 6.16.120. 28 (g) The applicant has failed to provide a complete application. If an application is denied September 27,2005 13 I on this basis,the chief of police shall state the information that is needed to make the application 2 complete. 3 4 6.16.115 Reviews. 5 (a) Upon initial issuance of an entertainment business permit, the permit shall be subject 6 to review by the chief of police after six (6)months from date of issuance. 7 (b)Each entertainment permit shall be subject to annual review in June or July by the chief 8 of police. 9 (c) During a review, the chief of police may request a permittee to meet with the chief to 10 discuss any problems or concerns. A permittee shall attend such a meeting as directed,and failure 11 to attend shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of the permit. 12 13 6.16.120 Suspension or revocation of entertainment permits and single event entertainment 14 permits. 15 An entertainment permit or a single event entertainment permit may be suspended or 16 revoked in accordance with the procedures and standards of this section. 17 (a) On determining that grounds for permit revocation may exist and that a suspension or 18 revocation should be considered at that time,the chief of police shall furnish written notice of the 19 proposed suspension or revocation to the permittee. Such notice shall set forth the time and place 20 of a hearing and the ground or grounds upon which the hearing is based, the pertinent code 21 sections, and a brief statement of the factual matters in support of the consideration. The notice 22 shall be mailed,postage prepaid, addressed to the address of the permittee as last provided by the 23 permittee in connection with the entertainment permit, or shall be delivered to the permittee 24 personally, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing date. Hearings shall be conducted in 25 accordance with following procedures, as may be supplemented by procedures established by the 26 chief of police: 27 (1) All parties involved shall have a right to offer testimonial, documentary, and tangible 28 evidence bearing on the issues;may be represented by counsel;and shall have the right to confront September 27,2005 14 I and cross-examine witnesses. Any relevant evidence may be admitted that is the sort of evidence 2 upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. Any 3 hearing under this section may be continued for a reasonable time for the convenience of a party 4 or a witness. The chief of police's decision may be appealed in accordance with section 6.16.140. 5 (b) A permittee may be subject to suspension or revocation of its permit, or be subject to 6 other appropriate disciplinary action, for any of the following causes arising from the acts or 7 omissions of the permittee,or an employee,agent,partner,director,stockholder,or manager of an 8 entertainment business: 9 (1) The permittee has knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of 10 material facts in the application for a permit,or in any report or record required to be filed with the 11 city. 12 (2) The permittee, employee, agent, partner, director, stockholder, or manager of an 13 entertainment business has knowingly allowed or permitted, and has failed to make a reasonable 14 effort to prevent the occurrence of any of the following on the premises of the entertainment 15 business, or in the case of a single event entertainment permit, the permittee, employee, agent, 16 partner, director, stockholder, or manager has knowingly allowed or permitted and has failed to 17 make a reasonable effort to prevent the occurrence of any of the following at the single 18 entertainment event any conduct prohibited by this chapter. 19 (3) Failure to abide by a disciplinary action previously imposed by an appropriate city 20 official. 21 (4) Failure to comply with all applicable state and local law in the operation of the 22 entertainment business. 23 (c)After holding the hearing in accordance with the provisions of this section,if the chief 24 of police finds and determines that there are grounds for disciplinary action, based upon the 25 severity of the violations, the chief of police shall impose one of the following: 26 (1) A warning; 27 (2) Imposition of conditions to correct the violations that occurred; 28 (3)Suspension of the permit for a specified period not to exceed six(6)months,which may September 27,2005 15 1 include imposition of additional conditions upon re-opening to correct the violations that occurred; 2 or 3 (4) Revocation of the permit. 4 5 6.16.130 Emergency suspension of permit. 6 The chief of police may suspend an entertainment permit pending a hearing on the 7 suspension or revocation of the permit if the chief of police finds that there is an impending and 8 significant threat to the public health or safety arising out of the use of the entertainment permit. 9 No emergency suspension shall remain in effect for more than fifteen (15) days, unless the 10 permittee agrees to a longer term. 11 12 6.16.140 Appeals and judicial review. 13 An applicant who wishes to appeal the decision of the chief of police regarding an 14 application or an action to suspend or revoke a permit may do so under the following hearing 15 procedures: 16 (a)An appeal of the chief of police's decision on a permit application or from the chief of 17 police's decision after a permit revocation or suspension hearing,may be made by filing a written 18 request for appeal with the city clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was mailed. If 19 no appeal is filed within this time period,then the decision of the chief of police shall become final, 20 and the applicant shall be deemed to have waived all rights to appeal or other review.All requests 21 for appeal shall include a statement of the basis for the appeal and the errors claimed to have 22 occurred. 23 (b) The city manager or the manager's designee shall schedule a hearing on the appeal for 24 not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty(20) days from the date of mailing notice to the 25 applicant of the time and place of the appeal hearing. The notice of hearing shall be sent by first 26 class mail to the applicant within five (5) days of filing a timely notice of appeal. 27 (c) The city manager or the manager's designee shall review the written record and allow 28 testimony to be given.The city manager or designee shall also allow oral argument.After all verbal September 27,2005 16 I testimony has been reviewed,the city manager or designee shall render a written decision within 2 ten (10) working days from the date the matter is submitted for decision. The action of the city 3 manager or designee shall be final and conclusive, subject only to applicable court review. 4 (d) If the chief of police's decision is affirmed on appeal, the applicant or permittee may 5 seek prompt judicial review of such administrative action pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure 6 section 1094.5 or 1094.8 (if that section is applicable). The city shall make all reasonable efforts 7 to expedite judicial review, if sought by the permittee. 8 9 6.16.150 Performance standards for entertainment businesses. 10 The following performance standards shall apply to all entertainment businesses except 11 amusement arcades, and shall be deemed conditions of all entertainment permits. Failure to 12 comply with each such requirement, unless expressly provided otherwise in the specific 13 entertainment permit,shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of a permit issued pursuant to 14 this chapter: 15 (a) Maximum occupancy load, fire exits, aisles and fire equipment shall be regulated, 16 designed, and provided in accordance with the fire and building regulations and standards of the 17 city. A manager shall be on the premises at all times during which entertainment is being offered. 18 (b)The premises within which the entertainment business is located shall provide sufficient 19 sound-absorbing insulation so that noise generated inside the premises shall not be audible 20 anywhere on any adjacent property or public right-of-way or within any other building or other 21 separate unit within the same building and comply with all applicable city noise regulations. The 22 establishment shall measure the current 24-hour ambient noise levels (L10) at the exterior of the 23 property along the public right-of-way using a methodology approved by the city planner before 24 opening for business. Upon request by the city, the establishment shall conduct noise 25 measurements to determine whether the noise from the establishment is exceeding the 5 dBA 26 standard for increases in noise from the baseline as provided in the Burlingame General Plan,and 27 shall report the measurements to the city, and the establishment shall ensure that the 5 dBA 28 standard is not exceeded. September 27,2005 17 I (c)No entertainment shall be permitted between the hours of 1:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. 2 (d) The business premises offering entertainment shall be suitably lighted with minimum 3 lighting of six-candle power at floor level, except during performances on stages. This light 4 intensity shall be measured at no more than thirty(30) inches from the floor. 5 (e)All patrons shall be out of the building by 2:00 a.m. Specific times for last call for any 6 alcohol service may be determined by the chief of police based on the number of entertainment 7 businesses within 1,000 feet,with the objective of staggering the closing times to reduce potential 8 traffic problems and conflicts and make police patrol and security more efficient. 9 (f)Security personnel shall be visible at the primary entrance beginning no later than thirty 10 (30) minutes before closing of the entertainment business and shall remain until patrons are 11 dispersed. Security shall not permit crowds or patrons to loiter in the front of or in the immediate 12 vicinity of the entertainment business after closing. If a cover charge is charged to enter the 13 establishment,the establishment shall ensure that patrons in line to enter do not obstruct either the 14 public sidewalk or the public street. 15 (g)The permittee shall remove all litter from the front of the entertainment site and public 16 sidewalks adjacent to and within fifty(50) feet of the front of the entertainment site immediately 17 upon every closing. 18 (h) Private Rooms. No entertainment shall be offered,permitted,or allowed to take place 19 within a private room the interior of which is not fully visible by a person standing in at least one 20 place within ten (10) feet of the primary entrance to the premise in which the entertainment is 21 offered, unless all of the following conditions are met: 22 (1)Visibility into the private room is provided through the installation in the wall separating 23 the room from a corridor accessible to patrons or the main room of the premises of a twelve (12) 24 square foot window measuring four(4) feet in width by three(3) feet in height,the lower edge of 25 which shall be installed at a point four(4) feet above the floor. 26 (2) The window required by subsection (h)(1) above shall remain completely clear and 27 unobstructed at all times. 28 (3)The dimensions of the windows required by subsection(h)(1)above are the minimum September 27,2005 18 I required, but may be larger. 2 (4) The private room shall be lit to at least the illumination that allows a person on the 3 outside of the room to observe the activity of those in the room at all times the room is occupied. 4 (5)Doors providing access to private rooms shall not be equipped with locks of any kind. 5 (6)No private room shall be configured so that the installation of the windows required by 6 subsection(h)(1)above will not provide substantially complete visibility into the private room to 7 a person standing outside the room. 8 (i) Security. 9 (1) For occupancy levels below one hundred(100)persons,the permittee shall provide at 10 least two(2)persons to monitor occupancy and admittance and exterior,interior and parking areas 11 associated with the use at all times that any entertainment is being offered. At least one person will 12 be a front door person responsible for monitoring occupancy and admittance and maintaining a 13 count of persons admitted. At least one other person will monitor exterior areas and will float 14 throughout the interior area to provide a safe environment.When occupancy exceeds one hundred 15 (100)persons, the permittee shall provide security guards to adequately control the environment 16 at a ratio of at least one guard per additional fifty (50) people (or any fraction thereof). The 17 permittee is responsible for providing a safe environment. These security requirements are 18 minimum mandatory requirements. The permittee shall provide security based on all the 19 circumstances surrounding the entertainment provided and patrons expected. 20 (2) Permittee shall designate a front door security presence when open for entertainment. 21 Front door security shall check identification to verify age requirements. Permittee shall educate 22 these persons in admission policy and maximum occupancy limit.Further,permittee shall provide 23 these persons with a means to monitor occupancy, screen for weapons, bottles, drugs, and 24 intoxication, and direct security to prohibit further entry when maximum occupancy is reached. 25 When maximum occupancy exists, permittee shall advise the remaining people in line that the 26 establishment has reached its maximum number of occupants and that there will not be any further 27 admittance. 28 (3)Permittee is responsible for maintaining an outdoor security presence when a crowd is September 27,2005 19 I waiting to gain access to the building. Permittee shall post at least one dedicated security guard, 2 in addition one security guard or management employee checking identifications at the door,who 3 will be responsible for providing an organized method of maintaining a line that will not block 4 public sidewalks, driveways, or surrounding business doorways. Permittee shall have the 5 designated outside line security maintain an orderly single file line. Stanchions, ending just prior 6 to the neighboring business,maybe used to control the line with the approval of the chief of police. 7 Once the line reaches maximum occupancy, the designated security shall advise all remaining 8 patrons that the line is full. He or she must advise remaining patrons that they are to exit the area 9 in an orderly fashion. 10 (D) Security personnel shall be readily identifiable to customers and law enforcement as 11 either private security or management personnel through use of distinctive clothing or uniforms and 12 identification. Security guards shall wear distinctive uniforms and be readily identifiable as private 13 security personnel to customers and law enforcement. 14 0) Any violations of the law or threatened violations shall be immediately reported to the 15 police department and full cooperation shall be given by employees and management of the 16 business. 17 (k) No variance from the permitted entertainment shall occur without obtaining an 18 amendment to the permit. 19 (� No part of the business shall be subleased without notification to the police department. 20 (m) Any fight, ejection of customer, thefts from customers, or any other criminal act 21 occurring at the establishment shall be reported to the police department as soon as any 22 establishment employee or security guard is aware of such an incident. 23 (n) Any request by anyone in the establishment for an employee to contact the police 24 department shall be honored immediately, without question. 25 (o) Labor Code section 6404.5 regulating smoking shall be enforced at all times. 26 (p) Advertising for the entertainment shall conform to the requirements of this code. 27 (r) No patrons will be admitted to the establishment after 1:00 a.m. 28 (s) For establishments located in either the Burlingame Avenue or the Broadway September 27,2005 20 I Commercial District as defined in title 25 of this code,beverages will only be served in plasticware 2 after 10 p.m. on Thursday,Friday,and Saturday nights and New Year's Eve;the Wednesday night 3 before Thanksgiving Day,Saint Patrick's Day,Halloween,and the Fourth of July. In addition,the 4 establishment shall be responsible for applying this condition to other times and events during the 5 year such as grand opening celebrations, anniversaries, and other nights or days in which the 6 establishment has attracted extraordinarily large numbers of or unusually rowdy persons or other 7 special considerations indicate that application of this condition makes good business and practice 8 sense. The exceptions to this are closed,private parties and beverages served in stemware. 9 (t) Permittee shall ensure that all business employees fully cooperate with the police 10 department when asked to provide witness statements,contact information,and requests to return 11 telephone calls as soon as possible. 12 (u)Permittee shall not permit any person in an intoxicated condition to enter or remain in 13 the establishment. 14 (v) The permittee shall meet with the chief of police to discuss the conduct of the 15 establishment upon reasonable request. 16 17 6.16.160 Performance standards for entertainment businesses where alcoholic beverages are served. 18 19 The following additional requirements shall apply to any entertainment business where 20 alcoholic beverages are served anywhere on site,and failure to comply with every such requirement 21 shall be grounds for revocation or suspension of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter: 22 (a) All alcohol beverage laws shall be strictly enforced. The permittee shall comply with 23 all conditions and restrictions imposed upon the Department ofAlcoholic Beverage Control(ABC) 24 license and all applicable ABC regulations. 25 (b) No minors are to be allowed on the premises during hours when there is no food 26 service, unless they are there on lawful business, and no minors shall be allowed in the business 27 after 10 p.m.when entertainment is being offered. If an ABC type 47 on-sale general eating place 28 permit has been issued to the permittee,persons under the age of 21 years shall not be allowed in September 27,2005 21 1 areas where meals are not served. 2 (c) A sign indicating there is an age restriction of twenty-one(21)years and older shall be 3 posted at all entrances to bar areas. This sign shall be readily visible to patrons. 4 (d)The permittee shall participate with ABC programs for refresher bartender and waitress 5 training on no less than an annual basis. 6 7 6.16.170 Performance standards for amusement arcades. 8 The following requirements shall apply to entertainment businesses providing amusement 9 arcade entertainment; and shall be deemed conditions of the entertainment permit, and failure to 10 comply with every such requirement shall be grounds for revocation of the permit issued pursuant 11 to this chapter. 12 (a) All amusement devices within the premises shall be visible to and supervised by an 13 identifiable adult attendant who shall be present at all times when any amusement device is being 14 operated. Such attendant shall be provided with a jacket, vest, or other clothing that clearly 15 identifies such person as an employee of said arcade. 16 (b) The supervision of the patrons on the premises shall be adequate to insure that there is 17 no conduct that unreasonably interferes with the use of surrounding properties. 18 (c)No one under eighteen(18)years of age shall be allowed to play the amusement devices 19 between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 3:00 p.m.during the academic year of any public school district 20 with a school in the city; holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays are excluded. No one under eighteen 21 (18) years of age may loiter inside or outside the premises or play amusement devices between 22 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. 23 (d) Each arcade maintaining sixteen (16) amusement devices or more shall provide a 24 minimum of one uniformed private security person in addition to the adult attendant from 3:00 p.m. 25 until after closing time during weekdays and at all times during the hours of operation on weekends 26 and holidays. The identity of the security person or persons shall be provided to the chief of police 27 on forms provided by the police department. If there are an unusual amount of police service calls 28 to an amusement arcade with sixteen (16) or more amusement devices, the chief of police may September 27,2005 22 I require that the security person required by this subsection be replaced by a security guard. 2 (e) Outside security lighting shall be provided under the direction of and subject to the 3 approval of the police department. 4 (f)Public restroom facilities shall be provided. 5 (g)A minimum of ten-foot candle illumination generally distributed must be contained in 6 all parts of the premises at all times when the arcade is open and when the public is permitted to 7 enter or remain therein. 8 (h) No amusement device shall be situated in such a way that its use will violate any 9 applicable fire regulation or hinder the reasonable egress from and ingress to the premises of the 10 public.A fully dimensioned floor plan indicating the location of each machine and the aisle width 11 for ingress shall be clearly labeled. 12 (i)The business entrance shall be unlocked during all times that the premise is open for use 13 of arcade games. 14 0) Video surveillance cameras shall be installed in the arcade areas to continually record 15 patron activities to tape or disk during the establishment's hours of operation. Recorded tapes and 16 disks shall be maintained for a period of at least ninety-six(96)hours after recording. The recorded 17 tapes and disks shall be made available to police personnel upon written request. 18 (k)No alcoholic beverages are allowed in areas operated as amusement arcades. 19 (0 If a token change machine or coin change machine is installed, it shall be protected by 20 an alarm system. 21 (m)The applicant shall restrict access into and out of the facility through the front door(s) 22 only. The rear door shall be equipped with an audible alarm that will sound whenever the door is 23 opened. The door shall be sign posted to indicate the alarm condition. 24 (n) Any pay telephone installed inside the premises or any pay telephone immediately 25 adjacent to the front of the business shall be restricted from receiving incoming calls. 26 (o)No gambling shall be permitted in areas operated as amusement arcades. 27 (p)The permittee shall maintain and keep its amusement devices in good working order and 28 condition. September 27,2005 23 1 6.16.190 Display of permit. 2 Every entertainment business shall display at all times during business hours the permit 3 issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for such entertainment business in a conspicuous 4 place so that the permit may be readily seen by all persons entering the entertainment business. 5 6 6.16.200 Inspections. 7 An applicant or permittee shall permit representatives of the police department, health 8 department,fire department,planning department,or other city departments to inspect the premises 9 of an entertainment business for the purpose of insuring compliance with the law and the 10 development and performance standards applicable to entertainment businesses, at any time it is 11 occupied or opened for business. A person who operates an entertainment business or his or her 12 agent or employee is in violation of the provisions of this section if he or she refuses to permit such 13 lawful inspection of the premises at any time it is occupied or open for business. 14 15 6.16.210 Compliance with other laws. 16 The provisions of this chapter are not intended to be exclusive and compliance therewith 17 shall not excuse noncompliance with any other provisions of this code or county or state laws 18 applicable to the entertainment activity or the business within which the activity is conducted. 19 20 6.16.220 Interpretation of chapter. 21 If ambiguity arises concerning the content or application of this chapter,it shall be the duty 22 of the chief of police to establish all pertinent facts and to interpret its provisions. 23 24 6.16.230 Public nuisance. 25 Any entertainment business operated, conducted, or maintained in violation of the 26 requirements of this chapter is declared to be a public nuisance,and in addition to any other remedy 27 provided by this law may be abated through the initiation of a civil enforcement action brought by 28 the city attorney. September 27,2005 24 1 6.16.240 Severability. 2 If any section,subsection,subdivision,paragraph,sentence,clause,or phrase in this chapter 3 or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any 4 court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the 5 remaining portions of this chapter or any part thereof. The city council hereby declares that it 6 would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase 7 thereof irrespective of the fact that any one (1) or more subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, 8 sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, or invalid, or ineffective. 9 10 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 11 12 Mayor 13 14 I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th day 15 of September, 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _day of , 2005, by the following vote: 16 AYES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: 17 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 18 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 19 20 City Clerk 21 22 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\entertainment-2.bpd.wpd 23 24 25 26 27 28 September 27,2005 25 ��� CITY o,, STAFF REPORT AGENDA BURUNGAME 6b ITEM# m MTG. DATE 10.03.05 °N1KED DYNE b TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINAN TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR AREAS CURRENTLY ZONED C-3 IN THE TROUSDALE/ MURCHISON NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PROPERTIES WITH LOT FRONTS ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF MARCO POLO WAY BETWEEN CLARICE LANE AND TROUSDALE DRIVE FROM R-3 TO TW RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the proposed ordinance to change the zoning designation for areas currently zoned C-3 in the Trousdale/Murchison neighborhood and the properties with lot fronts on the east and west sides of Marco Polo Way between Clarice Lane and Trousdale Drive from R-3 to TW. Affirmative action should be to adopt the proposed ordinance. In its action, the Council should do the following: A. Adopt the proposed ordinance; and B. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. The public hearing for action was noticed by mail on September 23, 2005 to all property owners within the area affected by the change in zoning designation. A notice was also published in a newspaper of general circulation on September 23, 2005. General Plan Compliance: The Trousdale West (TW) zoning district is part of the implementation phase of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan adopted by the City Council and amended to the General Plan in September 2004. The proposed zoning district boundaries are consistent with the plan because they are taken from the subarea designations of the land use element of the specific plan: the North of Trousdale area(B-4), and parcels fronting on Marco Polo Way within the Mills Peninsula Hospital Block (B-3). In addition, the west side of Marco Polo Drive between Clarice Lane and Trousdale Drive has been included in the new zoning designation to provide for consistency in development standards for both sides of Marco Polo Way. The west side of Marco Polo Way is designated for residential uses in the General Plan, and no change in use is proposed for this area with the TW zoning. CEQA Status: On September 20, 2004, the City Council adopted Negative Declaration ND-533-P as a part of the approval of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The proposed reclassification is an implementation action of the adopted plan, and is therefore covered by the Negative Declaration ND-533-P. Public Hearing And Action On An Ordinance To Change The Zoning Designation For Areas Currently Zoned C-3 In The Trousdale/Murchison Neighborhood And The Properties With Lot Fronts On The East And West Sides Of Marco Polo Way Between Clarice Lane And Trousdale Drive From R-3 To TW October 3,2005 BACKGROUND: On September 19, 2005, the City Council approved new zoning district regulations which will apply to this area, the Trousdale West (TW) zoning district. In order to implement this new zoning district, the boundaries of the new district must be established. This is accomplished by reclassifying the area from its current zoning designation to the new TW zoning district. The attached ordinance will establish the boundaries of the TW zoning district. The new TW zoning district will encompass all properties now zoned C-3, as shown on the attached Trousdale West (TW) zoning district map. It also will encompass properties now zoned R-3 on the west side of Marco Polo Way. The new TW zoning will continue to allow the same uses as the R-3 zoning district for properties along Marco Polo Way. The Planning Commission decided to include the west side of Marco Polo Way in the new zoning district so that consistent development standards would be applied to new development on both sides of Marco Polo Way. ATTACHMENTS: Notice of Public Hearing Ordinance Reclassifying properties from the C-3 and R-3 Districts to the TW district Trousdale West (TW) Zoning District Map -2- A CITY CITY OF BURLINGAME 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURUNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 ar TEL:(650)558-7250 . FAX:(650)696-3790 ,,,m ,�.•'� www.burlingame.org NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO RECLASSIFY ZONING IN NORTH BURLINGAME The City of Burlingame City-.Council will hold a public hearing on Monday,October 3,2005 PUBLIC HEARING at 7:00 P.M.in the City Hall Council Chambers NOTICE located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,to consider the reclassification of the area currently zoned C-3 and R-4 to Trousdale West f;"TW)district to ti fi r.� — implement the North Burlingame Rollins Road rr Specific Plan adopted September 2004. The area to be reclassified includes Magnolia Ave to ti Murchison Dr to Ogden Dr(east side)to Trousdale , Dr(south side)and both sides of Marco Polo Way north to Clarice Lane. �`• ,, `� Y7 Mailed: September 23 2005q�y (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME 4 lIMMRMIilMp�BA A copy of the applic an h' project y be reviewed prior to the meetings Primrose Road, Burlingame,C jIf you challe e u m be limited to raising only blic hearing, ( AVIII described in h e ri e 1!�ve ed to the city at or prior to a pu c eal}n& F 0 R x I A Property ow rs v spon ble r informing their tenants Lboui infor:iatid please call (650) 558-7 0� i Margaret Mon 0 { City Planner R ` PU CE (Please refer to other side) I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE THE ZONING MAPS INCORPORATED IN THE BURLINGAME ZONING CODE 3 BY RECLASSIFYING THE C-3 AREAS IN THE TROUSDALEIMURCHISON NEIGHBORHOOD TO TROUSDALE WEST (TW) AND THE PROPERTIES WITH 4 LOT FRONTS ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF MARCO POLO WAY BETWEEN CLARICE LANE AND TROUSDALE DRIVE FROM R-3 TO TW 5 6 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 7 8 Section 1 . The zoning maps attached to Ordinance No. 539 as amended and referenced 9 in Section 25. 12.010 of the Municipal Code are amended as follows: 10 1 . The area bounded by Murchison Drive, Magnolia Avenue, Trousdale Drive, and 11 Ogden Drive is reclassified from C-3 District to Trousdale West (TW) District. 12 2. The properties with lot fronts on the southeast side of Trousdale Drive between 13 Magnolia Avenue and Marco Polo Way, with the exception of the property owned by the 14 Peninsula Hospital District, are reclassified from C-3 District to Trousdale West (TW) District. 15 3 . The properties with lot fronts on the northeast side of Marco Polo Way between 16 Clarice Lane and Trousdale Drive are reclassified from C-3 District to Trousdale West (TW) 17 District. 18 4. The properties with lot fronts on the southwest side of Marco Polo Way between 19 Clarice Lane and Trousdale Drive, including the property at the southeast corner of Marco Polo 20 Way and Trousdale Drive and the property at the southwest corner of Marco Polo Way and 21 Clarice Lane, are reclassified from R-3 District to Trousdale West (TW) District. 22 23 These reclassifications are generally shown on the Exhibit to this ordinance and shall be 24 effective upon the effective date of the City ordinance establishing the zoning regulations for 25 the Trousdale West District or thirty days from the date of this adoption, whichever is later. 26 27 \\ 1 Section 2. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 2 3 Mayor 4 5 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that 6 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19'' 7 day of September, 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held 8 on the day of , 2005, by the following vote: 9 10 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 11 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 12 13 14 City Clerk 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 - 2 - • :: . •..■: .. , Trousdale West (TW) I_\... t .7J■.r%■\V6 ' AVL.........\\r6 AssAissmanNNEMN:111:111111111"00, - Normo/.■■..■.■c\/■. � Jap.■/tO■rt■..■■..■.■.■C•■.. /.r•■■ar■■■■uta■.....■...■Nur...■.■.■\■■/. :i. _' uru■.•uuuuuuuuuv.Ouuuuu■rur •� ..r u■■ouuuuuuuu.►.uuuu■u.uuui. • iaroOuouuuuuuuu►vuuouuuu■.'u.. ur■■.. .. u •um.muuuuuuLvuuauuuvor.: a ' i: n : iii::ii. ' I' i■Bu►•umuuO.•uuru.■..u..0►ummuuo..►uucu.. / - uu■MMUM .vO.munuuuuvu.mo%■.—■muco.. • %t■ILi■./.\\ua■■tam■i./•■//ti•■■/■ati.\\NEW No .480 06- ML a ..il.i/.■.■■■.■.N■.. b. .../A..■...■■\\■■■■■.■...■.■■....m...mrr..r....B.N■■■.■N■mmo.. I'm so :.............r...■.................................r■r■■.■sang. a■L ..r..........................................a somm..■■................. •,.....................................................................L • a ::::: :nci :::: ...................%......I ...L ... ......................:.......N.m.a jigM9 ...■.■.■.■.....■•■.■..:.■■.■■.■■■■■■..■.■■■..■...■■■■■ago■■.mNr.•NNamrd. r..•-•r..■.a.■../..rm.•......rm.•.a..■.....■■.■■.r,.■rm..r.mN■■.Bar' '.,9'a..■.oBar.■■a..■..I.•■Cir■..■■■■,■■■■■t►.Ann m.■■.I.■■.■■■■.• \II►Omr.■.O.%O/Nunn/■■m.•V.rml \a■ummml on'"MmigNiHig an'. 11110 IWA1111111111111:02r, .0, \.\\u.aa■■a.■Btu%.I" AN \■L\r■■m■■■.•..■m■r. ,in ..u■..■uovu► . \t.��.L O■aOI.aO► vonnv.■u■t■►. ` {■.. n .■■u■mv...ouu, 44:v■■sma�immon our u.u..o.v oaoo.u.c■r . ..B.OnmN..uc. - LmscuuONN• i■msu►vuur , .Comuur■Lr.n ms, 14 .�nuuonuor..uo. � Slow .:upaua.i.uu\.ruuuuuu •:u. ouuuo 'uu►vuuuuuui •iur nia■■o/m■a■ir.n■cvua■uuoni {.-.:nnuuuu.r•�Oncoouuuum � •i/uuu n ruuru..•uucououu u.m. �_ . •vuuoO■uruu.vumc000uuoOL ' vouu■Ocoon►numcuuuunu..,. , •puuu�oouuLnomcuuu.Oo,u► , , � �Ou■.nvunw�•uc�ouuunnon► vu•.uuuoumu•■...puuua.uuu� •ruuuumruu►v.!•i nuvLn.uu� loom •U..ata%O.rO.{.a .•m■■mum■VJma■.., , � moor%.■ r• .ti. 1..\■►. .\.■m■.t.■■/■■■.. , � vA.■a%► .uu � i.►vmuuu1:11uum► o/../I.mrmm..:•■•" c•.rm■■■t■.car. , . . , v%unur.i. .r.•SruuuouuO■. ,. 'Am 11 \■.■■%■/ung`aLm:\\/%..N■■a/t.■■. . . . I...m■mm■mut■t■f. Nnose \.:..r.■nmam.. .. . '\t.mmm=■t. '�.Om■1A on on me 30 On d_■■.rat.■■.' r .t ■rrm..I..'\-■.mmol , nomors I mono Oman 19 A, "No Alp 1 ITT STAFF REPORT AGENDA 8a ITEM # MTG. DATE October 3, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED ' BY: JACK VAN ETTEN, Chief of PoliCG DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 APPROVED �� Ad, FROM: JACK VAN ETTEN, Chief of Police - BY: SUBJECT: Introduce the proposed amendment to revise the animal control regulations in Burlingame City Ordinance, Chapter 9.04 to coincide with the newly amended changes in the San Mateo County Animal Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Introduce the proposed amendments to the Burlingame City Ordinance, Chapter 9.04, to revise animal control regulations to provide a more complete review, assessment, and hearing process for dangerous and vicious dogs. These revisions will coincide with changes in section 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code regarding Animal Control and Dangerous Animal Proceedings. A. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed amended ordinance B. Waive further reading of the proposed amended ordinance C. Introduce the proposed amended ordinance D. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed amended ordinance at least five days before the proposed adoption BACKGROUND: Over the past 45 years, the County of San Mateo has contracted with the Peninsula Humane Society (PHS) to provide Animal Control Services to all twenty cities and the unincorporated areas of the County. The contract between the County and cities states each city is responsible to adopt and maintain an animal control ordinance and fee schedule that is substancially the same as the County. Enforcement of city ordinances which differ substantially from the County ordinance and which result in an increase to PHS' costs shall be reimbursed directly from the city requiring special services to PHS, as negotiated between the city and PHS. Under the existing County ordinance, all 'ities maintain a substantially similar animal control ordinance that does not require additional vices from PHS. After approval from the County Board of Supervisors, each city will be required -)pt the revised ordinance within 60 days. The ordinance will become effective Countywide ,vs from the date of adoption by the last of the twenty cities. Isting dangerous animal ordinance provides vigorous controls over animals posing a safety, County, city and PHS staff sought to tighten existing regulations. Through a �s with the Animal Control Task Force, which included representatives from all cities and PHS,a revised ordinance was developed. Under both the existing and revised ordinances, animal control staff has the latitude to declare an animal"dangerous,"which means the animal owner may maintain the animal under a set of strict conditions under the jurisdiction of a dangerous animal permit.The dangerous animal designation generally follows an incident involving an attack to another animal or a relatively minor bite to a human.Animal control staff also has the authority to impound and euthanize an animal that has committed an attack of an egregious nature. Should an animal owner disagree with the dangerous animal declaration or intent to impound and euthanize an animal,they may request a hearing to dispute the charge.The revised county ordinance follows this existing system,yet allows for more stringent regulations on dangerous animals,clarifies the hearing procedure,and cleans up various provisions of the county ordinance. Current state laws prohibit cities and counties from passing breed specific ordinances. There is currently a bill pending at the state level which would allow local jurisdictions to adopt an ordinance mandating spay/neuter and breeding permits for certain breeds of dogs. Should this state legislation be enacted,the County and cities may opt to pass additional revisions regarding spay/neuter and breeding permits on a breed specific basis. As of the writing of this memo,the bill had passed the Assembly and will now move on to the Senate. DISCUSSION: The following is a summary of changes contained in the revised county ordinance that have been brought into our city ordinance: *Clarifies definitions of"dangerous"animal(allowing an animal to be maintained with a permit)vs.a"vicious"animal(an animal that must be euthanized) *Expands the definition of"vicious animal'to include an animal which kills another animal *Simplifies and unifies hearing procedures *Clarifies procedures for the transfer of dangerous animals into the County,between cities and out of County agencies *Gives PHS and hearing officers more options,e.g.order obedience training,etc. *Requires dangerous animals to be spay/neutered *Disallows animals declared dangerous because of aggression to humans from being maintained in a residence with juveniles under the age of 18 *Clarifies procedures allowing PHS or the hearing officer(s)to modify dangerous animal permits,i.e.place additional restrictions on repeat offenders *Clarifies impoundment procedures *Increases hearing fees to recover costs *Clarifies that in cases in which no hearing is held that the PHS decision is final `Allows interested persons to request a hearing should the Animal Control Officer determine an animal is not dangerous or vicious 'Gives PHS the ability to process violations as infractions without going through the prosecuting attorney "Various "clean-up" revisions The County ordinance revision also contains numerous clerical "clean-ups" throughout. It is our understanding that San Mateo County Counsel has reviewed the County ordinance and finds it in order. Additionally, the Burlingame City Attorney has also been involved in the revisions and changes in our Municipal Code Ordinances and finds them to be appropriate and in order. BUDGET IMPACT: This revision in the San Mateo County Ordinance raises the limit on hearing fees from $250 to $350. Since the number and cost of hearings varies, this change may result in approximately $1,500 in additional revenue that will be used to offset the County and cities' Animal Control costs. ATTACHMENTS: Revised Burlingame Ordinance and Amendments to Chapter 9.04 of the City of Burlingame Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6.04 of San Mateo County Animal Control Ordinance I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 9.04 TO REVISE ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE A MORE COMPLETE 3 REVIEW, ASSESSMENT, AND HEARING PROCESS FOR DANGEROUS AND VICIOUS DOGS 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1 . The City works in concert with the County of San Mateo and other cities in the 8 County to use a common animal control ordinance regarding dogs. After months of review and 9 negotiation, the Countyhas adopted revised provisions regarding assessment, review, and regulation 10 of dangerous and vicious dogs. The revised provisions are intended to clarify the overall process, 11 and provide both the public and dog owners with a fair and effective system. 12 13 Section 2. Section 9.04.001 is amended to read as follows: 14 Section 9.04.010 Definitions. 15 (a) "Animal control officer" means that person designated as the director animal control 16 program manager of the division of animal control services for the county and his or her duly 17 authorized officers or deputies, as well as the executive directo president of the county's contract 18 agent and his or her duly authorized officers or deputies. 19 (b) "Animal control program" means that program within the division of animal control 20 services of the department of conminnity services environmental services agency of the county, or 21 the county's designated contract agent or both, which is specifically charged with regulating and 22 enforcing laws dealing with animal control within its jurisdiction. 23 (c) "Animal control shelter" means the facilities provided by the county or the county's 24 designated contract agent for the impounding of animals. 25 (d) "County" means the County of San Mateo. 26 (e) "Director of environmental services agency community services" means that person so 27 designated by the governing body of the county. 28 (f) "Dag Licensing program" means that program within the division of 9/27/2005 I revenue services of the department of community services employee and public services agency of 2 the county which is specifically charged with regulating en f6rcmg and selling dog animal licenses 3 and registrations in the county. 4 (g) "f f ealth officer"inearts that person who has been designated by the board of supervisors 5 as the health officer of the comity and any other person duly authorized by the heafth officer to ac 6 on his behaK-. 7 (h) (g) ' "Impoundment" means the picking up and confining of an animal by the animal 8 control program. 9 ft(h) "Owner" means that person eighteen(18)years of age or over who holds the license 10 to the animal,or if the animal is not licensed,that person eighteen(18)years of age or over legally 11 entitled to possession of the animal concerned and who leas primary responsibility for the care of the 12 animall or a member of the househofd or business where ffie animal is being kept or a designa 13 agent of the person legally entitled to possession. 14 , 15 . 16 (k)(i) "Dangerous animal'means any animal,except a trained dog assisting a peace officer 17 engaged in law enforcement duties, which because of its disposition, behavior,,training, or other 18 characteristic constitutes a danger to persons or;property, or which demonstrates any or all of the 19 following behavior: 20 (1)(A}Any attack or ether behavior, ,which requires a defensive action 21 by any person to prevent bodily injury or property damage or that results in an injury to a person or 22 property; or 23 f$j (2) Any aggressive attack or other behavio , VV I JL.Luut ptovocation, that constitutes a 24 substantial physical threat of bodily harm to a person or animal, where such thre attack, injury or 25 behaviors occurs in a place where such person or animalis conducting himself or herself peaceably 26 and lawfully; or 27 (2)(3) An attack without provocation on another animal or livestock which occurs off the 28 property of the owner of the attacking animal; or 9/27/2005 - 2 - 1 (3)R-anning or being at large off the aninial's owner's property and harassment or Moicstatioln 2 ofperson(s). 3 (4) An animal that creates a danger or constitutes anienace to the pnblic's health and safet 4 Any animal that has been deemed by another 5 {-overn►nental jurisdiction as"potentially dangerOUS,"dangerous... "vicious,"or any other similar 6 designation. 7 (1) "Peaceably mid fa-mffilly"means a person is upon the private property of any owner of the 8 animai: when he is on snefi property in the perfornimice of any duty imposed -apon him by the laws 9 , or whe! 10 . 11 (j)"Wolf hybrid"means any offspring of domestic dogs bred to wild canids(e.g.,wolves or 12 coyotes) and their subsequent generations. 13 (k) "Vicious animal" means any animal, except a trained dog assisting a peace officer 14 engaged in law enforcement duties, which meets any or all of the following criteria: 15 (1) Any animal previously designated as "dangerous,"that after investigation by as animal 16 control officer or a peace officer is found under conditions which constitute a violation of this 17 chapter or applicable dangerous animal permit and which demonstrates a significant danger to the 18 public health or safety; or 19 (2) Any animal seized under section 599aa of the Penal Code or upon the sustaining of a 20 conviction of the owner or caretaker under subdivision (a) of the section 597.5 of the Penal Code; 21 or 22 (3) Any animal which inflicts severe injury on or kills a Duman being or another animal; or 23 (4) Any animal which has engaged in any aggressive behavior which demonstrates that the 24 annual represents a clear and present substantial danger to the public health or safety and that due 25 to substantial risk to the public health or safety it is unlikely that the animal could be safely 26 maintained under a dangerous animal pen-nit. 27 (1) "Severe injury" means any physical injury directly caused by an animal attack that 28 consists of muscle tears, multiple punctures, broken bones or disfiguring lacerations, or which 9/27/2005 - 3 - I requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic surgery. 2 3 Subsection 9.04.011(b) is amended to read as follows: 4 (b) Scope of Authority of `: � rnd Animal Control Officers. 74afirtial cont 5 officers appointed pursuant to eaiifbrnia eivii eode Section 607f shall have the anthority to iss=. 6 notices to appear in court pursumit to etiapter 5c( . -with Section 853.5 of Title 3 of P 7 2 of ttie Penai eode of the state of emif6mia) for vioiations of state and local anirnal control laws. g This authority is based on Section 607g of the emifbmia eivii eode. H un an e o ffcers qualified and 9 appoifftftit Gatto Cali form t5 .`u € atit n -C,64,6d ion"14502, ho are employees of anypubli 10 pound,society for prevention of cruel16 animals,or tiwhich ha contracted with the 11 county to provide animal control services,shall have the authority to issue notices to appear in court 12 pursuant to chaster 5c'(cornmenciog with section 853.5 of title 3 of part 2 of the feral Code) for 13 violations of state and local animal control laws. This authority is based'on kai6n 1.4503 of the 14 Corporations Code} mal control officers shall ha", "moi rityprovided byiwlaw including 15 but not". ° o Ihat des `' :' lay:Pe>tl` " ectar 830,9. 16 17 Section 9.04.015 is amended to read as follows: 18 Section 9.04.015 li Brous animal permit r quirei . 19 (a) No person shall knowingly keep, have, maintain, sell, trade or let for hire an animal 20 previously identified destgrtate dun due provisions of this cltapter',as dangerous without obtaining 21 a dangerous animal permit from the animal control officer. . The animal owner shall carol �l 22 all conditions or the dangerous animal permit, including but not limited to, all requirements o 23 section 9.40,019 of this chapter. Any animal which is determined to be dangcroLis'under this elf' er 24 and for which a permit has not been obtained shall be surrendered to an animal control officer for 25 appropriate disposition including humane destruction. 26 (b) If an animal control officer or a peace officer hzis investigated and determined that an 27 animal is dangerous,the animal control officer or peace officer shall deliver written notice of such 28 determination to the owner of the animal. Should the animal i pose a threat to the,public health and 9/27/2005 - 4 - I safety, an animal control officer may Immediately impound the animal. 2 (c) If, after investigation by an animal control officer or a peace officer, that officer 3 determines that probable cause does not exist to believe the animal is dangerous, any interested 4 person may appeal that determination by submitting within five(5) calendar days of the decision a 5 written request to the animal control officer or a peace officer for a hearing and paying the required 6 fee. The hearing shall be cond-Licted according to the procedures set forth in section 9.04.016-1 of 7 this Chapter. 8 (d) In determining whether or not an animal shall be declared dangerous,the animal control 9 officer,peace officer,or hearing officer appointed pursuant to section 9.04.016-1, may consider, as 10 a mitigating factor or factors, whether, at the time of the injury, attack or molestation,the person or 11 animal suffering the injury, attack or molestation: 12 (1) Provoked, tormented, teased, abused or assaulted the animal thereby causing or 13 contribUtim, to the alleged behavior; or 14 (2) Committed a willful trespass or other tort upon the private property of the owner or 15 caretaker of the animal; or 16 (3)Threatened or committed an Linjustlified attack or assault against the owner,caretaker,or 17 person in control of the animal; or is (4)Any other mitigating factors deemed appropriate for consideration by the animal control 19 officer, peace officer, or hearing officer. 20 (e) Upon receipt of written or oral notification by the animal control officer or a peace officer 21 that an animal is dangerous as defined in by-this chapter, the owner and/or possesso shall submit 22 an application for a dangerous animal permit to the animal control officer within five (5) calendar 23 days. The application for a pen-nit shall contain the name of the applicant, applicant's address, the 24 applicant's home and business phone numbers,the address and description of the proposed location 25 of where the animal will be kept, if different from applicant's, and a complete description, and a 26 photograph of the animal. The permit shall contain all of the requirements of section 9.04.017 and 27 any additional conditions or requirements deemed necessary by the animal control officer or peace 28 officer to protect the public health or safety. 912712005 - 5 - I (f) ff owner and/or possessor of animal disputes identification of an aninial as a dangerous 2 miimal by the animal control officer theymay submit a written request f6r a hearing to the aninial 3 control officer widiin five working days of notification. Failure of the owner and/or possessor to 4 request a fiearing shall result in the animal being declared dangerous and the 0-Mner Midior pOSSessor 5 shall be subject to compliance with this section. Should the owner of the animal wish to contest the 6 dangerous animal designation, the owner may request'a hearing to be conducted according to the 7 procedures set forth in section 9.04.016-1 of this chapter. The owner shall submit a written request 8 for a dangerous animal hearing to the animal control officer or peace officer within five(5)calendar 9 days of written notification by the animal control officer or peace officer that the animal has been 10 declared dangerous. Should the,owner not submit a request for a hearing within five (5) calendar 11 days of roti fication, the hearing process shall be deemed waived by the owner, and the dangerous 12 animal declaration will be considered final by the city. In that event, the city may allow the 13 dangerous animal permit to be issued without a hearing. Unless a dangerous animal permit is 14 immediately obtained, the animal shall be impounded at the owner's expense pending appropriate 15 disposition as determined by the animal control officer or peace officer. 16 (d) The hearing shall be conducted by the director of com.......t.Y .1mices or a designated 17 representative. f f earings shaf f be held not more than ten days ftom the receipt of the request for the 18 hearing and shall be conducted in an informal mann%.11 %,�11010L�11L.With due process of 1m. A liearin�, 19 maybe continned if the 1 icaring officer deeins it necessary and proper or if the owner, custodian or 20 aninial control officer shows good cause. Both the owner of tfie animal and animal control services 21 may present relevant evidence and call and cross-UNUM111C ,but flic strict rttles of evidence 22 shallnot be applicable.The director or designated representative shall render a brief written decision 23 which sliall be final witfiin ten days of hearing. Unless the hearing officer othervvise determines, 24 owner or possessor is fiable for all costs related to sncfi hearilig not to exceed two li-andred fift 25 dollars. The failure to conduct a h=1116 1k,4LUted by ffiis section slialf ha e no beariiig on any 26 . 27 (e)A permit obtained under this section is not transferable. Wlien pemiittee's address or the 28 focation where the aninial is kept clianges, the penrit antomatically becomes void and a new 9/27/2005 - 6 - 1 application must be submitted to the animal control officer. 2 (f) This permit is subject to renewal mid approval every year. The permittee shaff pay ai 3 annual fee fbr this pernift pursuant to the procedures estabfished by the division of animal control 4 services.if permittee fails to file application f6r renewal or pay permit fee prior to permit 1 5 date the permit automatically becomes void. The fee fbr such pennits shall be as set forth in Section 6 . 7 8 A new section 9.04.015-1 is added to read as follows: 9 Section 9.04.015-1 Declaration of vicious animals. 10 (a)No person shall keep,have,maintain, sell,trade,or let for hire an animal which has been 11 designated as vicious pursuant to this chapter. 12 (b) If an animal control officer or a peace officer has investigated and determined that an 13 animal is vicious,the animal control officer or peace officer shall deliver to the owner of the animal 14 written notice of that determination. The animal control officer or peace officer shall immediately 15 impound or cause to be impounded the animal and shall cause the animal to be humanely destroyed 16 unless the owner requests a hearing under subsection (c) of this section. 17 (c) If the owner of the animal disputes the designation of an animal as a vicious animal by 18 the animal control officer or peace officer, the owner may submit a written request for a hearing to 19 the animal control officer or peace officer within five(5)calendar days of notification. Such hearing 20 shall be conducted according to the procedures set forth in section 9.04.016-1 of this chapter. Failure 21 of the owner to request a hearing shall result in the animal being declared vicious and humanely 22 destroyed. The vicious animal declaration will be considered final by the city. 23 (d) If after investigation by an animal control officer or a peace officer, that officer 24 determines that probable cause does not exist to believe that the animal is vicious, any interested 25 person may appeal that determination by submitting within five(5)calendar days of the decision a 26 written request to the animal control officer or peace officer for a hearing and paying the required 27 fee. 28 (e) In determining whether or not an animal shall be declared vicious, the animal control 9/27/2005 - 7 - I officer, peace officer, or hearing officer may consider, as a mitigating factor or factors, whether at 2 the time of the injury,attack or behavior,the person or animal suffering the injury,attack or behavior 3 for which the animal is being determined vicious: 4 (1) Provoked, tormented, teased, abused or assaulted the animal thereby causing or 5 contributing to the alleged behavior; or 6 (2) Committed a willful trespass or other tort upon the private property of the owner or 7 caretaker of the animal; or 8 (3)Threatened or committed an unjustified attack or assault against the owner,caretaker or 9 person in control of the animal; or 10 (4)Any other mitigating factors deemed appropriate for consideration by the animal control 11 officer, peace officer, or hearing officer. 12 13 Section 9.04.016 is amended to read as follows: 14 Section 9.04.016 Issuance of permit for dangerous animal. 15 (a) No'permit obtained under this section is transferable. If the owner's address or the 16 location where the animal i s kept changes or the owner transfers ownership of the animal,the permit 17 shall become null and void and an application for a new permit must be submitted to the animal 18 control officer. 19 (b) A permit issued under this chapter is subject to renewal and approval each year and is 20 subject to conditions and requirements existing as of the date of renewal.The permitteeshall pay an 21 annual fee for this permit pursuant to the procedures;established by the division of animal control 22 services. If permittee fails to file an application for renewal or pay the permit fee prior to the permit 23 anniversary date, the permit shall automatically become void. The fee for such permit shall be as 24 set forth in section 9.04.031. This fee shall not be refundable. 25 (c) If the owner or permittee has a history of multiple violations of this chapter or of the 26 conditions of any previously issued'dangerous animal permit, the animal control''officer or hearing 27 officer may deny the permit and impound the animal for appropriate disposition as determined by 28 the animal control officer or hearing officer. 9/27/2005 - 8 - I The issuance of the permit shalf be conditioned upon the animal owner, possessor or permittee 2 promising to adhere to rules and regulations specified in Section 9.04.Of 9 and to any reasonable %-I ItI.11a telated to the proper care, control, maintenance and use of the animal which the animal 4 control officer shalf estabfish. 5 , 6 possessor or pennittee has ahistory of compfaints filed with the aninial control officer for violation 7 ofanysectionsofthischa ter relating tothe care and control of animals ancYor the owner,possessor 8 section. 9 10 A new Section 9.04.016-1 is added to read as follows(replacing existing Section 9.04.022): 11 Section 9.04.016-1 Hearing procedures. 12 (a) A hearing pursuant to this chapter shall be conducted by a hearing officer or designated 13 representative appointed by the director of the environmental services agency. The hearings shall 14 be scheduled no less than five (5) working days and no more than fifteen (15) working days from 15 the receipt of the request for the hearing unless agreed upon by the involved animal control officer 16 or peace officer and the animal owner. A hearing may be continued if the hearing officer deems it 17 necessary and proper or if the owner, or animal control officer or peace officer shows good cause. 18 Except as otherwise provided, any owner or possessor of any aninial impounded purstiant to this 19 "hearin 20 , the owner or possessor (the 21 "petitioner") files a written petition therefor with the animal control prograir within three days 22 fbilowing written notice of the impoundment. 23 (b)The hearing shall be conducted in an informal manner consistent with due process of law. 24 Both the owner of the animal and the animal control officer or peace officer may be represented by 25 counsel. The parties may present relevant evidence and call and cross-examine witnesses. The strict 26 rules of evidence shall not be applicable. Any relevant evidence may be admitted if it is the sort of 27 evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. The 28 hearing shall be tape-recorded and all 'documentary evidence submitted at the'hearing shall be 9/27/2005 - 9 - I preserved. Any party may arrange for a court reporter to be present. Any party desiring,tl c presence 2 of a court reporter shall make all necessary arrancements and shall be responsible for payment of all 3 costs: T-�nless the hearing officer otherwise determines,the petitioner mid the animal control program 4 Cz,all MIC - 5 witnesses. Strict rules of evidence need not apply.Any relevant evidence may be admitted if it is the 6 sort of evidence on which responsible persons are acettstomed to rely in the cond-act of seriotts 7 affairs- 8 (c) The hearing, IT, may exclude disorderly or disruptive persons from the hearing or 9 make other orders as eeessary td-censure the fair and orderl dciridpct of the hearing. 10 The hearing offcer maydecide all issues'frr or against the owner of the aminal should 11 the owls fail to apo' 'at the hearing. 12 (e Within 441P0) working days of'thy hearing; the hearing officer or designated 13 representative shall renderatjrefwrittendeciic ,which decision shall be final at the administrative 14 level. The written decision shall be mailed to the parties by certified mail and include a declaration 15 or proof ofmai ling which includes;the date on which the decision was mailed to the parties. T+re 16 decision of the hearing officer or his designee shall be supported by the-meight of the evidence. The 17 petitioner hall be given-mritten notice of the decision within fifteen days of the hearing. 18 (f)Unless the hearing officer for good cause otherwise determines, the owner of the animal 19 is liable for all costs related to such hearing not to exceed-three-hundred and fifty dollars($350)., 20 (g) The failure to conduct a hearing required by this section shall have no bearing on any 21 criminal prosecutio violation of any pro4 isions of this chapter. 22 (h) In the case of animals determined by an animal control officer or a peace offii er to be 23 dat,gerous or vicious,the hearing officer may decide any or all of the following: The hearing office 24 or his designee according to this chapter may mle that the o-mner or possessor of the animal will lose 25 , may order that the animal will be destroyed if 26 aninial has b,aen kit inj u,ed a person or domestic aninial, may declare an animal to be a dangerottas 27 aninial as defined in this chapter and may require the owner or possessor before the animal is 28 released to his enstody to obtain a permit under Section 9.04.015 and 31611 all arMeMent Which] 9/27/2005 - 10 - I LIVITt"1110 C0111ditions, such as, but not linifted to the fbilowing, 2 (1) That the animal be designated "vicious," and the owner of the animal lose all rights of 3 ownership and control of the animal, and the animal shall be humanely destroyed. An animal 4 designated as "vicious" will be held at the animal shelter for a minimum of five (5) calendar days 5 from the date of the hearing officer's decision, after which time it may be humanely destroyed 6 without further notice to its owner; 7 (2) That the animal be designated "dangerous" and the owner must apply for and obtain a 8 dangerous animal permit as provided by this chapter within five (5) calendar days of receipt of the 9 decision letter In order to maintain the animal, and the owner must comply with all mandatory 10 dangerous animal permit rules and regulations as defined in section 9.04.017; 11 (3) That the dangerous animal permit shall contain additional permit conditions to 12 supplement the mandatory dangerous animal permit rules and regulations as defined in section 13 9.04.017 below, including but not limited to, the following: 14 (A) That the owner keep the animal muzzled at all times when the animal is off the owner's 15 propertv. I r,%.I,p the animal confined on his premises in an enclostire approved by the ilea! 16 officer or his designee; 17 (2)To keep the animal see-arely muzzled,leashed and tinder the control of a person Cightee IS years of age or older, and who is physically capable of restraining the animalm when the animal is o 19 his property; 20 (B)That the owner prove financial responsibility by posting abond or certificate of insurance In 21 for an amount of 81,000,000 per animal as determined by the hearing officer; (3)To prove financial 22 responsibility by posting a bond or certificate or insurance for an ainount not to exceed one hundred 23 thonsand doHm-s7,- 24 (C) That the owner provide private behavioral and obedience training to the animal, at the 25 owner's expense and within the time set forth by the hearing officer following the issuance of a 26 dangerous animal pennit. Proof of participation, a report of behavioral assessment, and/or a 27 certificate of satisfactory completion from an animal behaviorist or organization approved by the 28 hearing officer shall be provided to the animal control officer within seven (7) calendar days 1 912712005 - 11 - I following any required training; 2 (D) That the owner comply with any other permit requirement the hearing officer deems 3 necessary to protect the public health or safety; 4 (E) That the owner reimburse the victim for the victim's medical expenses or the victim 5 animal's veterinary expenses; 6 (F)Pursuant to section 9.04.019 of this chapter,that the dangerous animal permit be modified 7 as ordered by the hearing officer, or revoked and the animal humanely destroyed'. 8 , ally CIIL.Y, county or postal service 9 employee,titifity company meter readers mid miyone else who comes onto the property with implied 10 . 11 (b)A violation of this agreement may result in the wvnial being impomided mid destroyed. 12 13 Existing section 9.04.019 is renumbered as Section 9.04.017 and amended to read as follows: 14 Section 9.04.017 Mandatory dangerous animal permit requirements. 15 The division of animal control services establishes that any owner ancYor possessor 16 dangerons animal shall adhere to the f6flowing rules and regulations. Any owner of a dangerous 17 animal shall insure compliance with the following rules and regulations which shall be mandatory 18 requirements for any dangerous animal permit 19 (a) When the animal is off it2-s the property of its owner, the owner must ensure that the 20 animal is restrained with a leash not to exceed four(4)feet in length and having a tensile 21 strength of at least three hundred(300)pounds and shall be under the direct control and supervision 22 of the owner or a person of such age, size, and strength as can easily control possessor of such 23 animal.Extraordinary care shall be taken by the owner or possessorto ensure that such leash restraint 24 is sufficient to control the animal in a manner which it will not endanger other persons or animals. 25 (b) The owner shall maintain the animal must be maintained so that it is not.a threat to any 26 mail carrier, sanitation worker, meter person, or other person who has the lawful right to enter the 27 property-,,either . 28 (c) The owner shall ensure that the animal is not kept allowed to 1 upon any unenclosed 9/27/2005 - 12 - I premises unless it is leashed and controlled by a person capable of controlling such animal. The 2 owner shall ensure that the animal is not allowed to be tethered, tied, or staked on any unenclosed 3 premises. The owner shall ensure that the animal is not kept"in a house or structure when the 4 windows or doors are open or screen doors are the only;obstacle preventing the animal from exiting 5 the structure. 6 (d) The owner shall ensure that the animal is mttst-be kept in a fenced yard,kennel,run, or 7 enclosure approved by the animal control officer or peace officer. The owner shall ensure that all 8 structures used to confine the animals are locked with a key or combination lock when the animals 9 are within the enclosure. The owner shall regularly inspect the fenced yard,kennel,run,or enclosure 10 periodically to ensure that it is secure to maintain the animal. 11 (e) The owner shall open premises upon which an animal is maintained at any reasonable 12 hour for inspection by the animal control officer or;peace officer and said premises shall be 13 surrendered for inspection by the owner upon the request of the animal control officer or peace 14 officer.The owner shall pay a fee for the costs incurred by County for the inspection or reinspection 15 of property. Such fee shall be set forth in section 9.01.031'. 16 (f) The owner of the said dangerous animal shall post the entrances to the property where 17 the animal is kept with a legible sign conspicuous to the public warning persons of the presence of 18 a dangerous animal. The owner of the dangerous animal shall obtain an approved sign from the 19 animal control program for a non-refundable fee and shall surrender such sign,in the event of the 20 revocation of the permit,death of the animal,or approved relocation of the animal,or upon any other 21 reasonable demand by an animal control officer. 22 (1)(g)The owner of any'Permittee, owner or possessor ofdangerous animal must advise all 23 members that who reside in the same household and on the same premises of the such conditions as 24 established by the permit for keeping or maintaining said dangerous animal. 25 (g)(h) The owner shall strictly comply with all local and state laws regarding the care,use, 26 control, and maintenance of animals. 27 (h)(i) In addition to a slag license, the owner shall ensure that the animal shall at all times 28 wear a separate tag issued by the division of animal control services which designates it as a 9/27/2005 - 13 - I dangerous animal. The owner shall ensure that the dangerous aturnal be microchipped and registered 2 with the animal control program for a fee specified by section 9.04.0-3)I within thirty(30) calendar 3 days from the date the permit was issued.The animal owner shall be responsible for payment of said 4 fee which shall be utilized by the animal control program to offset the cost of the chip and to 5 maintain the registration program. ZD 6 The owner shall have the animal spayed or neutered by a licensed veterinarian, at the 7 o,,vner's expense,within fi Fteen (15) calendar days from the date the permit was issued. The owner 8 shall present written proof tothe animal control officer that the surgery was performed. Inthe event 9 an animal cannot be safety spayed or neutered due to medical reasons, the owner shall present 10 written proof from a licensed practicing veterinarian to the animal control officer that said animal 11 cannot be spayed or neutered. 12 (k) The owner may not sell, transferor otherwise dispose of such animal to another county 13 or city without notifying animal control at least twenty-four(24)hours before such sale,transfer,or 14 disposal. Animal control will notify the proper authorities of the jurisdiction to which the dangerous 15 animal is transferred. Should the owner of a dangerous animal wish to transfer ownership of the 16 animal to another Individual within the county,the new owner shall submit to a property inspection, 17 apply for and obtain-a new dangerous animal permit, pay all requisite fees, and comply with all IS provisions of this chapter and the requirements of the permit. 19 (1)No more than two dangerous animals may be kept at any one household. 20 (in)The owner shall not allow any animal designated"dangerous"as the result of aggression 21 against human(s)to be kept on property or within a household in which ajuvenile person tinder the 22 age of eighteen(18)years of age resides. 23 (n) The owner of a dangerous animal shall notify the animal control officer of the animal's 24 death within twenty-four (24) hours and shall produce the animal's body for verification upon 25 request. The owner of a dangerous animal must notify the animal control officer immediately in the 26 event the animal becomes lost or stolen. 27 (o) The owner shall pay all permit and property inspection fees as described in section 28 9.04.031 of this chapter. 912712005 - 14 - I (p) The owner shall comply with all other permit conditions or requirements imposed 2 pursuant to section 9.04.016-1 or 9.04.015(a). 3 4 Existing Section 9.04.018 is replaced with the following: 5 Section 9.04.018 Inspection Possession of animals after revocation of dangerous animal permit 6 or vicious declaration. 7 No person who,has been determined to be in possession or ownership of a vicious animal or 8 a dangerous animal for which a permit has been revoked under this chapter shall be granted any 9 dangerous animal permit for a period of three(3)years following such determination or revocation. 10 Permits issued pursuant to this chapter shall provide that, as acondition fbr iss-amice, the premises 11 upon which an animal is maintained shaff be apened at any reasonable hour fbr inspection by the 12 director or his designee and that the premises shall be surrendered f6r inspection by the pennitter, 13 upon the request of the animal controf program. 14 15 Existing Section 9.04.017 is renumbered as Section 9.04.019 and amended to read as follows: 16 Section 9.04.019 Revocation or modification of permit. 17 (a)Subjectto the provisions of subsection(b),any permit issued pursuant to this chapter may 18 be revoked if the animal control officer has reasonable cause to believe any of the following to be 19 true: 20 (1) The permittee, or the person caring for or having control or his agent The dangerous 21 animal owner or any person the owner has allowed to have possession of the animal has violated any 22 local animal ordinances,or is in violation of any zoning,health and safety or building ordinance or 23 Penal Code section relating to keeping, care, or use of any animals; or 24 (2)The pernfittee-The dangerous animal owner or any person the owner has allowed to have 25 possession of the animal has violated any rules,regulations,or conditions of this chapter, including 26 but not limited to,dangerous animal conditions, or any requirement imposed by the animal control 27 officer, peace officer, or hearing officer adopted by division of animal controf services or an 28 reasonable criteria established by the animal control officer as necessary to insure the animal will 912712005 - 15 - 1 I not endanger the peace, health or safety of any person or property; or 2 (3) The permitt The dangerous animal owner has changed the location of his or her 3 residence or his or her place of business or sells, assigns, transfers, donates, leases, or otherwise 4 disposes of the animal for which the permit was issued. 5 (b) In the event that it is reasonably necessary to protect against a threat to the health or 6 safety of the public, or of any animal, the animal control officer or peace officer may impound or 7 cause to be impounded the animal while an investigation is taking place. 8 (c) If, after investigation, the animal control officer or peace officer concludes that it is 9 probable that one or more of the above grounds for revocation has occurred, the officer he shall 10 cause written notice thereof to be transmitted bymailto the owner address of flik. V%.1111flftee. Said 11 notice shall specify the grounds ofpossible revocation or modification ofthe permit and shall specify 12 a date and tinie f6r an infornial hearing to be held before an aninial control officer. Said date shalt 13 not be less than five days subsequent to the date the notice is mailed. Should the owner of the 14 animal wish to contest the revocation or modification of the pennit, (s)he may request a hearing to 15 be held before a hearing officer not previously involved with the permit issuance or investigation, 16 as designated by the director of the environmental services agency within five(5) calendar days of 17 receiving the notice of intent to modify or revoke pen-nit. Said hearing dateshall be not less:than 18 five(5)working days or more than fifteen (15)working days subsequent to the date the request for 19 hearing is received. The hearing shall be conducted asset forth in section 9.04.016-1 of this chapter. 20 After theinformal hearing,the officer conducting the hearing may modify the terms 21 of the permit or revoke the permit depending upon the pennittee's ability to comply with the 22 requirements of this chapter and to control the animal so that the health, safety, and property of the 23 public are protected. 24 fn the event that it is reasonablynecessary to protect aganist a potentiaf or immediate threat or dangel- 25 , 26 and impott,id tf ie aninial without a hearing, f6r a period of not to exceed thirty days. 27 (d) Upon written or oralnotification by the animal control officer, or hearing officer if a 28 hearing was held, of any modifications to a dangerous animal permit,the owner shall immediately 9/27/2005 - 16 - I comply with such modified permit requirements. 2 (e) Upon written or oral notification by the animal control officer, or hearing officer, if a 3 hearing was held,;of the revocation of a permit for a dangerous animal, the owner orpossessor of 4 such animal shall within-ten two(2)calendar days of such notification surrender said animal to the 5 animal control program officer to be humanely destroyed or provide written proof to an the animal 6 control officer'progrmn in the form of declaration(s)under penalty of perjury that such animal has 7 been permanently removed from the county of San Matea and declaring the new location or new 8 address where the animal is to be kept. 9 10 Section 9.04.020 is amended to read as follows: 11 Section 9.04.020 Animals to be impounded. 12 (a) Every animal kept or found by an animal control officer or a peace officer under 13 conditions which constitute a violation of this chapter or other local or state law may be impounded 14 by an animal control officer or a peace officer. The animal's owner shall be:charged all costs 15 incurred or fees applicable with respect to such impoundment. With respect to disease, 16 dangerotts animals, the animal control officer or his designee shall have the anthority to enter the 17 premises at any reasonabie honr in a lawffil marmer, and to take up, ' 18 anfinal. Tzfpon denial, revocation or -f a pernift or when any owner reftises to apply fbi- 19 a permit, animal controf officer may also impound the aninial: 20 (b)When the animal controlofficer or peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that any 21 animal is dangerous or vicious,the animal control officer or peace officer may also impound or cause 22 to be impounded the animal and keep it for such period not to exceed fifteen(15) days in order to 23 observe, examine, and determine whether or not such animal is dangerous or vicious. 24 (c)Any animal subj ect to dangerous or vicious animal proceedings may be impounded at the 25 discretion of the animal control officer or peace officer pending notice,hearings and determinations 26 hereunder and until any required permit is obtained. 27 (d) Except as otherwise provided in Crider this chapter or state law, an impounded animal 28 may be redeemed by the owne ,after payment of the required fees 9/27/2005 - 17 - I and charges and compliance with licensing requirements.In the event the animal is not so redeemed 2 within the time set forth by state law ninetr-six hotirs, it may be either sold or destroyed, disposed 3 of in the manner determined by an animal control officer in the discretion of the aninial control 4 program. 5 6 Section 9.04.021 is amended to read as follows: 7 Section 9.04.021 Notice to owner of animals impounded. 8 Within twenty-four(24)hours of the impoundment of any animal,the animal control officer 9 program shall mail a written notice thereof to the place of business or residence of the owner of the 10 animal if known. If the animal may not be redeemed as provided by subsection 9.04.020(d), the 11 owner may request a`hearing under section 9.04.017, subsections (a) (g), or applicable state law. 12 The animal control officer shall maintain records of the impoundment pursuant to section 9.04.026 13 14 15 Existing section 9.04.022 is repealed and a new section 9.04.022 is added to read as follows: 16 Section 9.04.022 Misdemeanor violations. 17 (a)A person violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction except as 18 otherwise specifically provided. 19 (b) A person violating any provision of subsection(a) of section 9.04.015 or subsection(a) 20 of section 9.04.015-1 of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 21 22 Section 9.04.023 is amended to read as follows: 23 Section 9.04.023 Redemption. 24 (a) Except as otherwise required by this chapter or by any other law, the owner or person 25 entitled to the control or custody of any animal impounded may,at any time before the sale or other 26 disposition thereof, redeem the same by paying all proper fees assessed by the animal control 27 services program. ire-Animal control program services shall issue to the owner duplicate receipts 28 for the amount of the fee paid. 9/27/2005 - 18 - 1 (b) Upon redemption of any impounded unaltered animal,the owner will be required to pay 2 a spay/neuter fee in the amount of.$35.00 in addition to the impound fees imposed under section 3 9.04.031. Such fee shall be refundable upon proof of spay/neuter of the animal within thirty(30) 4 days of the redemption date. Any unaltered animal impounded twice or more within a three-year 5 period shall be altered at the owner's expense prior to redemption. At the option of the owner, 6 required spaying or neutering may be performed by a private veterinarian. 7 (c)Any owner of an impourtded animal subject to mandatory spay/neuter under subsection 8 (b)may petition, in writing, for a bearing conducted by the animal control program manager or his 9 or her designee within three(3)days following notice of the second impoundment.The hearing shall 10 be held within four(4)working days of such petition and shall be subject to the provisions of section 11 9.04.016-1, subsections(a)—(g). After the bearing,the hearing officer may require that the animal 12 be spayed or neutered at the owner's expense,unless the hearing officer determines that good cause 13 exists for not requiring that the animal be spayed or neutered. 14 15 Section 9.04.026 is amended to read as follows: 16 Section 9.04.026 Record of impounded animals. 17 The animal control program shelter shall keep a record of all animals impounded, which 18 record shall include a description of the animal, the date of its receipt, the date and manner of 19 disposal,the name of the person redeeming or purchasing,and the fees and charges and proceeds of 20 sales received on account thereof, and such additional matters as may be necessary and incidental 21 to implementing this chapter. The records shall be kept for five four(4)years. 22 23 Section Subsection 9.04.013(a) is amended to read as follows: 24 (a) Requirements. An annual license fee shall be paid for every dog over the age of four 25 months owned and harbored in this city. The annual license fee shall be first due when the animal 26 reaches four months of age or within sixty days after the dog is acquired and due on the anniversary 27 date of the original purchase date each year thereafter.New residents shall have sixty days in which 28 to acquire such license.Persons renewing their license shall have thirty days following their due date 1 912712005 _ 19 - I before being delinquent and having to pay a late penalty. The fee for the license shall be as set forth 2 in Section 9.04.031.The fee paid for the licensing of spayed or neutered dogs shall be no more than 3 one-half of the license fee for unaltered dogs upon presentation of the proper certification. The fee 4 paid by persons over the age of sixty shall be one-half of the license fee.Any person who fails to pay 5 the license fee after the fee is due, or the dog is required to be licensed, shall, in addition to paying 6 any past due license fee or fees, also pay a penalty in accordance with section 9.04.031 Secti-ot 7 3330.18 of the Smi Mateo eounty Ordinance eode. A license shall be obtained but no license fee 8 shall be payable for the licensing of any dog which is being trained for guide or hearing purposes by 9 a resident of the city or used for guide or hearing purposes by a handicapped resident of the city and 10 which has come from a guide or hearing dog training facility, or for dogs which have served as a 11 member of the armed forces of the United States of America, or any dog currently being used by a 12 local law enforcement agency for the purposes of crime prevention or control. Dog licenses are not 13 transferable between owners;however,if the dog dies and the owner acquires a new dog,the license 14 is transferable to the new dog. The license does not have to be renewed until the original purchase 15 anniversary date. The fee paid for a dog license is not refundable. Licenses provided for in this 16 section shall be signed by the director of community services. The licenses shall be numbered 17 consecutively. 18 19 Section . This ordinance shall be published in accordance with law and shall take effect 20 thiryt(30)days after adoption by adoption by the last of the twenty(20) cities in the County of San 21 Mateo that are parties to the Agreement for Animal Control Services dated June 17, 2003, as 22 amended. 23 24 25 Mayor 26 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 27 foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Burlingame on 28 , 2005, and the Ordinance was duly adopted at a regular meeting of 9/27/2005 - 20 - 1 the City Council on , 2005,by the following vote: 2 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 5 City Clerk 6 7 8 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\animalcontro12005.BPD.wpd 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9/27/2005 - 21 - ORDINANCE NO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 6.04 OF TITLE 6 OF THE SAN MATEO COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, State of California, ORDAINS as follows SECTION 1: Section 6.04.010 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.04.010 Definitions. (a)"Animal Control Officer"means that person designated as the Animal Control Program Manager of the Division of Animal Control Services for the County and his or her duly authorized officers or deputies,as well as the President of the County's contract agent and his or her duly authorized officers or deputies. (b)"Animal Control Program"means that program within the Division of Animal Control Services of the Environmental Services Agency of the County,or the County's designated contract agent or both,which is specifically charged with regulating and enforcing laws dealing with animal control within its jurisdiction. (c)"Animal Control Shelter"means the facilities provided by the County or the County's designated contract agent for the impounding of animals. (d)"Director of Environmental Services Agency"means that person so designated by the governing body of the County of San Mateo. (e) "Licensing Program" means that program within the Division of Revenue Services of the Employee and Public Services Agency which is specifically charged with regulating and selling animal licenses and registrations in the County of San Mateo. (f) "Impoundment' means the picking up and confining of an animal by the Animal Control Program. (g) "Owner" of an animal means that person 18 years of age or over who holds the license to the animal, or if the animal is not licensed, that person 18 years of age or over legally entitled to possession of the animal concerned and who has primary responsibility for the care of the animal. (h) "Dangerous Animal' means any animal, except a trained dog assisting a peace officer engaged in law enforcement duties, which because of its disposition, behavior, training or other characteristic constitutes a danger to persons or property, or which demonstrates any or all of the following behavior: (1) Any attack or other behavior which requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury or property damage or that results in an injury to a person or property. (2) Any aggressive attack or other behavior that constitutes a substantial threat of bodily harm to a person or animal, where such attack, injury or behaviors occurs in a place where such person or animal is conducting himself or herself peaceably and lawfully. (3) An attack on another animal or livestock which occurs off the property of the Owner of the attacking animal. (4) Any animal that has been deemed by another governmental jurisdiction as "potentially dangerous," "dangerous," "vicious," or any other similar designation. (i) "Wolf Hybrid" means any offspring of domestic dogs bred to wild canids (e.g., wolves or coyotes) and their subsequent generations. (j) "Vicious Animal" means any animal, except a trained dog assisting a peace officer engaged in law enforcement duties, which meets any or all of the following criteria: (1) Any animal previously designated as "dangerous," that after investigation by an Animal Control Officer and/or Peace Officer is found under conditions which constitute a violation of this chapter or applicable dangerous animal permit and which demonstrates a significant danger to the public health or safety; (2) Any animal seized under section 599aa of the Penal Code and/or upon the sustaining of a conviction of the Owner or caretaker under subdivision (a) of the Section 597.5 of the Penal Code; (3) Any animal which inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being or another animal; (4) Any animal which has engaged in any aggressive behavior which demonstrates that the animal represents a clear and present substantial danger to the public health or safety and that due to substantial risk to the public health or safety it is unlikely that the animal could be safely maintained under a dangerous animal permit. (k) "Severe injury" means any physical injury directly caused by an animal attack that consists of muscle tears, multiple punctures, broken bones or disfiguring lacerations, or which requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic surgery. SECTION 2: Subsection (b) of Section 6.04.020 is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Scope of Authority of Humane Officers and Animal Control Officers. Humane Officers qualified and appointed pursuant to California Corporations Code 14502, who are employees of any public pound, society for prevention of cruelty to animals or humane society which has contracted with the County to provide animal control services, shall have the authority to issue notices to appear in court pursuant to chapter 5c (commencing with section 853.5 of title 3 of part 2 of the Penal Code of the State of California) for violations of state and local animal control laws. This authority is based on section 14503 of the Corporations Code. Animal Control Officers shall have the authority provided by state law including but not limited to that described by Penal Code Section 830.9. SECTION 3: Section 6.04.100 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code is hereby amended to be entitled and to read as follows: 6.04.100 Dangerous animal permit required. (a) No person shall knowingly keep, have, maintain, sell, trade or let for hire an 4 animal designated under the provisions of this chapter as dangerous without obtaining a Dangerous Animal Permit from the Animal Control Officer. The animal Owner shall comply with all conditions of the Dangerous Animal Permit including but not limited to all requirements of Section 6.04.120 of this Chapter. Any animal which is determined to be dangerous under this Chapter and for which a permit has not been obtained shall be surrendered to an Animal Control Officer for appropriate disposition including humane destruction. (b) If an Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer has investigated and determined that an animal is dangerous, the Animal Control Officer and/or Peace Officer shall deliver written notice of such determination to the Owner of the animal. Should the animal pose a threat to the public health and safety, an Animal Control Officer may immediately impound the animal. (c) If, after investigation by an Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer, that officer determines that probable cause does not exist to believe the animal is dangerous, any interested person may appeal that determination by submitting within five (5) calendar days of the decision a written request to the Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer for a hearing and paying the required fee. The hearing shall be conducted according to the procedures set forth in Section 6.04.115 of this Chapter. (d) In determining whether or not an animal shall be declared dangerous, the Animal Control Officer, Peace Officer or Hearing Officer appointed pursuant to section 6.04.115, may consider, as a mitigating factor or factors, whether, at the time of the injury, attack or molestation, the person or animal suffering the injury, attack or molestation: 5 (1) Provoked, tormented, teased, abused or assaulted the animal thereby causing or contributing to the alleged behavior; (2) Committed a willful trespass or other tort upon the private property of the Owner or caretaker of the animal; (3) Threatened or committed an unjustified attack or assault against the Owner, caretaker or person in control of the animal. (4) Or any other mitigating factors deemed appropriate for consideration by the Animal Control Officer, Peace Officer or Hearing Officer. (e) Upon receipt of written or oral notification by the Animal Control Officer and/or Peace Officer that an animal is dangerous as defined in this Chapter, the Owner shall submit an application for a Dangerous Animal Permit to the Animal Control Officer within five (5) calendar days. The application for a permit shall contain the name of the applicant, applicant's address, the applicant's home and business phone numbers, the address and description of the proposed location of where the animal will be kept, if different from applicant's, a complete description and a photograph of the animal. The permit shall contain all of the requirements of Section 6.04.120 and any additional conditions or requirements deemed necessary by the Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer to protect the public health or safety. (f) Should the Owner of the animal wish to contest the dangerous animal designation, the Owner may request a hearing, to be conducted according to the procedures set forth in Section 6.04.115 of this Chapter. The Owner shall submit a written request for a Dangerous Animal Hearing to the Animal Control Officer and/or Peace Officer within five (5) calendar days of written notification by the 6 Animal Control Officer and/or Peace Officer that the animal has been declared dangerous. Should the Owner not submit a request for a hearing within five (5) calendar days of notification, the hearing process shall be deemed waived by the Owner, and the dangerous animal declaration will be considered final by the County Director of the Environmental Services Agency, or the City having jurisdiction. In that event, the County Director of the Environmental Services Agency or the City having jurisdiction may allow the dangerous animal permit to be issued without a hearing. Unless a dangerous animal permit is immediately obtained, the animal shall be impounded at the Owner's expense pending appropriate disposition as determined by the Animal Control Officer and/or Peace Officer. SECTION 4: A new Section 6.04.105 is hereby added to Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code to be numbered and entitled and to read as follows: 6.04.105 Declaration of vicious animals. (a) No person shall keep, have, maintain, sell, trade or let for hire an animal which has been designated as vicious pursuant to this Chapter. (b) If an Animal Control Officer and/or Peace Officer has investigated and determined that an animal is vicious, the Animal Control Officer and/or Peace Officer shall deliver to the Owner of the animal written notice of that determination. The Animal Control Officer and/or Peace Officer shall immediately impound or cause to be impounded the animal and shall cause the animal to be humanely destroyed unless the Owner requests a hearing under subsection (c) of this section. 7 (c) If the Owner of the animal disputes the designation of an animal as a vicious animal by the Animal Control Officer and/or Peace Officer (s)he may submit a written request for a hearing to the Animal Control Officer and/or Peace Officer within five (5) calendar days of notification. Such hearing shall be conducted according to the procedures set forth in Section 6.04.115 of this Chapter. Failure of the Owner to request a hearing shall result in the animal being declared vicious and humanely destroyed. The vicious animal declaration will be considered final by the County Director of the Environmental Services Agency, or the City having jurisdiction. (d) If, after investigation by an Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer, that officer determines that probable cause does not exist to believe that the animal is vicious, any interested person may appeal that determination by submitting within five (5) calendar days of the decision a written request to the Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer for a hearing and paying the required fee. (e) In determining whether or not an animal shall be declared vicious, the Animal Control Officer, Peace Officer or Hearing Officer may consider, as a mitigating factor or factors, whether at the time of the injury, attack or behavior, the person or animal suffering the injury, attack or behavior for which the animal is being determined vicious: (1) Provoked, tormented, teased, abused or assaulted the animal thereby causing or contributing to the alleged behavior; (2) Committed a willful trespass or other tort upon the private property of the Owner or caretaker of the animal; (3) Threatened or committed an unjustified attack or assault against 8 the Owner, caretaker or person in control of the animal. (4) Or any other mitigating factors deemed appropriate for consideration by the Animal Control Officer, Peace Officer or Hearing Officer. SECTION 5: Section 6.04.110 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code is hereby amended to be entitled and to read as follows: 6.04.110 Issuance of permit for dangerous animal. (a) No permit obtained under this section is transferable. If the Owner's address or the location where the animal is kept changes or the Owner transfers ownership of the animal, the permit shall become null and void and an application for a new permit must be submitted to the Animal Control Officer. (b) A permit issued under this chapter is subject to renewal and approval each year and is subject to conditions and requirements existing as of the date of renewal. The permittee shall pay an annual fee for this permit pursuant to the procedures established by the Division of Animal Control Services. If permittee fails to file an application for renewal or pay the permit fee prior to the permit anniversary date the permit shall automatically become void. The fee for such permit shall be as set forth in section 6.04.290. This fee shall not be refundable. (c) If the Owner or permittee has a history of multiple violations of this Chapter 6.04 or of the conditions of any previously issued dangerous animal permit, the Animal Control Officer or Hearing Officer may deny the permit and impound the animal for appropriate disposition as determined by the Animal Control Officer or Hearing Officer. 9 SECTION 6: A new section 6.04.115 is hereby added to Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code to be numbered and entitled and to read as follows: 6.04.115 Hearing procedures. (a) Hearings held under this Chapter shall be conducted by a hearing officer or designated representative appointed by the Director of the Environmental Services Agency. Any city contracting with the County for animal control services may elect to utilize the services of any San Mateo County designated hearing officer to hold hearings under that City's animal control ordinances. The hearings shall be scheduled no less than five (5) working days and no more than fifteen (15) working days from the receipt of the request for the hearing unless agreed upon by the involved Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer and the animal Owner. A hearing may be continued if the Hearing Officer deems it necessary and proper or if the Owner, or Animal Control Officer and/or Peace Officer shows good cause. (b) The hearing shall be conducted in an informal manner consistent with due process of law. Both the Owner of the animal and Animal Control Officer and/or Peace Officer may be represented by counsel. The parties may present relevant evidence and call and cross-examine witnesses. The strict rules of evidence shall not be applicable. Any relevant evidence may be admitted if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. The hearing shall be tape-recorded and all documentary evidence submitted at the hearing shall be preserved. Any party may arrange for a court reporter to be present. Any party desiring the presence of a court reporter shall make all necessary arrangements and shall be responsible for 10 payment of all costs. (c) The Hearing Officer may exclude disorderly or disruptive persons from the hearing or make other orders as necessary to ensure the fair and orderly conduct of the hearing. (d) The Hearing Officer may decide all issues for or against the Owner of the animal should the Owner fail to appear at the hearing. (e) Within five (5) working days of the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall render a brief written decision, which decision shall be final at the administrative level. The written decision shall be mailed to the parties by certified mail and include a declaration or proof of mailing which includes the date on which the decision was mailed to the parties. (f) Unless the hearing officer for good cause otherwise determines, the Owner of the animal is liable for all costs related to such hearing not to exceed three- hundred and fifty dollars ($350). (g) The failure to conduct a hearing required by this section shall have no bearing on any criminal prosecution for violation of any provisions of this chapter. (h) In the case of animals determined by an Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer to be dangerous or vicious, the hearing officer may decide any or all of the following: 1) That the animal be designated "vicious" and the Owner of the animal lose all rights of ownership and control of the animal and the animal shall be humanely destroyed. An animal designated as II vicious will be held at the animal shelter for a minimum of five (5) calendar days from the date of the hearing officer's decision, after which time it may be humanely destroyed without further notice to the Owner; 2) That the animal be designated "dangerous" and the Owner must apply for and obtain a dangerous animal permit as provided by this chapter within five calendar days of receipt of the decision letter in order to maintain the animal and the Owner must comply with all mandatory dangerous animal permit rules and regulations as defined in Section 6.04.120; 3) That the dangerous animal permit shall contain additional permit conditions to supplement the mandatory dangerous animal permit rules and regulations as defined in Section 6.04.120, including, but not limited to, the following: i) That the Owner keep the animal muzzled at all times when the animal is off the Owner's property; ii) That the Owner prove financial responsibility by posting a bond or certificate of insurance for an amount of $1,000,000 per animal as determined by the Hearing Officer; iii) That the Owner provide private behavioral and obedience training to the animal, at the Owner's expense and within the time set forth by the Hearing Officer following the issuance of a dangerous animal permit. Proof of participation, a report of behavioral assessment, and/or a certificate of satisfactory 12 completion from an animal behaviorist or organization approved by the Hearing Officer shall be provided to the Animal Control Officer within seven calendar days following any required training; iv) That the Owner comply with any other permit requirement the Hearing Officer deems necessary to protect the public health or safety; v) That the Owner reimburse the victim for the victim's medical expenses or the victim animal's veterinary expenses; vi) Pursuant to section 6.04.160 of this Chapter, that the dangerous animal permit be modified as ordered by the Hearing Officer, or revoked and the animal humanely destroyed. SECTION 7: Section 6.04.120 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code is hereby amended to be entitled and to read as follows: 6.04.120 Mandatory dangerous animal permit requirements. Any Owner of a dangerous animal shall insure compliance with the following rules and regulations which shall be mandatory requirements for any dangerous animal permit: (a) When the animal is off the property of its Owner, the Owner must ensure that the animal is restrained with a leash not to exceed four (4) feet in length and 13 having a minimum tensile strength of 300 pounds and shall be under the direct control and supervision of the Owner or a person of such age, size and strength as can easily control such animal. Extraordinary care shall be taken by the Owner to ensure that such restraint is sufficient to control the animal in a manner which it will not endanger other persons or animals. (b) The Owner shall maintain the animal so that it is not a threat to any mail carrier, sanitation worker, meter person, or other person who has the lawful right to enter the property. (c) The Owner shall ensure that the animal is not kept upon any unenclosed premise unless it is leashed and controlled by a person capable of controlling such animal. The Owner shall ensure that the animal is not tethered, tied or staked at any unenclosed premise. The Owner shall ensure that the animal is not kept in a house or structure when the windows or doors are open or screen doors are the only obstacle preventing the animal from exiting the structure. (d) The Owner shall ensure that the animal is kept in a fenced yard, kennel, run or enclosure approved by the Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer. The Owner shall ensure that all structures used to confine the animals are locked with a key or combination lock when such animals are within the structure. The Owner shall regularly inspect the fenced yard, kennel, run or enclosure to ensure that it is secure to maintain the animal. (e) The Owner shall open premises upon which an animal is maintained at any reasonable hour for inspection by the Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer and said premises shall be surrendered for inspection by the Owner upon the request of the Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer. The Owner shall pay a fee for the 14 costs incurred by County for the inspection or reinspection of property. Such fee shall be set forth in section 6.04.290. (f) The Owner of the dangerous animal shall post the entrances to the property where the animal is kept with a legible sign conspicuous to the public warning persons of the presence of a dangerous animal. The Owner of the dangerous animal shall obtain an approved sign from the Animal Control Program for a non- refundable fee and shall surrender such sign in the event of the revocation of the permit, death of animal, or approved relocation of the animal, or upon any other reasonable demand by an Animal Control Officer. (g) The Owner of any dangerous animal must advise all members who reside in the same household and on the same premises of the conditions established by the permit for keeping or maintaining said dangerous animal. (h) The Owner shall strictly comply with all local and state laws regarding the care, use, control and maintenance of animals. (i) In addition to a license, the Owner shall ensure that the animal shall at all times wear a separate tag issued by the Division of Animal Control Services which designates it as a dangerous animal. The Owner shall ensure that the dangerous animal be microchipped and registered with the Animal Control Program for a fee specified by Section 6.04.290 within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the permit was issued. The animal Owner shall be responsible for payment of said fee which shall be utilized by the Animal Control Program to offset the cost of the chip and to maintain the registration program. (j) The Owner shall have the animal spayed or neutered by a licensed veterinarian, at the Owner's expense, within fifteen (15) calendar days from the 15 date the permit was issued. The Owner shall present written proof to the Animal Control Officer that the surgery was performed. In the event an animal cannot be safely spayed or neutered due to medical reasons, the Owner shall present written proof from a licensed practicing veterinarian to the Animal Control Officer that said animal cannot be spayed or neutered. (k) The Owner may not sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of such animal to another County or City without notifying Animal Control at least twenty-four (24) hours before such sale, transfer or disposal. Animal Control will notify the proper authorities of the jurisdiction to which the dangerous animal is transferred. Should the Owner of a dangerous animal wish to transfer ownership of the animal to another individual within San Mateo County, the new Owner must submit to a property inspection, apply for and obtain a new dangerous animal permit, pay all requisite fees, and comply with all provisions of this chapter and the requirements of the permit. (1) No more than two dangerous animals may be kept at any one household. (m) The Owner shall not allow any animal designated "dangerous" as the result of aggression against human(s) to be kept on property or within a household in which a juvenile person under the age of eighteen resides. (n) The Owner of a dangerous animal must notify the Animal Control Officer of the animal's death within twenty-four (24) hours and shall produce the animal's body for verification upon request. The Owner of a dangerous animal must notify the Animal Control Officer immediately in the event the animal becomes lost or stolen. (o) The Owner must pay all permit and property inspection fees as described in 16 section 6.04.290 of this chapter. (p) The Owner shall comply with all other permit conditions or requirements imposed pursuant to section 6.04.115 or 6.04.100(a). SECTION 8: Section 6.04.130 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code is hereby amended to be entitled and to read as follows: 6.04.130 Misdemeanor violations. (a) A person violating any provision of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction except as otherwise specifically provided. (b) A person violating any provision of subsection (a) of section 6.04.100 or subsection (a) of section 6.04.105 of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. SECTION 9: Existing Section 6.04.140 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code is hereby repealed and a new Section 6.04.140 is hereby added to be numbered and entitled and to read as follows: 6.04.140 Possession of Animals after Revocation of Dangerous Animal Permit or Vicious Declaration. No person who has been determined to be in possession or ownership of a vicious animal or a dangerous animal for which a permit has been revoked under this Chapter shall be granted any dangerous animal permit for a period of three years following such determination or revocation. SECTION 10: Section 6.04.150 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo 17 County Ordinance Code is hereby repealed and a new Section 6.04.150 is hereby added to be numbered and entitled and to read as follows: 6.04.150 Inspection fee. A fee shall be charged for the costs incurred by County for the inspection or reinspection of property. The fee charged shall be paid by the Owner or person who has custody of the animal. Such fee shall be set forth in section 6.04.290. SECTION 11: Section 6.04.160 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.04.160 Revocation or modification of permit. (a) Subject to the provision of subsection (b), any permit issued pursuant to this section may be revoked or modified by the inclusion of additional requirements or otherwise, if the Animal Control Officer has reasonable cause to believe any of the following to be true: (1) The dangerous animal Owner or any person the Owner has allowed to have possession of the animal has violated any local animal ordinances, or is in violation of any zoning, health and safety or building ordinance or Penal Code section relating to the keeping, care or use of any animals; (2) The Owner or any person the Owner has allowed to have possession of the animal has violated any rules, regulations or conditions of this Chapter including but not limited to dangerous animal permit conditions, or any requirement imposed by the 18 Animal Control Officer, Peace Officer or Hearing Officer as necessary to insure the animal will not endanger the peace, health or safety of any person or property; or (3) The Owner has changed the location of his residence or his place of business or sells, assigns, transfers, donates, leases, or otherwise disposes of the animal for which the permit was issued. (b) In the event that it is reasonably necessary to protect against a threat to the health or safety of the public, or of any animal, the Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer may impound or cause to be impounded the animal while an investigation is taking place. (c) If, after investigation, the Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer concludes that it is probable that one or more of the above grounds for revocation or modification of the permit has occurred, the Officer shall cause written notice thereof to be transmitted to the Owner. Said notice shall specify the grounds of revocation or modification of the permit. Should the Owner of the animal wish to contest the revocation or modification of the permit, (s)he may request a hearing to be held before a hearing officer not previously involved with the permit issuance or investigation, as designated by the Director of the Environmental Services Agency within five (5) calendar days of receiving the notice of intent to modify or revoke permit. Said hearing date shall be not less than five (5) working days or more than 15 working days subsequent to the date the request for hearing is received. The hearing shall be conducted as set forth in section 6.04.115 of this Chapter. After the hearing, the Officer conducting the hearing may modify the terms of the permit or revoke the permit depending upon the Owner's ability to comply with the requirements of this Chapter and to control the 19 animal so that the health, safety and property of the public are protected. (d) Upon written or oral notification by the Animal Control Officer, or Hearing Officer if a hearing was held, of any modifications to a dangerous animal permit, the Owner shall immediately comply with such modified permit requirements. (e) Upon written or oral notification by the Animal Control Officer, or Hearing Officer if a hearing was held, of the revocation of a permit for a dangerous animal, the Owner of such animal shall within two (2) calendar days of such notification surrender said animal to an Animal Control Officer to be humanely destroyed or provide written proof to an Animal Control Officer in the form of declaration(s) under penalty of perjury that such animal has been permanently removed from the County of San Mateo and declaring the new location or new address where the animal is to be kept. SECTION 12: Section 6.04.170 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.04.170 Animals to be impounded. (a) Every animal kept or found by an Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer under conditions which constitute a violation of this Chapter or other state or local law may be impounded or caused to be impounded by an Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer. The animal's Owner shall be charged with all costs incurred or fees applicable with respect to such impoundment. (b) When the Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer has reasonable cause to believe that any animal is dangerous or vicious the Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer may also impound or cause to be impounded the animal and keep 20 it for such period not to exceed fifteen (15) days in order to observe, examine and determine whether or not such animal is dangerous or vicious. (c) Any animal subject to dangerous or vicious animal proceedings may be impounded at the discretion of the Animal Control Officer or Peace Officer pending notice, hearings and determinations hereunder and until any required permit is obtained. (d) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter or state law, an impounded animal may be redeemed by the Owner, after payment of the required fees and charges and compliance with licensing requirements. In the event such animal is not so redeemed within the time set forth by state law, it may be disposed of in the manner determined by an Animal Control Officer. SECTION 13: Section 6.04.180 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code is hereby amended to be entitled and to read as follows: 6.04.180 Notice of impounded animals. Within twenty-four (24) hours of the impoundment of any animal, the Animal Control Officer shall mail a written notice thereof to the place of business or residence of the Owner of the animal if known. In the event the animal may not be redeemed as provided by subsection (d) of section 6.04.170, the Owner may request a hearing under section 6.04.115, subsections (a) — (g) of this Chapter or applicable state law. The Animal Control Officer shall maintain records of said impoundment pursuant to section 6.04.200. SECTION 14: Section 6.04.190 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code is hereby repealed. 21 SECTION 15: Section 6.04.200 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.04.200 Record of impounded animals. The Animal Control Program shall keep a record of all animals impounded, which record shall include a description of the animal, the date of its receipt, the date and manner of disposal, the name of the person redeeming or purchasing, and the fees and charges and proceeds of sales received on account thereof, and such additional matters as may be necessary and incidental to implementing this ordinance. Said records shall be kept for four years. SECTION 16. Section 6.04.220 of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.04.220 Redemption. Except as otherwise provided by this ordinance or by any other law, the Owner or person entitled to the control or custody of any animal impounded may, at any time before the sale or other disposition thereof, redeem the same by paying all proper fees assessed by Animal Control Services. Animal Control Services shall issue to the Owner duplicate receipts for the amount of the fee paid. SECTION 17: Unless specifically amended herein, the remaining sections of Chapter 6.04 of Title 6 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 18: This Ordinance shall be effective thirty days (30) from the date of adoption by the last of the twenty cities which are parties to the Agreement for 22 Animai Control Services, dated June 17, 2003, as amended . L:\CLIENT\A_DEPTS\ANIMAL\2005\City ORD Amending Chapter 6.04 of Title 62 FINAL.doc Revised August 10, 2005 I I 23 i CITY AGENDA 8b t ITEM# ... STAFF REPORT MAG_ DATE Odoher 3 20M TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY: Jack Van Etten, Chief of PoI0014-- ?_ DATE: September 26, 2005 APPROVE �/ FROM: �*) BY• �' 1 �' SUBJECT: Discuss and Review AB 438; Council to consider taking a position on this legislation. RECOMMENDATION The Burlingame City Council has requested that staff prepare a report containing discussion information about Assembly Bill 438 (Parra),which would allow rental housing providers to protect residents from registered sex offenders by using the California Megan's Law database. Following their review and discussion,the Burlingame City Council may consider, if they choose to do so at this time, to take a position on this legislation. BACKGROUND Assembly Member Parra introduced AB 438, which is sponsored by the California Apartment Association, to address problems with Megan's Law as it relates to housing law. Megan's Law was enacted to provide a greater degree of safety to the public by creating a database, which identifies the identities and residences of registered sexual offenders. Currently,this database cannot be used to block, deny or evict tenants. This restriction creates a problem under California housing law, which makes property owners responsible for protecting the safety and welfare of their tenants. Property owners can be sued for not protecting residents from known risks. The Megan's Law database is available to the public so the presence of a registered sex offender or sexual predator in rental housing is a known risk. AB 438 would permit rental property owners to act on behalf of their residents by permitting the following: *Notifying local law enforcement agencies when a sex offender has vacated a property. *Use the information provided by the Megan's Law database to warn residents of a possible risk when a sex offender resides in the apartment complex,multi-housing unit or community. *Provide the property owner/management with the ability to remove a high-risk sex offender should they pose a threat. *Deny rental applications from applicants whose names reside in the Megan's Law database. The California State Sheriff's Association,the Peace Officers Research Association of California and a number of property associations support this bill. San Diego County Supervisor's Dianne Jacob and Ron Roberts have urged other San Diego County Supervisors to support AB 438. San Jose Council Member Reed has also recommended support of AB 438 to the San Jose City Council. The American Civil Liberties Union, the California Public Defenders Association and others oppose this bill. Refer to"Attachments"below for arguments in favor and in opposition to this bill. This bill was not acted upon and failed passage in April,2005. However,this bill was granted re- consideration when the California State Assembly meets again in January, 2006. FISCAL IMPACT None. ATTACHMENTS AB 438 - Bill Analysis(19 pages) - Please refer to pages 15-16 for arguments in support of this bill and pages 16-18 for arguments in opposition to this bill (follow numbering on the upper right corner of attachments) -Bill Text(5 pages) -AB 43 8 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Fage 1 of 1Y AB 438 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 19, 2005 Counsel: Kathleen Ragan ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Mark Leno, Chair AB 438 (Parra) - As Amended: April 13, 2005 SUMMARY Allows a lessor of residential real property to refuse to provide housing to, or to evict, registered sex offenders whose address must be made public pursuant to the Megan's Law Internet website. Specifically, this bill . 1)Allows a lessor of rental property to inform other residents that a registered sex offender resides in the rental property. 2) Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to diminish the power or right of any person to use the information in the Megan's Law website to protect a person at risk from a registered sex offender, including those offenders whose address is not made available to the public on the website. 3) States that this bill shall not diminish in any way the power or right of any person to deny services, housing, privileges, or benefits, or to otherwise discriminate against registered sex offenders, including those whose address of residence is not made available to the public via the Internet website. 4)States that this section shall not be construed to make persons who are required to register as sex offenders a protected class under any statute or decisional law, or to make any person required to register as a sex offender a member of a protected class under any statute or decisional law, or otherwise confer any right or privilege on any registered sex offender. 5)Requires local law enforcement agencies to update the sex offender database and seek to verify that a registered sex offender no longer resides at the address listed on the website, within a reasonable time after receiving notice from the current owner of the real property that is listed as the address of the registered sex offender. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pubibill/asm/ab 0401-0450/ab_438_cfa 20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 'AB 438 Assembly Bill- Bill Analysis Page 2 of 19 AB 438 Page 2 6)States that, other than the duty to provide a notice in every lease or rental agreement regarding the Megan's Law database, a lessor, seller, or broker of residential real property has no duty to inquire, investigate, or disclose any information regarding persons required to register as sex offenders. 7) Provides that a lessor of residential real property has no duty to evict, deny housing to, or otherwise discriminate against a person because that person is a registered sex offender. EXISTING LAW 1)Establishes a three-tiered system for providing the public with information via an Internet website maintained by the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding persons required to register as sex offenders (hereinafter called the Megan's Law database. ) Depending upon the severity of the sex offense, information is available as to some sex offenders with their specific home addresses, while others are identified only by zip code and community of residence: (Penal Code Section 290.46) a) Provides that DOJ shall make available to the public via the Internet web site the following information regarding specified sex offenders: b) His or her name or names and known aliases; c) A photograph; d) A physical description, including gender and race; e) Date of birth; f) Criminal history; g) The address at which the person resides; or the person's zip code and community of residence, as specified; and, h) Any other information the DOJ considers relevant and is not excluded by law. 2)States that, except as otherwise provided, it is unlawful to AB 438 Page 3 use any of the information that is disclosed pursuant to this http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_438_cfa_20050425-114136_as... 9/19/2005 'AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 3 of 19 section for purposes related to health insurance, insurance, loans, credit, employment, education, scholarships or fellowships, housing or accommodations, and benefits, privileges or services provided by any business establishment. [Penal Code Section 290.46(j ) (2) . ] 3) Provides that a person is authorized to use information disclosed pursuant to the Megan's Law database may be disclosed only to protect a person at risk. [Penal Code Section 290.46(j) (1) .] FISCAL EFFECT Unknown COMMENTS . 1)Author's Statement : According to the author: "The Legislature has consistently treated convicted sex offenders differently because it has found that convicted sex offenders 'pose a high risk of engaging in further offenses after release' and that 'protection of the public from these offenders is a paramount public interest. ' [ Fredenburg v. City of Fremont , (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 408, 412.] As the United States Supreme Courtnoted when reviewing the legality of Alaska's internet based sex offender database, ' [t]he risk posed by sex offenders is 'frightening and high. ' [ Smith v. Doe I , 538 U.S. 84, 103 (2003) . ] The risk posed by convicted sex offenders is further amplified by the impact sex offenders have on their victims, whom statistics show are overwhelmingly women and children. According to the California Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) , ' [a]cademic studies and California Department of Corrections (CDC) data confirm that a single child molester can abuse hundreds of children and that his crimes often go unreported and unpunished over many years. ' ', "The goal of Megan's Law, like other laws imposing restrictions on sex offenders such as prohibiting them from residing within a certain distance of schools or disallowing them from Section 8 subsidized housing, is to allow families to protect their loved ones from potentially dangerous sex offenders. Families should have the right to demand that they are safe in their residences. Individuals that live in buildings with common areas, including hallways and laundry rooms should not have to live in fear of the sex offender they know lives in the building as well. AB 438 Page 4 "This bill seeks to clarify the law in order to make clear that housing providers can use the Megan's Law database to act decisively in the interests and safety of other tenants. Rental housing providers should be able to protect their http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_438_cfa 20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 'AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis rage 4 UI iy residents by refusing to house high-risk sex offenders, by evicting high-risk sex offenders, or by notifying other tenants. At the same time, this bill seeks to strike a balance in the law by clarifying that a rental housing provider is not required to evict or deny housing to registered sex offenders. Under this bill tenants will be empowered to demand that a high risk sex offender be 'moved out' and the owner will be able to say that he cannot legally evict the high risk sex offender. On the other hand, if the high risk sex offender lives in an appropriate residence, this bill will make it clear that the housing provider is not required to evict or deny housing to the sex offender. " ?)Background According to background information supplied by the author, "the rental housing industry support the original intent of the Megan's Law website, but it has placed rental property owners, managers, and residents in a difficult position. This easy access to the Megan's Law registry has heightened public interest and awareness of convicted sex offenders in communities throughout California. Residents are discovering that their families might be living next to convicted sex offenders, including pedophiles and rapists. Media outlets throughout the state have published articles and aired stories regarding the impact of the new Internet based sex offender registry. The entire California Apartment Association (CAA) Network has received a substantial number of questions regarding the challenges the Internet sex registry has created for rental property owners, managers, and residents. "The fact, for example, that the sex offender information is easily available on the Internet and includes the sex offender's home address has substantially increased the number of situations where the public, including tenants and neighboring property owners, discover the sex offender status of existing and prospective tenants. After using the Megan's Law database to determine that a fellow tenant is a convicted child molester or rapist, tenants are demanding that rental property managers or owners evict the sex offenders or else, the other tenants will leave. The tenants' fears are AB 438 Page 5 understandable, particularly if the tenants are parents or women. So what can the owner or manager do? Nothing until Megan's Law is clarified to allow rental housing providers to use the Megan's Law database to act decisively in the interests and safety of other tenants. " 3)The CAA Position: CAA members want to provide a safe living environment for their residents. California law has given rental property owners and managers a conflicting directive. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_438_cfa 20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis rage D or iv "If a residential rental property owner or manager learns from the database that someone is a sex offender, he or she cannot deny the sex offender housing or warn other residents based on this knowledge, without the risk of being sued by the sex offender. At the same time, the law also exposes rental property owners to lawsuits if they fail to protect residents against a known risk - in this case, someone with a documented criminal history of sexual assault against children, women, and other residents. "Rental housing providers are being forced to choose between either evicting the sex offender (thereby facing potential lawsuits for discriminating against the sex offender) , or allow the sex offender to stay on the property (thereby encouraging an exodus of existing tenants who refuse to live in close proximity to a potentially dangerous sex offender. ) "Moreover, by allowing the sex offender to live on their property, the owner may expose the property and other residents to vandalism, public protest, and other forms of public scorn that will jeopardize the owner's ability to operate the property safely and profitably. Unfortunately, because of the heavy fines that may be imposed for unlawfully using the Megan's Law database, many rental housing providers are being forced to weigh in favor of housing the high risk sex offender instead of families and children. Clarification of the law is desperately needed in order to empower residents to demand that owners act to protect them by refusing to house high risk sex offenders. " 4)Affirmative Restraint: In determining that sex offender registration statutes are, in general, constitutional, the United States Supreme Court identified a number of factors to be considered in determining whether the sex offender requirements were punitive in nature, or merely a civil regulatory scheme. [ Smith v. Doe 538 U.S. 84 (2003) .] The AB 438 Page 6 factors are whether the regulatory scheme: (a) has historically been regarded as punishment; (b) imposes an affirmative disability or restraint; (c) promotes the traditional aims of punishment; (d) has a rational connection to a non-punitive purpose; or, (e) is excessive with respect to this purpose. In analyzing Alaska's sex offender registration requirements, the United States Supreme Court found that "our system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of a legitimate governmental objective as punishment. In contrast to the colonial shaming punishments, the State does not make the publicity and the resulting stigma an integral http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab 0401-0450/ab_438_cfa 20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis rage b or IV part of the objective of the regulatory scheme. The purpose and principle effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety . . . . " (Id. at page 99. ) The Supreme Court noted that the act does not restrain activities sex offenders may pursue but leaves them free to change jobs or residences, stating "the record in this case contains no evidence that the [sex offender registration laws] have led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not otherwise have occurred through the use of routine background checks . . . . it (Id. at page 100. ) The clear implication from this discussion is that to the extent the sex offender registration and public notification laws impose substantial housing disadvantages on former sex offenders, the effect of such laws might more easily be determined to be punitive rather than regulatory. To the extent use of the Megan's Law database information imposes an affirmative duty or restraint on registrants which is greater than minor or indirect, the effect is more likely to be determined punitive. If the law is determined to be punitive in nature, constitutional validity under the ex post facto provisions is called into question. [Id. at page 99, citing Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez , 372 U.S. 144, 168 (1963) . ] The Smith Court concluded that "whether other constitutional objections can be raised to a mandatory reporting requirement, and how those questions might be resolved, are concerns beyond the scope of this opinion. It suffices to say the registration requirements make a valid regulatory program effective and do not impose punitive restraints in violation AB 438 Page 7 of the Ex Post Facto Clause." ( Smith_ , supra, at page 102. ) Inasmuch as the United States Supreme Court specifically discussed affirmative restraints on housing in its consideration of the constitutionality of the Alaska sex offender notification laws, and also left the door open to "whether other constitutional objections can be raised to a mandatory reporting requirement, " it appears reasonable that this bill's expression of the right of any person, including rental housing providers, to deny housing, services, benefits or otherwise discriminate against registered sex offenders, would be subject to constitutional challenge. 5)Ot4er Issues Raised By_This-Bi.11:_ As reported in the Daily Journal of February 11, 2005, "Employers must beware of dangers in using Megan's Law web site." Although The Daily Journal article pertained to employment, the same arguments http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab438_cfa_20050425_ 114136_as... 9/19/2005 'AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 7 of 19 are applicable to housing decisions. The article states, "Employers are cautioned to avoid making precipitous employment decisions based on information obtained about a job applicant or current employee through California's Megan's Law web site. Misuse of registry information is actionable, and it may expose the user to actual and exemplary damages, attorney fees, and a civil fine. Likewise, a hasty decision to terminate an employee whose name is found on the site could lead to a claim for damages, a civil fine, and costly litigation expenses. " The Daily Journal article reports that California employers may understandably find themselves "scratching their heads, wondering why this statute has the practical effect of making convicted sex offenders in certain respects a 'protected class' of employees in California. " Further, California employers can also expect to face a delicate situation - "they may learn from the Megan's Law Web site that a current employee is registered as a convicted sex offender. An employer may learn of this information from the web site directly, by personally accessing the site, for example - or indirectly, perhaps through notification by someone else who has accessed the site. This situation presents a risk-tolerance issue for the employer. "To avoid liability under Penal Code Section 290.46, the employer should evaluate any potential risk the employee may pose to fellow employees or customers before deciding to take AB 438 Page 8 an adverse employment action. " (Emphasis added. ) The article suggests possible methods of evaluating potential risk, but concludes that the plain language of the statute does not make clear whether a line of inquiry from the employer, prompted by information disclosed on the Megan's Law Web site, is permissible. Although the author opines that "it seems unreasonable that a court would conclude that the employer was compelled to do nothing when confronted with a potential risk to his or her employees and customers, " the article fails to discuss what may be a serious issue regarding the employer's qualifications and expertise in making such risk assessments. The California Coalition on Sexual Offending (CCOSO) has a number of articles on risk assessment on its Internet web site; there is no consensus among professional treatment providers and researchers on assessing risk levels. Is it a good policy to permit owners of rental housing to deny admission to, evict, or otherwise discriminate, against persons who are listed on the Megan's Law database as http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/assn/ab 0401-0450/ab 438 cfa 20050425 114136_as... 9/19/2005 'AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 8 of 19 registered sex offenders, without a reasonable basis that the person poses a risk to other tenants? This is a particularly important issue in California, which has far more registered sex offenders than any other state. 6)California Registered Sex Offenders According to a CCOSO report entitled Using the Internet to Provide Passive Community Notification About Registered Sex Offenders , "because California has been requiring certain sex offenders to register since the mid 19401s, far longer than any other state, California's cumulative total of registered sex offenders is much larger, both in absolute numbers and proportionately, than the total for any other state. " According to the report, approximately one out of every 180 adult males in California could be posted on the Internet as sex offenders. As of May 2003 (citing Department of Justice Statistics) the report states there were 100, 501 registered sex offenders in California. Of that number, 1,836 were classified as "high risk" and 82, 190 as "serious. " It is those two groups who are subject to the current Internet notification system. A third group of registered sex offenders were convicted of crimes not currently subject to public notification. AB 438 Page 9 According to CCOSO, of the high risk and serious groups, 55, 902 were living in the community, 14,556 had returned to jail or prison, 10,800 had left the state, and 2,768 had been deported. Altogether, 70, 458 California residents (almost all of them adult males) are subject to notification under the present system. According to the CCOSO report, approximately one of every 123 adult males in California is a registered sex offender, although some of these have left the state or failed to re-register as required. The CCOSO report notes that in addition to the registered sex offenders, there is a potentially large number of additional individuals who are also impacted by Internet notification and related actions, including parents, children, siblings, other relatives, employers, landlords, associates, etc. By permitting the denial of housing to registered sex offenders, this bill affects a much larger group of innocent persons, such as their spouses, domestic partners, and minor children. By evicting a registered sex offender from his rental housing, the apartment owner effectively may be causing an entire family to become homeless. According to the CCOSO report, "widespread notification is making it increasingly difficult for registrants to find http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_438_cfa 20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 'AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Fage 9 of ly housing. This tends to drive them into poorer neighborhoods, where more dysfunctional families tend to live. Children from these families are more easily victimized than children in more affluent, better organized neighborhoods. The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect showed that children living below the poverty line are 18 times as likely to be sexually abused as children living at or above the median income. National Incidence Study on Child Abuse and Neglect (1996) Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. 7)Practices in Other States Research conducted in September 2004 on the Megan's Law databases of all 50 states disclosed that most states do not provide information on so many persons who are registered sex_ offenders as does California. There are a variety of reasons for this difference, including California's lifetime registration requirement, lack of a washout period, lack of a risk assessment prior to listing a sex offender, the number of offenses required to be listed on AB 438 Page 10 the California Megan's Law database, and lack of a hearing prior to being subjected to public notification. For example, Hawaii requires persons convicted of sex offenses against children to register, and provides these persons with a court hearing for the purpose of determining whether the information should be publicly disclosed. Iowa's Internet website lists only those offenders determined "at risk" to re-offend; Nebraska lists only approximately 500 "high risk" offenders; New York h database; Virginia's and Wyoming's Internet websites include only violent or "high risk" sex offenders; Wisconsin also has a risk assessment program, and their public database includes only offenders determined to be at high risk for re-offending. Lifetime registration and public disclosure is not the norm for most other states. For example, Georgia has a 10-year washout for all offenders except sexually violent predators (SVPs. ) Kentucky has a two-tiered system; some offenders must register for 10 years and some are subject to lifetime registration. Nevada's public access database includes only the top two tiers of sex offenders, and Tier 2 offenders, deemed "moderate risk" are removed from the public access database after 10 years without re-offending. Oklahoma provides public access only as to habitual and aggravated sex offenders. A comparison of the numbers of sex offenders listed on other states' Megan's Law databases discloses that California lists http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_438_cfa 20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 •AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis rage I of ly a far greater number of offenders than other states. For example, Arizona lists about 12,000 sex offenders; Illinois lists about 13, 000 sex offenders; and has a 10-year washout period for all but sexually violent predators. Maryland lists approximately 3, 500; and Nebraska lists approximately 500. New Jersey listed approximately 2, 700, and only lists those determined as "moderate" or "high" risk. South Carolina listed approximately 6, 400 offenders, Washington, D.C. , lists only "Class All registered sex offenders, which consists of 11 crimes. Texas had 38, 502 (of a total 41, 175) sex offenders listed on their web site; not all are subject to lifetime registration. Ohio requires sexually violent predators to register for life, and most other registrants are required to register for 10 years. By comparison, California's new Megan's Law Internet web site AB 438 Page 11 provides the public with information on more than 63, 000 persons required to register in California as sex offenders. Currently, specific home addresses are listed for more than 33, 500 sex offenders in California. Under existing law, an additional 30,500 offenders are included only by zip code, and community of residence. Information on 22,000 other offenders is not included on the current Megan's Law web site under current law but is known to law enforcement. Therefore, the sheer numbers of potential registrants, and their innocent family members, including children, who would be subject to becoming homeless due to this bill, are disturbing, particularly in view of California's already existent homeless problems. Due to the broad language of this bill, these same large numbers of people would also be subject to loss of benefits, services, and other unspecified forms of discrimination. Are there any other laws that specifically sanction discrimination in their statutory language? 8)Re-Victimization According to the CCOSO report, incest offenders are unlikely to target strangers. Therefore, widespread notification causes their victims embarrassment at best and at worst, causes them to be actively harassed in their schools and neighborhoods. This problem, while most obvious in incest cases, is not always limited to incest cases. It can occur in any circumstances where publicly identified sex offenders can be linked to their victims. CCOSO concludes that this could lead to reduced reporting of sexual offenses and consequent decreases in public safety. 9)Legislative Counsel Opinion on Megan's Law and-Rental Property http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_438_cfa 20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page i i of ty Discrimination According to Legislative Counsel Opinion No. 0501030, "An owner of residential property is prohibited from using information obtained through the [Megan's Law Web site] as the basis for refusing to rent to a registered sex offender, unless it is to protect a person at risk. " The Legislative Counsel opinion further states that "the 'at-risk' argument becomes more difficult for a property owner to make if the offender's crimes were perpetrated against children and the property in question houses only adult tenants. If there are no persons arguably 'at-risk' of harm by the sex offender on the property, the property owner would AB 438 Page 12 be unable to use the information obtained from the Web site for any 'purpose relating to . . . housing or accommodations' and could not refuse to rent to the offender applicant. "Offenders identified on the Web site may have committed offenses ranging from the violent rape of an adult to a misdemeanor annoying a child, may have one offense or multiple offenses, and may have been recently convicted or convicted decades ago. Determining whether there are persons on the property 'at risk' of victimization by the offender will depend upon the offender's previous victim or victims, the type of offense he or she has committed, and the nature of the tenants in the building where the offender is seeking to reside. " The Legislative Counsel Opinion also discussed the eviction of tenants due to discovery of the tenant's sex offender registrant status through the Internet Web site. The opinion states "in our opinion, use of the information to evict a sex offender would be subject to the same 'at-risk' standard as used in determining whether or not to rent to a sex offender in the first place. Based upon the offender's crime, previous victim or victims, and the nature of the tenants presumably at risk, the property owner must be able to make a reasonable claim that he or she evicted the tenant to protect someone who would be placed at risk by the sex offender's continued presence in the dwelling. " The Legislative Counsel Opinion also discussed whether an apartment owner or landlord may inform other tenants that a tenant is a sex offender. Again, the opinion cites the necessity of making at "at-risk" determination, stating "any use of the information including giving information to other tenants is prohibited unless it is to protect a person at risk. Disclosure for the sake of disclosure, or mere gossip, would clearly be prohibited. As discussed [above] , the determination of who is 'at risk' depends on the facts of the http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab 438_cfa 20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 AB 438 Assembly Bill -Bill Analysis Page 12 of 19 case and the same standard would be used in the property owner's argument that tenants have been notified of a sex offender's status to protect the tenants from harm because they are 'at risk' due to the presence of the sex offender. "Penal Code Section 290.46 imposes various penalties for misuse of the information obtained through the Web site. Use of the information [for purposes relating to housing] could expose a AB 438 Page 13 property owner to liability for actual damages, up to three times the amount of actual damages, attorney fees, exemplary damages, or a civil penalty of up to $25, 000. [Penal Code Section 290.46(j) (4) (A. ) ] "In summary, it is our opinion that if an owner of residential property discovers through the Web site that a tenant is a registered sex offender, the property owner may not, on the basis of that information, evict the tenant or disclose the information to other tenants, unless it is to protect persons at risk." 10)Information Not Obtained from the Megan's Law Web Site The Legislative Counsel opinion concluded that if information that the applicantortenant is a registered sex offender is not derived from the Megan's Law Web site, an owner of residential property is not otherwise restricted from refusing to rent to the person for that reason. However, the opinion points out that "courts have historically held that the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code Sections 51 and 52) prohibits discrimination based on classifications that are not enumerated in the statute, such as unconventional dress, families with children, homosexuality, and minors. [ Hessians Motorcycle Club v. Flanagans (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 8331 836.] Subsequent opinions by courts of appeal have elaborated and a three-step inquiry has developed for use when considering whether a 'new' classification should be eligible for protection under the Unruh Act. The three-part test includes analysis of: (a) the statute's language, (b) the legitimate business interests of the defendant, and (c) the consequences of allowing the new discrimination claim. " In applying this three-step analysis in the Hessians Motorcycle Club case, supra, the court held that a business could have a policy of excluding from its establishment bike riders who wear gang insignia or colors. Although the Legislative Counsel opinion did not raise the issue of the significant distinction between bike riders and elderly or disabled sex offender registrants needing skilled nursing care, it is likely that an appellate court, in considering the issue of the elderly or disabled sex offender registrants as a http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pubibill/asm/ab-0401-0450/ab 438_cfa 20050425-114136_as... 9/19/2005 'AB 438 Assembly Bill -Bill Analysis Yage 13 of 19 protected class, might reach an entirely different conclusion. Certainly the legitimate business interests of the apartment AB 438 Page 14 owners in protecting their residents would merit a different analysis of the issue of admission to the facility of a sex offender whose offense was against a related child (intra-familial) than the analysis of an offender who targeted strangers. Similarly, the owner of a housing complex for the elderly would be required to conduct a different risk analysis as to a sex offender registrant who committed one offense, in an intra-familial setting, against a child. Moreover, the consequences of allowing the new discrimination claim would be far different when considering bike riders wearing gang colors than the consideration of thousands of sex offenders and their families being forced to become homeless and deprived of one of life's basic needs, the need for shelter. In the case involving the bikers and their gang colors, the court found that allowing a discrimination claim of this type would lead to frivolous lawsuits challenging other neutral business policies. It would be harder to make a persuasive argument that a lawsuit by a sex offender, his spouse and minor children, all of whom were made homeless by the provisions of this bill was frivolous. This is particularly true if their homelessness was caused by an eviction unaccompanied by an honest assessment of the risk posed by the sex offender in question. ll)Legally-Sanctioned Discrimination By providing that this bill shall not be construed to diminish in any way any . person's right to deny housing or otherwise discriminate against persons required to register as sex offenders, what effect does this bill have on the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code Sections 51 and 52) ? That law provides for the civil rights of persons in business establishments and protects against discrimination on specified grounds. On the other hand, this bill specifically permits discrimination against sex offenders, who are not an enumerated protected class under the Unruh Act, but are a group for whom, arguably, a Court could create a new classification of protection under the Unruh Act, or, in the alternative, determine that some sex offenders are protected by the provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a medical condition or disability. By specifically sanctioning discrimination in the provision of housing, services and benefits, does this bill implicitly littp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/assn/ab_0401-0450/ab_438 cfa 20050425 114136_as... 9/19/2005 AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 14 of 19 AB 438 Page 15 erode the protections provided by the Unruh Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the Federal Fair Housing Act? 12) Policy Iss»es To the extent that future legislation results in greater numbers of sex offender registrants becoming homeless, the issue will almost certainly be litigated. If sex offender registrants are denied basic necessities, such as shelter, there are likely to be accompanying consequences such as loss of employment, loss of income denying the offender's family of other necessities such as food and clothing, and additional negative impacts on their innocent children, including numerous changes of schools and community humiliation. Are such consequences so serious as to cause a Court to create a new basis for a discrimination claim under the three-prong test enunciated in the _H_essions case? As the consequences to sex offenders of having their names and addresses posted on the Internet website become increasingly damaging to the offenders and their families, is the overall scheme of public notification placed in jeopardy? Is it in the public interest to create an entire new class of permanently homeless families? Is it reasonable to expect that any person, apartment owner, or tenant can insulate themselves from any proximity to registered sex offenders? Even a cursory look at the Megan's Law website indicates that registered sex offenders live in large numbers in most areas of the state. The supporters of this bill state their concern that their tenants will move out of their apartment complexes. Is there anywhere these tenants can move that will place them a "safe" distance from the residence of a sex offender? If all of the sex offenders are evicted from a particular apartment complex, is that apartment complex really any safer? It may be devoid of registered sex offenders, but still populated by murderers, armed robbers, drug sellers and users, drunk drivers, and others who arguably also pose a risk to other tenants. Moreover, it may still be populated by sexual predators who have not yet been apprehended for their crimes. Arguably, these unidentified, unknown serious criminals living next door pose a far greater risk than a registered sex offender who committed a sex offense 40 years ago and has http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_438_cfa 20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 15 of 19 AB 438 Page 16 lived a crime-free existence ever since. 13)The Impact of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions In an article published in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 49, pp. 168 - 178, entitled The Impact of Sex Offender Registration Restrictions: 1, 000 Feet From Danger Or One Step From Absurd? , it was stated "Several states have enacted public policies that prohibit sex offenders who have abused children from living within close proximity to a school, park, day care center, or school bus stop. The purpose of this exploratory study was to describe the impact of residence restrictions on sex offender re-integration and to better understand sex offenders' perceptions of these laws. A survey of 135 sex offenders in Florida was conducted. Most of the molesters who responded to the survey indicated that housing restrictions increased isolation, created financial and emotional stress, and led to decreased stability. Respondents also indicated that they did not perceive residence restrictions as helpful in risk management and, in fact, reported that such restrictions may inadvertently increase triggers for re-offense." Is it good public policy to not only create a new class of homeless families, and to thereby decrease their stability and increase the likelihood of recidivist behavior? 14)Arguments in Support a) According to the _California Apartment Association , "This bill is intended to clarify that rental housing providers can use the Megan's Law database to act decisively in the interests and safety of other tenants. [It] will clarify and update housing law as it relates to the sex offender registry in order to allow rental housing providers and their residents to protect themselves from high risk sex offenders. " b) According to the Director of Property Management of Spruce Grove in Santa Ana, "I personally have experienced this legal quagmire in a situation in which a serious sex offender was residing at one of our properties, and this information was known by several tenants. Our hands have been effectively tied, preventing any eviction actions against the offender. Unfortunately, this situation was compounded by the fact that this individual conducted Bible http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_438_cfa 20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 16 of 19 AB 438 Page 17 study classes for a group of residents. Bible study was the offender's previous M.O. for attracting young boys / victims. We had petitions to evict from one group of residents, while the Bible study group refused to believe his past (which was a serious one) or they felt that he should be forgiven. We were further chastised by our attorneys for researching this individual's history on Megan's Law website to confirm the resident's allegations. Now we had the information, yet were cautioned not to use it to warn, inform, or protect our residents. This is truly a dilemma. "While I support the public database, I have been left to face angry tenants who learn that a sex offender lives on site. My refusal to respond to their demands to 'correct the situation' is not an acceptable answer to them nor is it for me." C) According to Ross Miller Rentals Sandy Adams & Associates Property Management , and others, "The rental housing industry in a bind. Current state law effectively prohibits use of the Megan's Law website to deny housing to listed sex offenders. At the same time, I have legal liability if I fail to protect residents against a known risk - in this case someone with a documented criminal history of sexual [abuse] against children, women, and other residents." d) According to Motteri Properties , LLC, "My units are in a neighborhood with a very high population of people listed in the [Megan's Law] database. I desperately need the ability to prudently manage my business by being able to screen out sex offenders and not be exposed to liability arising from disclosing or not disclosing information to prospective and existing tenants about offenders living on my property or in the neighborhood." 15)Arguments in_ppposition a) According to the American Civil Liberties Union , "Discrimination in the rental of housing based on the fact that the individual is an ex-offender is a denial of basic civil rights. Housing may be denied on the basis of an individual's behavior, but not because of his or her status as an ex-offender. This bill will result in large numbers AB- 438 Page 18 of sex offenders and their families becoming homeless, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab 438_cfa 20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 'AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis rage i i or i g creating the increased likelihood that the state will not know the whereabouts of these individuals - the primary intent and purpose of the registration laws. This proposal is particularly bad and counterproductive public policy. " b) According to the California Public Defenders Association , this bill "creates an incentive for property owners to discriminate against registered sex offenders. In communities without 'just cause' eviction, property owners will have an incentive to evict sex offenders in order to have their address removed from the internet website. [This bill] is bad public policy and creates a de jure system of discrimination. Along with at least 5 other pending bills in the current legislature, this is part of a trend to make it difficult, if not impossible for sex offenders to live anywhere in the community. It is mean spirited, and punishes the families and loved ones of individuals who have already served their time and paid their debt to society. " c) According to a Board Member of the California Coalition on Sexual Offending (CCOSO) , who surveyed sex offender treatment providers on the issues raised by this bill, "The overwhelming majority in the field of treating sexual abusers opines' against this bill. Not only would it likely increase the stress of the ex-offender and thereby increase his risk for re-offense, it would also undermine the morale of the treatment providers, who may view their work as hopeless given the extreme response of the community (in this case voiced by the renters. ) " d) According to the Director of Forensic Services, Relationship Training Institute, ,San Diego , "I am very much a victim advocate in this field. At the same time, I am seriously concerned about the community attempts to [make 'lepers' of] people who are, otherwise, successfully working toward reintegration into the community. [This bill] seems very counterproductive and denies the quality or possibility of 'redemption' . It also lumps together every person convicted of a sexual offense as if they are either a rapist or a child molester, and denies the potential for change. Obviously, making life more difficult for convicted sexual offenders very likely will lead to greater (rather than lesser) rates of recidivism. AB 438 Page 19 On a side note, it is also disheartening to face a group of sexual offenders who are attempting to better their lives and avoid re-offense, and tell them of another obstacle placed in their path. " http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab 438_cfa 20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis rage 16 or 19 e) According to A Helping Hand Counseling , San Diego, "The majority of men in sex offender treatment want to change. As they look at their lives and make significant changes, it is difficult for them to have sanction after sanction placed on them from society. We do live in a reactive world." f) According to an Ohio-Licensed Social Worker and Homeowner's Association President , "Many [home owners associations] are now putting in their bylaws that registered sex offenders cannot live in the condo or [housing development. ] For all of those who were in favor of Megan's Law, we began a very slippery slope which I predict will get so out of hand that it will become unenforceable. " 16)Related Legislation AB 217 (Vargas) proposes requiring specified notice to long-term care facilities, their staff, and their residents that a sex offender was residing there. AB 217 failed passage in this Committee. AB 1422 (Bogh) proposes allowing the denial of admission to, and eviction from, long-term care facilities of registered sex offenders. AB 1422 failed passage in this Committee. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION Support California Apartment Association (Sponsor) American Eagle Properties California Apartment Association California State Sheriff's Association Equity Residential Essex Property Trust, Inc. Exlnt Property Management Company Hedgerow Property Management John Stewart Company Lewis Operating Corp Los Osos Management i AB 43_8 Page 20 Motteri Properties, LLC Peace Officers Research Association of California Ross Miller Rentals Sandy Adams and Associates Property Management Spruce Grove Vintage Properties, L.P. 12 private citizens Opposition http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_43 8_cfa_20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 AB 438 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis rage iv of iv California Public Defenders Association California Coalition on Sexual Offending The American Civil Liberties Union Relationship Training Institute A Helping Hand Counseling Three Private Citizens Analysis Prepared by Kathleen Ragan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_438_cfa 20050425_114136_as... 9/19/2005 Assembly Bill 438 Page 1 of 5 BILL NUMBER: AB 438 INTRODUCED BILL TEXT INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Parra FEBRUARY 15, 2005 An act to amend Section 290.46 of the Penal Code, relating to sex offenders. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 438, as introduced, Parra. Sex offenders. Existing law provides that the Department of Justice shall make available information concerning specified registered sex offenders to the public via an Internet Web site. Existing law provides, with respect to certain sex offenders, that the address at which the person resides shall be made available. Existing law also requires the department to update the Web site on an ongoing basis. This bill would require the department to update the Web site when appropriate to correct the address of a registered sex offender within 30 days of receiving notice from a residential property owner that the registered sex offender no longer resides at the address listed on the Web site, Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 290.46 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 290.46. (a) On or before the dates specified in this section, the Department of Justice shall make available information concerning persons who are required to register pursuant to Section 290 to the public via an Internet. Web site as specified in this section. The department shall update the Web site on an ongoing basis. All information identifying the victim by name, birth date, address, or relationship to the registrant shall be excluded from the Web site. The name or address of the person's employer and the listed person's criminal history other than the specific crimes for which the person is required to register shall not be included on the Web site. The Web site shall be translated into languages other than English as determined by the department. (b) (1) On or before July 1, 2005, with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in this subdivision or the statutory predecessors of any of these offenses, or any offense which, if committed or attempted to be committed in this state, would have been punishable as one or more of the offenses listed in this subdivision, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her names and known aliases, a photograph, a physical description, including gender and race, date of birth, criminal history, the address at which the person resides, and any other information that the Department of Justice deems relevant, but not the information excluded pursuant to subdivision (a) . http://www.l union l.com/AB43 8_2005.htm 9/19/2005 Assembly Bill 438 Page 2 of 5 (2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses: (A) Subdivision (b) of Section 207. (B) Subdivision (b) of Section 209, except kidnapping to commit robbery. (C) Paragraph (2) or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261. (D) Section 264. 1. (E) Section 269. (F) Subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 286. (G) Subdivision (a) , (b) , or (c) of Section 288, provided that the offense is a felony. (H) Subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 288a. (I) Section 288.5. (J) Subdivision (a) or (j) of Section 289. (3) This subdivision shall also apply to any person who has ever been adjudicated a sexually violent predator as defined in Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (c) (1) On or before July 1, 2005, with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in paragraph (2) or the statutory predecessors of any of these offenses, or any offense which, if committed or attempted to be committed in this state, would have been punishable as one or more of the offenses listed in this subdivision, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her names and known aliases, a photograph, a physical description, including gender and race, date of birth, criminal history, the community of residence and ZIP Code in which the person resides, and any other information that the Department of Justice deems relevant, but not the information excluded pursuant to subdivision (a) . However, the address at which the person resides shall not be disclosed until a determination is made that the person is, by virtue of his or her additional prior or subsequent conviction of an offense listed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290, subject to this subdivision. On or before July 1, 2006, the Department of Justice shall determine whether any person convicted of an offense listed in paragraph (2) also has one or more prior or subsequent convictions of an offense listed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290, and, for those persons, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site the address at which the person resides. (2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses, provided that the person has one or more prior or subsequent convictions of an offense listed in paragraph .(2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290: (A) Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem. (B) Paragraph (1) , (3) , or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 261. (C) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) , or subdivision (f) , (g) , or (i) , of Section 286. (D) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) , or subdivision (f) , (g) , or (i) , of Section 288a. (E) Subdivision (b) , (d) , (e) , or (i) of Section 289. (d) (1) On or before July 1, 2005, with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in this subdivision or the statutory predecessors of any of these offenses, or of any offense which, if committed or attempted to be committed in this state, would have been punishable as one or more of the offenses listed in this subdivision, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her names and known aliases, hftp://www.lunionl.com/AB-438-2005.htin 9/19/2005 Assembly Bill 438 Page 3 of 5 a photograph, a physical description, including. gender and race, date of birth, criminal history, the community of residence and ZIP Code in which the person resides, and any other information that the Department of Justice deems relevant, but not the information excluded pursuant to subdivision (a) or the address at which the person resides. (2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses: (A) Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem, with no prior or subsequent conviction of an offense listed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290. (B) Subdivision (a) of Section 243.4, provided that the offense is a felony. (C) Paragraph (1) , (3) , or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 261, with no prior or subsequent conviction of an offense listed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290. (D) Section 266, provided that the offense is a felony. (F) Section 266c, provided that the offense is a felony. (F) Section 266j . (G) Section 267. (H) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) , or subdivision (f) , (g) , or (i) , of Section 286, with no prior or subsequent conviction of an offense listed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290. (I) Subdivision (c) of Section 288, provided that the offense is a misdemeanor. (J) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) , or subdivision (f) , (g) , or (i) , of Section 288a, with no prior or subsequent conviction of an offense listed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290. (K) Subdivision (b) , (d) , (e) , or (i) of Section 289, with no prior or subsequent conviction of an offense listed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290. (L) Section 647. 6. (e) (1) If a person has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in this subdivision or the statutory predecessors of any of these offenses, or of any offense which, if committed or attempted to be committed in this state, would have been punishable as one or more of the offenses listed in this subdivision, and he or she has been convicted of no other offense listed in subdivision (b) , (c) , or (d) other than those listed in this subdivision, that person may file an application for exclusion from the Internet Web site with the Department of Justice. If the department determines that the person meets the requirements of this subdivision, the department shall grant the exclusion and no information concerning him or her shall be made available via the Internet Web site described in this section. He or she bears the burden of proving the facts that make him or her eligible for exclusion from the Internet Web site. However, a person who has filed for or been granted an exclusion from the Internet Web site is not relieved of his or her duty to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 nor from any otherwise applicable provision of law. (2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses: (A) A felony violation of subdivision (a) of Section 243.4. (B) Section 647.6, provided the offense is a misdemeanor. (C) An offense listed in subdivision (b) , (c) , or (d) if the offender is eligible for, granted, and successfully completes probation pursuant to Section 1203.066 of the Penal Code. (f) The Department of Justice shall make a reasonable effort to provide notification to persons who have been convicted of the commission or attempted commission of an offense specified in subdivision (b) , (c) , or (d) , that on or before July 1, 2005, the http://www.IunionI.coln/AB 438 2005.htm 9/19/2005 Assdmbly Bill 438 Page 4 of 5 department is required to make information about him or her available to the public via an Internet Web site as specified in this section. The Department of Justice shall also make a reasonable effort to provide notice that he or she may be eligible for exclusion from the Internet Web site if he or she may have been convicted of an offense for which exclusion is available pursuant to subdivision (e) . (g) Notwithstanding Section 6254 .5 of the Government Code, disclosure of information pursuant to this section is not a waiver of exemptions under Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Title 1 of Division 7 of the Government Code and does not affect other statutory restrictions on disclosure in other situations. (h) (1) Any person who uses information disclosed pursuant to the Internet Web site to commit a misdemeanor shall be subject to, in addition to any other penalty or fine imposed, a fine of not less than ten thousand dollars ($10, 000) and not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50, 000) . (2) Any person who uses information disclosed pursuant to the Internet Web site to commit a felony shall be punished, in addition and consecutive to any other punishment, by a five-year term of imprisonment in the state prison. (i) Any person who is required to register pursuant to Section 290 who enters the Web site is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) , imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (j ) (1) A person is authorized to use information disclosed pursuant to this section only to protect a person at risk. (2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited: (A) Health insurance. (B) Insurance. (C) Loans. (D) Credit. (E) Employment. (F) Education, scholarships, or fellowships. (G) Housing or accommodations. (H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment. (3) This section shall not affect authorized access to, or use of, information pursuant to, among other provisions, Sections 11105 and 11105.3, Section 8808 of the Family Code, Sections 777.5 and 14409.2 of the Financial Code, Sections 1522.01 and 1596.871 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 432.7 of the Labor Code. (4) (A) Any use of information disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes other than those provided by paragraph (1) or in violation of paragraph (2) shall make the user liable for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury or a court sitting without a jury, not exceeding three times the amount of actual damage, and not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) , and attorney's fees, exemplary damages, or a civil penalty not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars ($25, 000) . (B) Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of misuse of the information available via the Internet Web site in violation of paragraph (2) , the Attorney General, any district attorney, or city attorney, or any person aggrieved by the misuse is authorized to bring a civil action in the appropriate court requesting preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person or http://www.1unionI.com/AB 438 2005.htm 9/19/2005 ` Assembly Bill 438 Page 5 of 5 group of persons responsible for the pattern or practice of misuse. The foregoing remedies shall be independent of any other remedies or procedures that may be available to an aggrieved party under other provisions of law, including Part 2 (commencing with Section 43) of Division 1 of the Civil Code. (k) The Department of Justice shall update the Web site when appropriate to correct the address of a registered sex offender within 30 days of receiving notice from a residential property owner, on a form as may be determined by the department, that the registered sex offender no longer resides at the address listed on the Web site. (1) On or before July 1, 2006, and every year thereafter, the Department of Justice shall make a report to the Legislature concerning the operation of this section. —(i) (m) The Department of Justice and its employees shall be immune from liability for good faith conduct under this section. U.N.I.O.N. Bills - 2005 http://www.l union l.com/AB_43 8_2005.htm 9/19/2005 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8c MTG. �c 9D0 DATE 10.03.05 °HATED JUNE 6 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY G-- DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND 74 TW ZONING REGULATIONS FOR CONVALESCENT FACILITIES AND GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES FOR THE ELDERLY AND TO CORRECT AN ERROR IN THE BOUNDARY OF THE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ALONG MARCO POLO WAY RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should review the proposed ordinance which would amend the provisions of the TW zoning regulations for convalescent facilities and group residential facilities for the elderly, and introduce the ordinance for public hearing and a second reading at the Council meeting of October 17, 2005. To introduce the ordinance Council should: 1. Request the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. 2. Make a motion to waive further reading of the ordinance. 3. Make a motion to introduce the ordinance. 4. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 5 days before the proposed adoption. Set a date for second reading(October 17, 2005) Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on September 12, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent)to recommend to the Council approval of the amendment regarding group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent facilities in the Trousdale West(TW) zoning regulations. In their action, the Commission noted that using the parking requirements to determine density for group residential facilities is logical since it is the same way residential densities have been established in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts; it is a standard that the City has used for many years with success and with no complaints and, in this area, the proximity to BART insures that some employees will use mass transit to work rather than bring their cars. They further noted that this action will facilitate the development of group residential care facilities for the elderly within this zoning district as support uses to the hospital, consistent with the adopted North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: On September 19, 2005, the City Council approved new zoning regulations for the Trousdale West area of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The new regulations outline the uses and development standards for an area of North Burlingame as shown on the attached map, Trousdale West(TW) Zoning District Map. When the Planning Commission reviewed the TW district regulations on August 22, 2005, it was noted that there is a difference between convalescent facilities and group residential facilities for the elderly. As originally drafted, the TW district regulations established group residential facilities for the elderly, including convalescent facilities, as a permitted use. The Specific Plan establishes a density for convalescent homes of 60 beds per acre. Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend the TW Zoning Regulations for Convalescent Facilities and Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly and to Correct an Error in the Boundary of the Residential Overlay along Marco Polo Way October 3,2005 At Planning Commission's direction, the proposed amendment to the TW zoning regulations would address the differences between convalescent facilities and group residential care facilities for the elderly. Both group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent facilities would require a conditional use permit. The zoning regulations would establish a density standard of 60 beds per acre for convalescent homes, in keeping with the density established by the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The density for group residential facilities would be determined by the parking provided. Correction to the Residential Overlay boundary: On September 19, 2005, the City Council also directed staff to correct an error in the Trousdale West (TW) zoning regulations regarding the boundary of the Marco Polo Way residential overlay. The owner of the property at the southeast corner of Trousdale Drive and Marco Polo Way spoke from the floor and noted that the land use map for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan designates that property for mixed use, office and residential. He noted that it was his understanding that office uses were allowed on this property. As originally drafted, the Marco Polo Way residential overlay, which limits uses to residential only, applies to properties with any lot frontage on Marco Polo Way. The attached ordinance corrects the language so that the parcel on the southeast corner of Trousdale Drive and Marco Polo Way is not included in the overlay, consistent with the land use map of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. ATTACHMENTS: Figure 4.1 —Land Use Map for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Planning Commission Minutes, September 12, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report and attachments Ordinance Amending Chapter 25.40 to make Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly a Conditional Use in the Trousdale West (TW) District. -2- CHAPTER 4: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Figure 4-1. Land use map Q with subareas indicated sirr of Mi<< o f D \ _ ^ ••• RaIC_ SNn�SONk � \X;\\ - E, LI C p I A^ n • D Z i i o r 1 — Sub Areas: Al Northern Gateway ! o A2 Central Rollins Road A3 Southern Gateway A4 Adrian Road Auto District 131 Burlingame Plaza B2 EI Camino Real Gateway Corridor reek B3 Mills Peninsula Block B4 North of Trousdale Drive Land Use Designations: Mixed-Use-Office/Retail Commercial/ ; Residential Mixed-Use-Office/Residential ®, ® ' 4 Commercial-Shopping/Service Commercial-Service and Special Uses ® VF� SAN FRANCISCO BAY Auto Row Overlay District Residential-Medium-High Density ®�` (<21-50 du/ac) BROADWAY Industrial-Industrial and Office Space STATIOIN •Q ® ® U 300 600 12001eo: Institutional-Institutional/Other •^^ Planning Area Boundary City Limits 28 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 ask developer because he will ways want a bigger bui mg,more FAR. Sho refer back to subcompFifirttee for oreview;need to ap int third member of sub mmittee. Subcommi e might also consider and its,(se; need to refer to bcommittee. C. Vistica move o continue this item a to refer it back to th subcommittee for fu er review of the items raised at is hearing. The motio was seconded by C. ran. The motion pas d on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and eighran absent). voice ote. Chair Auran app nted C.Vistica to the ayfront Subcommittee. This act' n is not appealable. T ' item concluded at 1 :30 p.m. 8. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT—DENSITY FOR GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES CITY PLANNER:MARGARET MONROE(NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 212 NOTICED) Reference staff report September 12, 2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that the Commission at their last meeting forwarded the Trousdale West regulation to the City Council without the provisions for convalescent hospitals and group residential facilities for the elderly. Tonight the hearing is on separating the regulation of convalescent hospitals from group residential facilities and establishing different standards for determining density for each,based on the nature of the services offered,the needs of the clients, and the differing number of employees required for each type of service. Commission asked if parking numbers shown in letter from Sunrise are similar to city's experience.CP indicated that the proposed Sunrise project meets city on site parking requirements and we have had no problems with other similar facilities built in the city based on these on-site parking requirements. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, noted that with current demographics more people are going to need the service of these facilities and they will not be driving,using parking to establish density for group residential facilities for the elderly is the right direction to go; don't think family members visiting will affect the neighbors a lot. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to recommend the amendment as proposed in the staff report to the Trousdale West zoning district regulations for convalescent hospitals and group residential facilities for the elderly to city council for action. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: using the current on site parking requirements to determine the density of the group residential facility for the elderly is logical since it is based on the way multiple family residential densities are established in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts,it is a standard the city has used overtime with success and no complaints, and, in this area, the proximity to BART insures that some employees will use mass transit to work rather than bring their cars. This action will facilitate the development of convalescent hospitals and group residential care facilities for the elderly within this zoning district as support uses to the hospital, consistent with the specific plan. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the Council for approval the amendment for group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent hospitals to the Trousdale West zoning district regulations. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent). This item will go forward to City Council for action. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. 15 City of Burlingame Item# North Burlingame/Rollins Road Special Plan Implementation: Action Calendar Trousdale West District-Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly Meeting Date: 09.12.05 Planning Commission Action: Commissioners should review the proposed amendment to the recently approved Trousdale West (TW) zoning regulations to add requirements for convalescent and group residential facilities for the elderly and hold a public hearing. The reasons for the Commission's recommendation should be clearly stated for the record. Action in the case of zoning changes is recommendation to City Council. This item was noticed as required by law in the San Mateo Times on September 2, 2005. A public notice card was also sent on September 2, 2005, to all property owners within the TW district boundaries and because of the change in zoning regulation to all property owners within 500 feet of the district's new boundary. Planning Commission Study: At the Commission meeting on August 22, 2005, the Commissioners discussed the proposed regulations for the Trousdale West (TW) zoning district. Commission discussed the difference between convalescent facilities and group residential facilities for the elderly. In the end, inorder to move the Trousdale West ordinance forward to the City Council because of a number of projects pending, the Commission recommended the TW district to the City Council for adoption without including the zoning provision addressing convalescent facilities and group residential facilities for the elderly(senior independent living and assisted living facilities). Commission directed staff to bring the issues of regulation for Convalescent and Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly back to the Commission for further consideration and action at September 12, 2005, meeting. Commission directed staff to: address the differences between convalescent and assisted living (group residential care for the elderly) as a land use and discuss the particular needs of the clients in each type of facility, which would result in different densities and intensity of development necessary for these two types of uses. Background: History: The term "Group residential facilities for the elderly" was added to the Burlingame zoning code in 1975. At that time the on-site parking requirement was the same as used for hospitals and convalescent facilities, one space for each 3 % beds. Group residential facilities for the elderly were defined in 1975, and continue to be defined as: "A residence for elderly persons sixty(60) years of age or over, in good health and not bed-fast, which residence provides centralized dining facilities and related living services." In 1997 there was an update to the zoning ordinance. As a part of that update, in the parking requirement section (Chapter 70) hospitals and convalescent facilities were separated from group residential facilities for the elderly. Ordinance 1586 adopted January 20, 1998, created a differentiation North Burlingame/Rollins Road Special Plan Implementation: Trousdale West District-Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly(Continued from August 22,2005) September 12,2005 between parking requirements for each of these three uses, regrouping group residential facility uses with rooming houses and hotels, and establishing a separate parking requirements for critical care hospitals, convalescent facilities and group residential facilities for the elderly. The parking requirement for a "critical care" hospital is one car space for each one and one-half beds. The parking requirement for convalescent and extended care hospitals is one car space for each three and one-half beds. (CS 25.70.036 Requirements for hospitals, including critical care, convalescent and extended care) Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly were moved to a separate section CS 25.70.034 Requirements for rooming houses, motels, hotels, group residential facilities for the elderly. The parking requirement for Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly is either one parking space for each three dwelling units, when the units are separate; or one space for each four lodgers plus one space for each two people employed on the premises. The 1997 revisions to the group residential facility on site parking requirements were based on the traffic studies prepared for proposed projects and the city's experience with three group residential for the elderly projects: 1221 Bayswater Avenue (1984)not built; 1117 Rhinette Avenue (1990) 24 beds and 24 client rooms; and 1733 California Drive (1994) 48 beds and 40 client rooms. Both of the projects which were built provided parking on site to the city's requirement of one space for each 4 lodgers. This turned out to be a ratio of 0.40 for the 1733 California project and a ratio of 0.33 for the 1117 Rhinette project. Data collected in 1990 for three projects similar to the project at 1117 Rhinette showed on site parking ratios similar to or less than what was proposed at 1117 Rhinette. (See excerpt Parking Study, 1117-1125 Rhinette, Richard Hopper,November 1990) ITE (International Traffic Engineers Parking Generation study, second edition) establishes a ratio of 0.27 for week days, 0.32 for Saturday and 1.0 for Sundays for retirement centers which provide a broader range of housing from independent living units through convalescent care. There would probably be more residents still driving in a retirement center than in a group residential facility for the elderly. For these reasons, the Burlingame requirement based on the number of residents and number of employees, as computed to a per room parking ratio, seems consistent with the ITE findings. In 1998 Planning staff reviewed the two projects as 1117 Rhinette Avenue and 1733 California Drive for complaints which would indicate that the parking on site was inadequate. No complaints were found. (See Monroe letter August 3, 1998 to John Cimino). Since August 1998 the on-site parking requirement has driven the density of group residential facilities for the elderly. Since 1990 there have been no parking problems related to these existing projects reported to the city traffic engineer or planning department. The ITE and other studies, including the city's current parking requirements, indicate that the parking and trip generation for critical care hospitals and convalescent care facilities is greater than for group residential facilities for the elderly. Certainly it is true that from a social point of view, group residential facilities benefit from more residents to provide opportunity for healthy interactions. In addition, fewer employees are required because there is less direct support to individual residents. Proposal: The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan specifically establishes a development density for 2 North Burlingame/Rollins Road Special Plan Implementation: Trousdale West District-Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly(Continued from August 22,2005) September 12,2005 convalescent homes in the North of Trousdale subarea,which is the area included in the proposed Trousdale West zoning district. The density established for convalescent homes when the plan was adopted in September 2004, was 60 beds to the acre. The specific plan did not address a density for the group residential facilities for the elderly use. However, the plan does encourage high density residential uses in the North of Trousdale subarea. Moreover the current zoning code includes group residential facilities in the as permitted uses in the R-3 and R-4 zones; the city's two high density residential districts. Burlingame's experience has also demonstrated that letting the parking requirement drive the size of group residential projects as it does other multiple family developments in the city, seems to have worked well. Based on the data and the city's experience, staff would suggest that Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly be allowed as a conditional use in the TW zoning district, subject to the same on-site parking requirements as group residential facilities for the elderly in the R-3 and R-4 districts e.g. additional floor area ratio requirements are not necessary. Convalescent homes should also be included as a conditional use because they are considered more like a hospital and have a maximum density set out in the specific plan which needs to be applied, e.g. 60 beds to the acre. Proposed changes to the TW zoning district are as follow: Amendment to the TW district: Amend CS 25.40.020 Permitted uses delete (c): (c) group residential facilities for the elderly, including convalescent facilities; Amend CS 25.40.025 Conditional uses to add(d) and renumber(e) and (f): (f) Group residential facilities for the elderly, including convalescent facilities; Add new subsection CS 25.40.050 (c) (4) (4) Group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent homes: Group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent homes shall have no maximum floor area ratio. Convalescent homes shall have a maximum density of sixty(60)beds to the acre based on the number of persons the rooms are designed to accommodate. The density for other group residential facilities for the elderly shall relate to the parking provided. Margaret Monroe Attachments: Map of the Trousdale West(TW) zoning district boundaries Map of Subareas of Specific Area Plan, North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, September 2004 Parking Study,Residential Care Facility, 1117-1123 Rhinette Avenue,Richard Hopper,November 1990, excerpt. Monroe letter, August 3, 1998, to John Cimino, regarding adequacy of on-site parking at two group residential facilities for the elderly: 1117-1123 Rhinette Avenue and 1733 California Drive. 3 Trousdale Zoning District Map t • i.■... , .Anii!memo i►ilso i. ivn■.ou1►v.. • -■.r{3 o....uo. 3. n.lun000u.►Vo.. or.on..{.o3■..■►v■. soon n.n.....3■.. ■v.■.ouoo no30...3... pr,o.ouuuo.uuuu•.■. ,or,uoono3uuu.unu.o.. u,1uuuuuo33uun.unuv{. io/u■ouu000.nuuov/.co■, m,on.00uuououunrouco.. • ur.iouuuou.uu...o...uruuuc.u. u n,10 uuouu .{.uu u■►uuu 111. . , in r,1uuoonuu000u►uou.n.:v{. ■ Joan 3u uu{u,1u urunnuouCv.. or uaau oo.ouuuuruu3 uuu o■■nY.mll .. or■uuu.•uu{■uun.unvuuuuuu0•/c n■. h i.rn■ouo.•onunuuuo►vnuomm/v:m. .■ru■■■■u000uuuu//no►vuuuoon►u:u{. o►iS iion offs i. / ,iiiiiiii�iii!!i!iti�iiii!!!!!iiliiii►iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiii. � i■v.uuu►ou000vouo.uuuucv/vuu.o.uuru■. r.o..■..33►1..{.ou.au....00000vnoor-ommu,1{.o{..ucu. 1111 880:5■■u.u{.•ouu.nuu.vonuouuuun.•ui i.■r.■u.uuo■r.vouu..a.■..{.■.n0■■Ln.....{. nouuouv3cio ' ■■/nuoo■ura.ouu.■uauuo.un.ruouuouuo. .•oi / t'In'A.,1..■■/■,1.A.,1►3.■uuu.a.o.0 O...9C.no...3■.pn...I,.6.3.i • • .3.r,..3OOn■►/..n.C.■....3.■■A■n.O o•Ah`onn.0■333n..I,U..Jni ' 7■I..nn..0►I..O.,1..\n..nn.■�..■0000•.{.n.7■0000.■.nn V.■......`..► .`........//■.■■.....\\.■.......•.■...r.�■.■■0.•n..n,1..■..r.■...■■000`0.. ..'....../I,1.■3.n■...�\...■000'0{�ln!I.1.0■■..`.■...■..■■r.■..........`... ' J.■ .'.■. /.......`.....{..r.{.■■..■.../{:■ti .'\■//■......■■.....%\\....[\..\:�..■1■■{■..■:,1....31.•■/..........{0001 • '�►\....{■/•.......!{■,1�`..............{...{/•.■00.00.{.......//.....■I....► .\.....•...■{..•.nu..•uono.,1..{.uu•......`....{0000//..■000%0■■■.■\ •.\......■....I an on ..■30.•.,1033333%..■■■.:........► 31.�11.n 1.•{............•3'i�:......•0000`.,1..,1.n..•.■r..,1 n..r.{■{.■■■./ 1\V•..............'i..■.I,:■{'i■./..■.`........I.......IJ.■0000..' will a /:/....n.r,{...►1{330►I■:,1n......:,1'/....n%...n.■■r 'yr.7Aouluu►�.ovJo..•uuu■o•uuu'.u■uuv ' �.r3o.►uurouvnoovuoo'uourouuor ■.o/ moommor uo/nouuouo.:ur 1�u.r vcvu%uuouunvu► .• . v1v... {.o{ v . r .1■0...{/nn/ v.voo{.o.:..■ n . 10{1.00 ..3 / 1..n3n i1.n33 o1 103■'i..■■:...► • n.•%.....1.l , 103,10 in:uuu►1n.u iv/uuunr . .iuo{vuuur/oo■. /%0.���■.1000\\.n 1,13■n■■■■�. /..■,1r •0000...•3..\!�..0........... `�..■■..■.......I■.{�.■■■\\303■■3..0..0.\ 13.33,1■■...0.1./.3■{9■.3\333.■0moomm 3.33.333\ .: . ■■■■■■.•i{..{■{3301■■■■w•■■■■■■■■■■,1•.■■► •S,i33■...■,1000...1\■:!,..•....3•i{■.3.�3.. 3■■....n ::kmmrw Noonan man MLKdlsommoommemmommunm ,1.■{3031 1Y .n:. 1'J:� 1-].[_/n. 1303■{■■•■...nn\Y:r1.�/:0.r�n..■... , ■..000.3 10000,1%.3a.s n33..\[3►' ..-.3:3... , - 11•{3..V N......13...■,1:.n..■.. , � 1r,■J./%�/....,1'\�i1►\3.3.....0333.► ♦ 33//33.■■0.11 \.`//.3..n.......■■\ , •/■....{.•/.■717'A\.333.3330.3.3'. I .■{0333■'■■■\'333/gin■■3....■■.•.{� NIMM w:.coo■oo.00■, ,�Amqvmsmrmm.,qr. now, 'ooruou.•r ocvnu.uo.u. . / . uuouu L'3uo:.3luou.n 1.■■■■.■■..:.■3■3■■3iii:,1 BI ' a a � ..a� i onF It W!Ulm Al � B 3 f : it gMlil Ii/Illllttt .,. KIM I ._j�' ■,��� LZ ��ji �utn A2 --� pipf[(IIIf(Ilr.0 10 Al. Northern Gateway �� t -��r r_ x•11 -_ � �l..m'r- 3.. � ■'�-- -- _—_—r _�—ice � �— s— =� 1 1., �( IIIA ,u s— —r _y � �.• �Al. A2. Central Rollins Road 11uN:s t _ t ` A4. Adrian Road Auto Row District — SIN CorridorBl. Burlingame Plaza I Un B2. El Camino Real Gateway B3. Mills Penninsula Hospital Block B4. North of Trousdale Drive °• i not indicate the duration of parking by individual vehicles nor is it a measure of parking turnover. The study excluded loading zones. The results of the two day study are contained in the Appendix. The maximum parking occupancy on Wednesday, October 31 , was found to be 63% of the total area surveyed and that occurred at 12 : 30 p.m. The maximum occupancy on Friday, November 2, was 66%, also at 12 : 30 p.m. On Rhinette Ave. itself , the maximum parking occupancy was 78% at - 12: 30 p.m. on Wednesday and 89% at 1 : 30 p.m. on Friday. The check of parking on Thursday evening found no vehicles parked on the south side of Rhinette and the number of vehicles parked on the north side was 12 . On Friday evening there were 10 vehicles parked on the north side of Rhinette and four parked on the south side. Parking on the other surrounding streets was found to be about the same as that of mid-afternoon. X PROJECT PARKING DEMAND There is virtually no parking study data for the type of facility proposed. The facility will be caring for up to 24 non-am- bulatory persons . Such a facility closely approximates a nursing home. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, "Parking Generation, " Second Edition, 1987, a nursing home of this size would have a peak parking demand of 0. 29 spaces per bed (the range being from 0.. 17 to 0. 35 spaces per bed) . A retirement community, according to the ITE publication, would have a peak parking demand of 0. 27 parking spaces per unit in a range of 0.11 to 0. 48 spaces per unit. A check of similar facilities for other recent studies [RKH, "Traffic Study for the Multiple Family Residential District, " San Carlos, 12/12/88, and "Traffic Study for The Stratford," San Mateo, 5/8/891 found the following: Retirement Inns of America, Burlingame 68 units, 28 parking spaces, 18 occupied. - Parking demand = 0.26 spaces per unit. Green Hills, Millbrae 160 units, 54 parking spaces, 46 occupied. Parking demand = 0. 29 spaces per unit. Chenate of Santa Rosa 120 units, 40 parking spaces. Parking supply = 0. 33 spaces per unit. 4 ' It would appear that the proposed care facility will have a parking demand equal to or less than the facilities described ' above. The residents of the facility will not have vehicles to drive as they will be non-ambulatory. The parking demand will come from visitors and staff persons. Assuming a conservative parking demand of 0.3 spaces per bed and assuming that the peak demand would not be more than 85% of supply, the supply of parking should be on the order of eight or nine parking spaces. (0.3*24/0.85=8.47] The developer is providing eight on-site parking spaces. Because the peak parking demand on the surrounding streets is less than 70% of supply during the peak parking time of the day, it appears that any probable overflow of parking from this facility can easily be accommodated. City Lot "S" at the corner of Rhinette and California is grossly underutilized and could easily accom- modate overflow parking from this facility. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The estimated peak parking demand of the facility is on the order of the eight spaces proposed to be provided. However, any overflow of parking from the facility can be easily accommodated in Lot "S" or on the surrounding streets without causing a parking problem. Because the facility can accommodate virtually all of its ex- pected peak parking demand on site and any overflow can be easily accommodated in the adjacent public Lot "S" or other public street parking facilities, there are no recommendations to mitig- ate the expected parking demands of the residential care facil- ity. Q�04ESSlONq X40 P�0 K. RICHARD K. H P R, P.E. No.1425 a Q- �fglE OF CA_ -W44 5A CITY BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall- 501 Prhwose Road Planning Deparawnt Burlingame, California 94010-3997 Tel. (650) 6%-7200 August 3, 1998 Mr. John Cimino Cimino Holdings, Inc. 1268 Balboa Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 Dear Mr. Cimino, In response to your letter of July 28, 1998, 1 have checked the city files and find: That the city approved construction of a 24 bed residential care facility with eight on site parking spaces at 1117-1123 Rhinette Avenue on January 8, 1991. The property is zoned R-3 Multiple Family Residential and your project, which required a conditional use permit, was an infill in this established neighborhood of apartment buildings near the Broadway Commercial Area. I note in reviewing my file that there were no complaints by neighbors during construction; nor have there been any complaints about the operation since it has been open. As I recall at the time of approval there was some concern about how the parking demand would work out. The parking seems to have worked well, since we have received no complaints from the neighbors, nor have we received in the Planning Department any other kind of complaint regarding this operation. That the city approved construction on November 21, 1994, of a 48-bed group residential care facility for the elderly at 1733 California Drive, zoned C-1 (commercial) with an R-4 (multiple family residential) over lay. The project included 16 parking spaces. This project is immediately adjacent to a new multiple family residential condominium project any several existing mid-rise office buildings. The Planning Department received no complaints about the project during construction, nor do have we any complaints of any kind on record since occupancy. I hope that this addresses your concerns. Sincerely you , Marggar�t onro Zz_ City Planner CITY ,-A CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUk"9 ME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 s TEL:(650)558-7250 • FAX:(650)696-3790 m www.burlingame.org NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CLARIFY ZONING REGULATIONS The City of Burlingame Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING will hold a public hearing on Monday, September 12, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the City NOTICE Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame to consider zoning regulations for convalescent and group residential facilities for the elderly in the Trousdale West zoning district to implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan adopted in September 2004. Mailed: September 2, 2005 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applic J an 4 �(hts�pro�ect iay be reviewed prior to the meetin l grt� OPrimrose Road, Burlingame, C � w � r If you challe e the u Ili , ytu may be limited to raising only �s� e rle e shit —9111b"p ublic hearing, described in h e rit �se Pe twered to the city at or prior to he pu c fearing. Property, ow rs z ��� �'e responsible i"or informing their tenants bout tse t iio al info r ati please call (650) 558-7 0. 'I " Margaret Mo �0 City Planner 4.x PUBS CE (Please refer to other side) I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.40 TO MAKE GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES FOR 3 THE ELDERLY A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE TROUSDALE WEST (TW) DISTRICT AND MODIFYING THE MARCO POLO WAY OVERLAY RESTRICTIONS TO 4 DELETE THE PARCEL ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TROUSDALE DRIVE 5 6 Section 1. In developing the standards for the Trousdale West District, the City is 7 establishing density standards for various uses. However,because of the various types of group 8 residential facilities for the elderly that can be developed, it does not appear reasonable to 9 establish a density standard for such faciltiies, except for convalescent care facilities. Therefore, 10 this ordinance provides a conditional use process that will evaluate applications on an individual 11 basis to ensure that parking and density is consistent with the specific location and type of 12 operation proposed. 13 In addition, the description of the residentially restricted area along Marco Polo Way 14 inadvertently included the parcel on the southeast corner of Marco Polo Way and Trousdale 15 Drive. This parcel is included in the mixed office-residential area of the North 16 Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and is removed by this ordinance from being limited to 17 residential only. 18 19 Section 2. Section 25.40.020 is amended to read as follows: 20 25.40.020 Permitted uses. 21 The following uses are permitted in the TW district: 22 (a) Multifamily dwellings in one or more buildings; 23 (b) Office uses, including health services, but not including financial institutions; 24 (c) , ' , 25 ---(d)-Multifamily dwellings and office uses as permitted under subsection (b) above in 26 mixed use buildings, if the office uses are located on the first and second floors only; 27 (d) Accessory structures or uses supportive of residential uses, including greenhouses, 28 lath houses, trellises, sheds, swimming pools, an accessory buildings to serve such swimming 9/27/2005 1 1 pools,but not including group pools of swimming pool clubs; these accessory structures or uses 2 shall be located on the same lot as the residential use being supported; 3 (e) Convents and parish houses. 4 5 Section 3. Section 25.40.025 is amended to read as follows: 6 25.40.025 Conditional uses. 7 The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit: 8 (a) Financial institutions with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; 9 (b) Public utility and public service structures or installations when found by the 10 commission to be necessary for the public health, safety, convenience and welfare including 11 transformer boxes; 12 (c) Extended stay hotels; 13 (d) Group residential facilities for the elderly,including convalescent facilities, 14 (e) Any structure that is more than thirty-five (35) feet in height; 15 (f)Lot coverage over fifty(50)percent,but only if additional, usable common open space 16 generally equivalent to the square footage of excess lot coverage is provided on-site in such areas 17 as roof gardens and courtyards. 18 19 Section 4. A new subsection 25.40.050(c)(4) is added as follows: 20 (4) Group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent homes: Group 21 residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent homes shall have no maximum floor area 22 ratio. Convalescent homes shall have a maximum density of sixty(60)beds to the acre based on 23 the number of persons the rooms are designed to accommodate. The density for other group 24 residential facilities for the elderly shall relate to the parking provided. 25 26 Section 5. Section 25.40.035 is amended to read as follows: 27 25.40.035 Uses on properties with frontage on Marco Polo Way. 28 Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the following specific provisions 9/27/2005 2 I. I shall apply to lots with any frontage on Marco Polo Way north of Clarice Lane: 2 (a) Permitted uses. Only multifamily residential uses, including group residential 3 facilities for the elderly and convalescent facilities, shall be a permitted use. 4 (b) Conditional uses. 5 (1) All uses allowed in section 25.40.025 above except extended stay hotels and financial 6 institutions shall be allowed with a conditional use permit; and 7 (2) In addition, day care facilities to support employees and residents in the area shall be 8 allowed with a conditional use permit; and 9 (3) In addition, schools that serve the needs of health-challenged or disabled persons shall 10 be allowed with a conditional use permit. 11 (c) Prohibited uses. Uses not listed as permitted or conditional in this section shall be 12 prohibited, including but not limited to the uses listed in section 25.40.030 above. 13 (d), Exception. ,The provisions of this section do not apply to any parcel that is located on 14 the southeast coater of Marco Polo UUay and Trousdale Drive with continuous frontage on both 15 Marco Polo Way and Trousdale Drive. Instead, such a parcel'is governed by the general use 16 provisions of the Trousdale Nest district. 17 18 Section 6. This ordinance shall be published according to law. 19 20 Mayor 21 22 23 I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 24 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day of , 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council 25 held on the day of , 2005, by the following vote: 26 27 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 28 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 9/27/2005 3 1 City Clerk 2 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\trousdalewestelderly.ord.wpd 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9/27/2005 4 �Ty STAFF REPORT 4,1 BYRUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9a '�o9p MTG. �AATEO JunEb DATE 10/3/2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BYliG DATE: September 21,2005 APPROVED ,--.o��W FROM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk BY 650-558-7203 ,f SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DECLARING OCTOBER 7, 2005, CALIFORNIA ARTS DAY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council adopt the resolution declaring October 7, 2005, as California Arts Day in recognition and support of the California Arts Council whose mission it is to advance California through the arts and creativity. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME IN RECOGNITION AND SUPPORT OF CALIFORNIA ARTS DAY, OCTOBER 7, 2005 RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, the Arts have tremendous educational value, community value, economic value, and the uniquely American value of the pursuit of happiness; and WHEREAS, children learn critical-thinking skills and improve focus when provided a solid foundation in the Arts; and WHEREAS, participation in the Arts offers engaging, constructive and safe environments for young people during the non-school hours when they are most vulnerable to community violence and gang recruitment; and WHEREAS, the Arts build cultural bridges, contribute towards cross-cultural understanding, strengthen the association between identity and citizenship,preserve the traditions and contributions of its citizens, and enhance the qualify of life; and WHEREAS, industries and businesses locate themselves in communities that are the centers of creativity; and WHEREAS, the nonprofit arts and cultural organizations generate $5.4 billion to the state's economy, create over 160,000 jobs and contribute $300 million in state and local tax revenue; and WHEREAS, arts and culture tourists account for one out of every four dollars spent in the tourism industry, providing a key component to economic development at the local level; and WHEREAS, theaters and cultural centers draw citizens to commercial hubs and urban centers; serve as homes to local music, theater, dance and other performing arts companies; provide sought-after cultural services, especially for children; and often provide a community identity through architecture; and WHEREAS, Public Art projects are elements of civic pride and help define and formulate responses to social, economic and cultural issues faced by citizens, NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOGNIZES AND SUPPORTS THE MISSION OF THE CALIFORNIA ARTS COUNCIL TO ADVANCE CALIFORNIA THROUGH THE ARTS AND CREATIVITY BY DECLARING OCTOBER 7, 2005, CALIFORNIA ARTS DAY. Mayor I, DORIS J. 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 3' day of October, 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk California Arts Day Ideas for California Cities . . .From the Simple to the Sublime . . . • Resolutions. Endorse a City Council resolution recognizing the value of the arts and supporting California Arts Day in your community as it is celebrated throughout the state. A sample resolution is available on the California Arts Council website. • Editorials. Write an editorial on the value of the arts for your local newspapers and endorse it as a City Council. • Council Meetings. Invite a local children's choir to sing a song after the pledge of allegiance at the opening of a City Council meeting in early October. • Recognition. Have the City Council or a local official make a presentation recognizing someone in your city who is a strong supporter of the arts. • Newsletters. Highlight the arts offerings of your Community Services Department and/or the Civic Arts Commission in the October issue of the Community Services bulletin distributed to local residents. Include the Arts Dav logos in this publication. • Events. Encourage your Community Services Department and local arts groups to label their arts events that take place on or around October 7 as "Arts Day" events, and to check the California Arts Council's website for more ideas. • Information. Distribute information about the value of the arts to your community and its residents —flyers, website information, etc. For more on California Arts Day, October 7, 2005, go to: www.cac.ca.pov/?id=117 ta ww�c.ca.gav California Arts Council www.cac.ca.gov SAMPLE RESOLUTION in recognition and support of ✓ California Arts Day, October 7, 2005 WHEREAS, the Arts have tremendous educational value, community value, economic value, and the uniquely American value of the pursuit of happiness; WHEREAS, children learn critical-thinking skills and improve focus when provided a solid foundation in the Arts; WHEREAS, participation in the Arts offers engaging, constructive and safe environments for young people during the non-school hours when they are most vulnerable to community violence and gang recruitment; WHEREAS, the Arts build cultural bridges, contribute towards cross-cultural understanding, strengthen the association between identity and citizenship, preserve the traditions and contributions of its citizens, and enhance the quality of life; WHEREAS, industries and businesses locate themselves in communities that are the centers of creativity; WHEREAS, the nonprofit arts and cultural organizations generate $5.4 billion to the state's economy, create over 160,000 jobs and contribute $300 million in state and local tax revenue; WHEREAS, arts and culture tourists account for one out of every four dollars spent in the tourism industry, providing a key component to economic development at the local level; WHEREAS, theaters and cultural centers draw citizens to commercial hubs and urban centers; serve as homes to local music, theater, dance and other performing arts companies; provide sought-after cultural servicers, especially for children; and often provide a community identity through architecture; WHEREAS, Public Art projects are elements of civic pride and help define and formulate responses to social, economic and cultural issues faced by citizens; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT THE CITY OF RECOGNIZES AND SUPPORTS THE MISSION OF THE CALIFORNIA ARTS COUNCIL TO ADVANCE CALIFORNIA THROUGH THE ARTS AND CREATIVITY BY DECLARING OCTOBER 7, 2005 CALIFORNIA ARTS DAY. Mayor Date City of CITYSTAFF REPORT E34iRLINGAME AGENDA .t ITEM# 9b 9 � MTG. 10/3/05 DATE DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suBMTED BY LA DATE: September 24, 2005 APPROVE FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: BAYSIDE BALLFIELD LIGHTING PROJECT#81060 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution accepting REPUBLIC ELECTRIC, as the low responsible bidder on this project. BACKGROUND: $150,000 has been appropriated for the removal of the old and inadequate wiring and lighting system on Bayside Field#1. On September 16, three bids were opened for this project. REPUBLIC ELECTRIC'S bid was $149,805, and is $200.00 less than the next lowest bid submitted by R.A.N. Electric. DESCRIPTION The work shall consist of the following: 1. Removal and new replacement of the lighting fixtures, cross bracing, conduit, pull boxes and wiring for eight (8) existing sport lighting structures 2. Removal and new replacement of ballast units for two (2) existing walkway lighting structures. Attachment: Resolution Bid Results RESOLUTION NO. AWARDING CONTRACT - BAYSIDE BALLFIELD LIGHTING PROJECT# 81060 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME, that; WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for bids for the BAYSIDE BALLFIELD LIGHTING PROJECT -#81060, and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2005, all bids received were opened before the Parks and Recreation Director, Recreation Supervisor, and the Administrative Secretary of the Parks Division; and WHEREAS, REPUBLIC ELECTRIC., submitted the lowest bid for the job in the amount of$149,805; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the bid of REPUBLIC ELECTRIC for said amount of$149,805, be and the same is hereby accepted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager be, and he hereby is authorized for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor and materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Mayor I, Doris Mortensen, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of October, 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK BAYSIDE BALLFIELD LIGHTING PROJECT #81060 Bid Opening—September 16 @ 2:00 pm Republic Electric $149,805 R.A.N. Electric $150,005 Tennyson Electric $367,200 fL��1 BURl.1 !9m AGENDA STAFF REPORT9b ITEM# MTG. 6/16/03 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: June 5, 2003 BY APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND NAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSES - RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS A AND B, BLOCK 5, BURLINGAME LAND CO. - 512-516 PRIMROSE ROAD - PM 02-07 RECOMMENDATION: If Council approves the condominium project, the Tentative Map and Tentative and Final Parcel Map should be approved at the same time with the following conditions: • A lot combination map shall be filed prior to issuance of the Building Permit. At least one house must be demolished. All sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be replaced with new. • All conditions attached to the condominium permit shall be met. • The conditions, covenants and restrictions for the map shall be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approved conditions and City Codes. BACKGROUND: Staff has reviewed this map along with the Condominium Permit. All conditions of the Condominium Permit are included in the Planning Commission memo dated January 13, 2003. !Staff recommends that Council approve this application. The Lot Combination Map should be considered as both the Tentative and Final Parcel Map to facilitate processing. Staff will see that the proper map is recorded. EXHIBITS: Map, Staff Report, Minutes Donald Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer c: City Clerk, Applicant sAapublimorkAstaff report\02.07.stf.wpd CITY 0 .t BUW.INGAME o• ceras.wwa•' of Burlingame The City CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TQC(650)558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURL NGAME.CALIFORNIA 94010.3997 FAY (650)696-3790 January 22,2003 Denham LLC 851 Burlway Road#610 Burlingame CA 94010 Dear Sir or Madam, Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the January 13, 2003 Planning Commission approval of your application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration,a condominium permit,a conditional use permit and a variance became effective January 22,2003. This application was to allow for a new, 8-unit residential condominium building at 512-516 Primrose Road,zoned R-3. The January 13,2003 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 4,2002,sheets A-01 through A-17 and Irl and U2;with 2,035 SF ofcommon open space at the rear of the property and a front setback of 23'-4"to the face of the building; 2. that the maximum elevation at the top of the decorative portion of the parapet shall not exceed elevation 71.52' for a maximum hei t of 47`-4" and the highest ghest top of roof elevation shall not __ exceed 67.43'for a maximum height of 43-8",as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Primrose Road (24.21), and that the top of each floor, the top of roof and the maximum height of the parapet shall be surveyed floor by floor and approved at each step by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 15.41; first floor finished floor shall be elevation 25.43';second floor finished floor shall be elevation 35.43';third floor finished floor shall Mitigated Negative Declaration;Condominium 512-516 Primrose Road Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Front Landscaping Variance be elevation 45.43';and the fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 55.43. Should any framing exceed the stated elevations at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof and parapets shall not exceed the maximum heights shown on the approved Ply; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure,replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to Planning Commission review 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 6,2002 memo,the Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's July 8,2002 memos,and the City Arborist's August 5, 2002 memo, shall be met; 5. that the applicant shall submit and have approval of the City Engineer of a construction staging and parking plan prior to issuance of a building permit; 6. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 7. that `guest parking stall' shall be marked on the four guest parking spaces in the below-grade parking garage and designated on the final map and plans,these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit,but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association,and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; 8. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions(CC&Rs)for the condominium project shall require that the guest parking stall shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 9. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 10. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and, address of all contractors who performed work on the project,copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and 11. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be located and maintained in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 12. that the security gate system across the driveway,shall be installed a minimum 24'-3"back from Mitigated Negative Declaration;Condominium 512-516 Primrose Road Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Front Landscaping Variance the front property line and shall provide a minimum opening of 10'-0'; the security gate system shall include an intercom, located at the top of the slope for the driveway,and connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property comers, set the building envelope; 14.- that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs(Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 15. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 16. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps,silt fences, straw bale dikes,storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 17. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way,clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 18. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting,maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbedsoils throughout temporary or permanent seeding,mulching matting,or tarping;rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials,fuels and other chemicals; 19. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off,promote surface filtration and,,, u ze the use of fertilizers,.lzerbicidea and pesticides; 20. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs, shall be routed through buffer strips where possible and shall be fltered through fossil filters or other petroleum absorbent system inserted into stormwater inlets prior to discharge into the storm drain system;the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining all filters on at least a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season(October 15—April 1)or as Mitigated Negative Declaration;Condominium 312-516 Primrose Road Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Front Landscaping Variance required by the City upon inspection; 21. that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program,and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 22. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 23. that complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 24. that an irrigation plan consistent with the City's water conservation guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit; 25. that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 26. that before a building permit is issued for the project, the applicant shall perform a study and capacity analysis of the existing sanitary sewer system to analyze the impact of the proposed project to the existing collection and processing system. The study shall include all the existing flows and proposed flows,the capacity of the.system using the peak factors governing the existing conditions, increase in BOD/TSS (Biological Oxygen Demand/Total Suspended Solids) due to the project volumes, and mitigation of impact to the system; 27. that the developer shall pay(proportional share) for the installation of any necessary sewer line improvements. If the developer does not install the new line himself he shall be required to pay for the development's portion of the installation cost. If the City Engineer determines that the pipe will not be installed at the time of development,the developer shall make a cash deposit to the City for a portion of the estimated cost prior to issuance of a building permit for his construction. The City :shall use this deposit at the time of the pipe installation for this development's share of the cost; 28. that all new utility connections to serve the site,and which are affected by the development,shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer's expense if necessary; L = 29: that all utilities to this site"shallbe=installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 30. that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; Mitigated Negative Declaration;Condominium 512-516 Primrose Road Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Front Landscaping Variance 31. that all drainage(including water from the below grade parking garage)on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to Primrose Road; 32. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects(.e.,dual pumps,controls,level sensors,etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise requirement; _. . 33 that the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition,including seismic standards,as amended by the City of Burlingame,for structural stability and other related items; 34. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. All requirements of the permit shall be complied with; 35. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; 36. that the applicant shall apply for and receive approval for a Protected Tree Removal Permit for the Bailey Acacia at the rear of the property,and the elm and poplar trees on site before the trees are removed and before the commencement of any demolition or construction on site; 37. that there shall no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays; 38. that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code;these hours are between 7.00 am. and 7:00 p.m.on weekdays and 9:00 am. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. There shall be no construction on holidays; 39. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 40, that all new utility connections to serve the site,and which are affected by the development,shall Imo� -tT _ -��t _ atyQdetandards an4 oagop*oes:of t_he collection%and d str�buhon - systems""shall be mereased ar the developer's dxpen"se-i€necessary; 41. that the new sewer laterals from the two lots developed with the current application to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards-as required by the development; 42. that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; Mitigated Negative Declaration;Condominium 512-516 Primrose Road Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Front Landscaping Variance 43. that the shall submit the"Recycling and Waste Reduction"form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the applicant shall be required to implement this plan; 44. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet_National.Pollution II scharge Elimination System.(NPAES}standards as adopted by the - City of Burlingame; 45. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 48. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 46. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction,work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 47. that the applicant shall file a tentative parcel map for condominiums and a tentative lot merger map with the Public Works Department before the Planning Commission action hearing on the proposed project; 48. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,City of Burlingame Storm Water management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 49. that the applicant shall comply with all tree-protection measures outlined in the Certified ArborisVs report date stamped July 3, 2002; including fencing around the trees around their drip line and deep root fertilizing for the trees and longer-term maintenance;and that the condominium association shall be responsible in an on-going and on a regular basis for the maintenance and annual inspection of the street trees and of the on-site improvements and landscaping designed for the protection of the street trees as determined by the City Arborist; 50. that the semi-circle driveway at the front of the property shall be a pervious material, such as concrete pavers set in sand; and ' '' � 1ecUons-for the dtation demolition and-.1.-,---, - -connietiant�site to rpt the fithprotectron ol'the three Elrn trees in the City right- of-way. All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This approval is valid for two years during which time a building permit must be issued. Generally,an extension of up to three years maybe considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before Mitigated Negative Declaration;Condominium 512-516 Primrose Road Permit,-Conditional Use Permit and Front Landscaping Variance the end of the second year,in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act for a Tentative Map. The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If you wish to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction,you must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law. Margaret Monroe City Planner EL\.s 512-6PRIM.cca C. Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (LOT A BLOCK 5 BURLINGAME LAND CO MAP NO 2 RSM D/38;APN: 029-132-230)and (LOT B BLOCK 5.BURLINGAME LAND CO MAP NO 2 RSM D/38; APN: 029-132-240) f - - *'� ."a� i -,:- �,.,F,..••r �.�• IN 2-J- _ BUR STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM# l la MAG. DATE 10/3/05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sus TED By DATE: September 24, 2005 APPRO FROM: Parks & Recreation Director(558-7307) BY SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION ON POTENTIAL SHARED REC ATION SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE CITY OF MILLBRAE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review the satff report, receive public comment relative City Manager's recommendation to move forward on a shared recreation services agreement between the Cities of Burlingame and Millbrae and provide direction to staff on whether to continue to pursue a recreation merger. BACKGROUND: In January 2003, the City of Millbrae approached Burlingame with a proposal to share the services of the Parks&Recreation Director on a temporary basis, due to the retirement of the Millbrae Director. It was anticipated that this arrangement would last six to nine months, giving time to hire a new Millbrae City Administrator and for the Cities to decide upon a permanent and long-term plan for the two Parks &Recreation Departments. Since February 2003, the staffs, commissions, Councils and the public of each City have been asked to discuss the pros and cons of a permanent merger of the two Departments. This topic has been agendized at numerous Parks&Recreation Commission meetings in each City for public discussion and at two meetings of a committee comprised of two Council members from each City(Burlingame: Galligan, O'Mahony; Millbrae: Hershman, Quigg). Staff members have also met several times over the past 30 months to give input. Notes from most of these meetings are attached to this staff report. Most recently, Burlingame City Manager, Jim Nantell, discussed the concept of Shared Services at the September 19, 2005 Burlingame City Council meeting and the Burlingame Parks &Recreation Commission voted 7-0 that"merging Burlingame and Millbrae Recreation Departments would be beneficial to Burlingame". At the Council Committee's second meeting, held on June 7, 2005, it was decided that each City would conduct a study session on the topic within the next two months. Because of vacation schedules and other business before the Councils, these study sessions were delayed. On October 3rd, the Burlingame City Council is scheduled to conduct a study session; the Millbrae City Council is scheduled to do likewise on October l ld'. BUDGET IMPACT: No budget impact is associated with this study session, however there will be financial implications to the Recreation Budgets of each City whenever a permanent operating model is decided upon. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Organizational Chart of a merged Burlingame and Millbrae Recreation Department— June 19, 2005 B. Description of Potential Efficiencies of a Merged Recreation Department C. Comparison of Burlingame and Millbrae Recreation Divisions—Based upon 2005-06 Budgets D. Examples of Methods to Determine Administrative Fee E. Facilities Used for Burlingame Recreation Programs and Millbrae Recreation Programs F. Draft Agreement for Community Recreation Services Between the City of Burlingame and the City of Millbrae G. Joint Meeting Between the Burlingame and Millbrae City Council Committees on Shared Services—Minutes June 7, 2005 H. Agreement Points for Shared Recreation Services Between the Cities of Burlingame and Millbrae—May 24, 2005 Draft I. Notes from Burlingame Recreation Staff Meeting on Shared Services with Millbrae-May 18, 2005 J. Notes from the Cities of Millbrae and Burlingame Parks and Recreation Commission Joint Meeting—Tuesday, May 17, 2005 K. Notes from the Millbrae Staff Meeting on Shared Services with Burlingame—May 12, 2005 L. Notes from the Millbrae Parks &Recreation Commission Meeting(April 19, 2005) and the Burlingame Parks &Recreation Commission meeting(April 21, 2005) M. Notes from the Joint Staff Meeting of the Millbrae and Burlingame Recreation Divisions— Support Staff(April 12, 2005); Program Staff(April 13, 2005) N. Long-Term Plan for the Burlingame and Millbrae Parks &Recreation Departments—City Council Committee Meeting, March 23, 2005 O. March 16, 2005 Report on the Potential Merger of the Burlingame and Millbrae Parks & Recreation Departments P. Notes from the Meeting of the Burlingame and Millbrae Recreation Supervisors/Managers— November 16, 2004 Q. Examination of Potential Merger(Recreation Supervisors/Managers Meeting Notes)—2003 R. Notes from the Front Office Staff Meeting Notes—2003 S. Notes from Parks Administration Meeting on Shared Services—December 3, 2003 T. Memorandum from Randy Schwartz to Burlingame &Millbrae Parks &Recreation Staff, Parks &Recreation Commissioners, Beautification Commissioners and Community Preservation Commissioners—June 29, 2003 U. January 11, 2003 Staff Report on Proposal for Shared Parks and Recreation Director Services Between the Cities of Burlingame and Millbrae V. Joint Pewaukee Park and Recreation Department—May 2002 Case Study of Merged Recreation Departments Burlingame and Millbrae Recreation Department Draft Organizational Chart - - June 19, 2005 U Director of Parks& Recreation Burlingame Parks Division BaM City Councils BaM Department Head Teams Burlingame and Millbrae Recreation BaM Parks&Recreation Commissions BaM Community Organizations Recreation Superintendent Division Goal Setting Division Operations Weekend/Eve. Staffing Scholarship Program Division budget prep. Front Office Staff Facility Maintenance Plan Session Schedules P-T salary schedule Burl Facility Rentals Registration Computers 5 Recreation Supervisors or Managers Recreation programming Supervise Coordinators&part-time staff Assist with Recreation Administration (Budgeting,policies,procedures, etc) 3 Recreation Coordinators Recreation programming(1 or 2 program areas) Supervise part-time staff/volunteers Front Office Staff Admin. Assistant Sr. Typist Clerk Rec Division Sect 2 P-T Typist Clerks Attachrnmt`B" Efficiencies(Approximate Annual Hours of Savings per Program Area) Program Current Projected Description of Potential Savings Area #of Hours Hours of Savings Administration 400-800 Preparation of one budget instead of two;combined brochures(3 per ear, a ment to sports associations,etc. Facilities 0 Each city to maintain own facilities Rentals/Sales 40-60 Sharing of ticket sales(Great America,Marine World,etc)without having to process checks between cities Preschool 040 Each program to continue as is until efficiencies can be found;some shared purchasing Youth Programs 20-60 Shared instructors(advertising,contracts,payments,etc)-sports leagues to remain separate initial) Teen Programs 40-60 One person to schedule teen trips Senior Citizens 0-40 Each program to continue as is until efficiencies can be found-some shared trips and advertising Youth/Adult 40-80 Shared instructors(advertising,contracts,payments,etc) Classes Adults Sports 60-90 One person to schedule adult sports leagues-eliminates some duplication with officials,statistician Aquatics 0 Only one program currently exists-will be able to better promote program Special Events 0-30 Very few programs will be combined initially-ability to advertise to larger area 600-1260 Examples of Using Efficiencies to Improve Programs Projected Savings Use of Staff Time Examole(s) Administration 300 hours Create New Events Cherry Blossom Festival 200 hours New Classes New Preschool classes Adult Sports 80 hours Improve other areas Coaching clinics for youth sports Teen Programs 50 hours Improve same area Annual joint YAC planning events More afterschool activities Attachment Comparison of Burlingame and Millbrae Recreation Divisions Based upon 2005-06 Budgets Burlingame Millbrae Combined Expenses 2,882,595 11032, 168 3,914,763 Revenues 1 ,808,600 667,026 2,475,626 Net (1 ,073,995) (365,142) (1 ,439,137) Cost Recovery for Each Agency 62.74% 64.62% Cost Recovery of Combined Expenses 46.20% 17.04% 63.24%. % of Combined Expenses 73.63% 26:37% of Combined Revenues 73.06% 26.94°l0 Papuiations 28,000- 22,000 50,000 % of combined population 56.00% 44.00% Populations 42,000 22,000 64,000 Burlin ame combined w/ Hillsborough) . 65.63% 34.38°l0 Class Registered Participants (2004) 16,111 6,132 22,243 72.43% 27.57% Class Registered Participants per Capita 57.54% 27.87% (Burlingame wl Hillsborouh) 38.36% Q a Administrative Fee Calculations Under a shared operation,the City of Burlingame will be responsible for the Recreation Division's administrative services,including but not limited to Finance,Human Resources,City Attorney. In order to compensate Burlingame for these services,an administrative fee will be paid by the City of Millbrae. This fee is not intended to include payment towards the Recreation Director or other Parks&Recreation Staff. Total Recreation Division expenses(fy 05-06) 1,032,168 less salaries/benefits-Regular employees(still to be paid by Millbrae) 391,000 less expenses for Bldg maintenance(still to be paid by Millbrae) 88,537 less other expenses still to be paid directly by Millbrae Net expenses to be paid by Burlingame 552,631 Agreed upon percentage(administrative fee) 15% Total Administrative Fee 82,895 Agreed upon percentage(administrative fee) 10% Total Administrative Fee 55,263 Agreed upon percentage(administrative fee) 7.5% Total Administrative Fee 41,447 BUR AGENDA STAFF REPORT ITEM� 9b MTG. 6/16/03 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: June 5, 2003 BY APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND NAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSES - RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS A AND B, BLOCK 5, BURLINGAME LAND CO. - 512-516 PRIMROSE ROAD - PM 02-07 RECOMMENDATION: If Council approves the condominium project, the Tentative Map and Tentative and Final Parcel Map should be approved at the same time with the following conditions: • A lot combination map shall be filed prior to issuance of the Building Permit. At least one house must be demolished. • All sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be replaced with new. • All conditions attached to the condominium permit shall be met. • The conditions, covenants and restrictions for the map shall be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approved conditions and City Codes. BACKGROUND: Staff has reviewed this map along with the Condominium Permit. All conditions of the Condominium Permit are included in the Planning Commission memo dated January 13, 2003. 'Staff recommends that Council approve this application. The Lot Combination Map should be considered as both the Tentative and Final Parcel Map to facilitate processing. Staff will see that the proper map is recorded. EXHIBITS: Map, Staff Report, Minutes Donald Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer c: City Clerk, Applicant s:\apubticworks\staff report\02.07.stf.wpd Facilities Used for Burligame Recreation Programs Facilities Used for Millbrae Recreation Programs W Classes Classes Facilities Size &Hours Types of Rentals Facilities Size &Hours Types of Rentals Ca acit er Week Ca acit er Week Auditorium 71'x50' 21 Receptions,baptism parties, Assembly Room 63x43 18 Fitness classes,Martial birthday parties, arts,Dance classes,Music 250/485 30 seminars/meetings,church 200 shows services,memorial services, recitals,school testing Lounge 2 47'x27' 16 Receptions,baptism parties, Game Room 29x40 11 Morning camp,Martial arts, birthday parties Dance classes,Sign language classes, 75 seminars/meetings,church 50 classes,Sign language services,memorial classes,Church services, Srhnol testing services,recitals,BHS Organization meetings banquets,testing Social Hall 34'x32' 27 Birthday parties, Tiny Tot Room 2421' 9 Summer ramp,Art classes, seminars/meetings,church Musical instrument lessons 70 services 25 Art Room 33'x33' 21 Birthday parties, D 18x34' 7 Martial arts,Dance classes, seminars/meetings,church Art classes,Church 60 services 25 Services Lounge 1 35'x27' 20 Receptions,baptism parties, F 18x34' 10 Martial arts,Art classes, birthday parties Meetings,Brown Bag, 50 seminars/meetings,church 25 Church Services services,memorial services,recitals,BHS ban nets,school testin Ceramics Room 39'x23' 15 seminars/meetings F 18x34' 10 Martial arts, Dance classes, Art classes, Meetings/Seminars, 50 25 Brown Bag, Church Services Teen Room 8 seminars/meetings A 17x18' 8 Summer camp, Academic school, Painting/art classes, Workshops, 20 20 Dance classes, Movie Day Studio B 15'x23' 32 seminars/meetings B 16x18' 9 Summer camp, Martial Arts, Summer school, Art classes, 20 20 Dance classes, Meetings, Movie Da Conference Room 27'x15' 23 seminars/meetings C 17x18' 7 Summer school, Martial arts, Art classes, Meetings, Movie day 15 20 Dance Studio 12 dance lessons/rehearsals Taylor Middle School Gymnasium 5 Summer camp Village Park 27 Youth sports camps, Adult 2 classrooms 6 Preschool and Palersize Sport leagues Aquatic Center sessions #enrolled Library 68 888 Parent/Tot&Tiny Tot Room A 7 Meetings/Seminars 224 934 Learn to Swim Room B 5 Meetings/Seminars, Math class 25 130 Diving/Lifeguarding 112 301 Semi-Private& Private Chetcuti 8 Meetings/Seminars, Tuesda Brid e 40 204 Adult Classes Franklin School 9 Enrichment classes, sports camps 6 Elements Sorts Lincoln School 4 Summer Rec Camp 3 Enrichment classes 6 Elementary Sorts McKinley School 4 Enrichment classes 6 Elementaa Sorts Roosevelt School 5 Enrichment Classes 6 ElementaEy Sorts Washington School 5 Enrichment classes 6 Elementary Sorts Washington Park 2 Enrichment Classes 6 Sport Camps 6 Elementary Sports 9 Tennis Classes IRay Park 1 Baseball Cam Ba side Park 1 Baseball Cam Villa e Park 2 Soccer Camps BIS Classrooms 3 Teen/Jr. Teen Enrichment Classes BIS Gyms/Fields 25 BIS Sports ED 4 Summer Basketball League BHS Gyms/Fields 23 Sports Camps/Classes 1 Tennis Camp 2 Track Camps BHS Classrooms 1 Senior Computers Soccer Center/Golf Center 1 MLS Soccer Camps 6 Golf Classes/Cam s Attachment "F" AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNITY RECREATION SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE CITY OF MILLBRAE THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of , 20055 by and between the CITY OF BI3RLINGAME, a general law city and municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter called "Burlingame") and the CITY OF MILLBRAE, a general law city and municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (hereinafter called "Millbrae"), W 1 T N E S S E T 11: WHEREAS, the parties hereto are public corporations or entities organized and operating under the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto provide certain services to their residents and taxpayers which includes programs relative to recreational activities; and WHEREAS, both cities have shared the services of a Director of Parks and Recreation since February of 2003; and WHEREAS, both Burlingame and Millbrae strive to continue serving the public interest as efficiently as possible; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual terms, covenants, and conditions contained herein, said parties acting by and through their respective governing and legislative bodies, do hereby mutually covenant, promise, and agree pursuant to the authorization hereinabove referred to as follows: I Scone and Term of Services A. This Agreement will take effect on (Date) and will terminate on (Date) , unless sooner terminated as hereinafter provided. At the expiration of such term, this agreement shall be automatically extended for additional terms of three (3) years, unless either Burlingame or Millbrae provides written notice to the other at least six (b) months before the end of the term of this Agreement that they wish to review or terminate this agreement. 1 Sent 29 2005 Draft B. Burlingame shall be responsible to conduct recreational programs for the residents and guests of each city, including but not limited to providing joint department administration; scheduling, advertising and conducting recreational programs; legal and financial support; collection of revenues; purchase and maintain supplies and equipment for programs and program administration. II Burlingame's Responsibilities Burlingame shall be obligated to perform only the following: A. Provide Recreation Director who will assign and supervise Department personnel B. Integrate and assign Millbrae regular stag' and allow Millbrae state to compete for promotional opportunities C. Provide administrative support for recreation services, including financial, legal, and Human Resources functions. D. Pay for all program costs, including office supplies, equipment, uniforms, program staff, contractors, etc. E. Collect for deposit all revenues from grants, program fees, donations, facility rentals, etc. F. Prepare annual report for review by both City Councils G. Prepare annual budget for review and approval of both City Councils H. Send Director or Department representative to Millbrae City Council, Administrative Staff meetings, Parks & Recreation Commission or Arts Commission meetings if required by agenda item or on a quarterly basis, whichever is more frequent I. Staff Millbrae Senior Advisory Committee and Burlingame and Millbrae Youth Advisory Committees 2 Sent 28. 2005 Draft III Millbrae's Responsibilities Millbrae shall be obligated to perform only the following: A. Continue to pay salary and benefits for regular recreation employees, including two Recreation Services Managers, one Recreation Coordinator, one Administrative Assistant and one Account Clerk II, with the intent of leveling compensation for each of the employees to their Burlingame counterparts within at least three(3)years. B. Provide and maintain facilities for recreational programs, including but not limited to the Community Center,Chetcuti Room, Millbrae Library and Central Park C. Provide working office facilities for recreation personnel, including but not limited to offices,desks,chairs,telephone lines,computers,internet access,etc. D. Maintain Agreements with the Millbrae School District and San Mateo Union High School District to provide for recreational opportunities Responsibilities of Each City A. Each City shall be responsible for maintaining, repairing and keeping in good condition the facilities currently used by its Parks and Recreation Department to conduct community recreational activities. B. Each City will inventory its assets in its Recreational facilities of items having over $500 in value. Ownership of such items shall remain the property of the individual City, unless expressly agreed to in writing by each City. C. The City Managers and the Director will meet as part of each City's budget process to agree upon the level of funding for recreation services to be contributed from each City and the corresponding level of services that will be provided to each community. D. Each year, the two City Managers will place 50% of any expense savings or excess revenues as described in above paragraph (c) in a trust fund to be used for capital outlay for the Recreation programs. 3 Sent 28. 2005 Draft E. If either party determines that a budget reduction or additional services are necessary, the Recreation Director will recommend to each City Manager for mutual approval a strategy to take such action so as to not impact the services offered to the other party. F. Each City Manager has the authority to hire, promote, demote, impose disciplinary action and/or terminate employees of their City assigned to the Recreation Division and may delegate this authority to the Recreation Director in accordance with the prevailing memoranda of understanding with employee associations and Department personnel. With regard to personnel not then employed or not to be hired by the Department, the Director shall recommend any hiring decision, promotion, or disciplinary action to the impacted employee's City Manager, and the applicable City Manager will have the authority to impose such action in accordance with the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement covering the employee in question. G. Each City shall be responsible for obtaining general and vehicle liability insurance coverage for its activities. This insurance coverage may be provided through an insurance program of one of the Member Agencies if allowed. H. Each City would be responsible for the costs of litigation and any judgment for damages arising from facility conditions,including either structural or maintenance issues. L If the Department is held liable upon any judgment for damages caused by a negligent or wrongful act or omission occurring in the performance of this Agreement, the pro rata share of each City in the satisfaction of such a judgment shall be based upon the funding formula shown in Section II above. J. In the event of a vacancy in the Recreation Director position, the City Managers must each agree on the candidate that will be appointed to fill the position. 4 Sent 28 2005 Draft IN. Indemnification / Hold Harmless A_ Burlingame shall fully indemnify and hold Millbrae harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 814.8) occurring by reason of anything done, permitted to be done, or omitted to be done by Burlingame under or in connection with the community recreation programs conducted on the properties. B. Millbrae shall fully indemnify and hold Burlingame harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done, permitted to be done, or omitted to be done by Millbrae under or in connection with the community recreation programs conducted on the properties. C. Burlingame shall maintain at all times, in full force and etTect, adequate public liability insurance to protect Burlingame and Millbrae and their respective officers and employees against claims for personal injury and property damages occurring as a direct result of the conduct of recreational programs on the properties. The amount of the coverage shall be agreed upon by Burlingame and Millbrae. Millbrae shall be named as an additional insured and receive a certificate of insurance. D. Millbrae shall maintain, at all times, in full force and effect, adequate public liability insurance to protect Millbrae and Burlingame and their respective officers and employees against claims for personal injury and property damages occurring as a direct result of the conduct of recreational programs on the properties. The amount of the coverage shall be agreed upon by Burlingame and Millbrae. Burlingame shall be named as an additional insured and receive a certificate of insurance. IV. Notices Notices hereunder shall be given in writing and served personally or by registered or certified mail upon the other party hereto as follows: To City of Burlingame: City Manager 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94014 5 Sent 29- 2005 Draft To City of Millbrae City Manager 621 Magnolia Avenue Millbrae, California 94030 Should any part, term, or provision of this agreement be decided by a Court of appropriate jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of California, or otherwise be rendered unenforceable to ineffectual, the validity of the remaining portion or provisions shall not be affected thereby. This agreement integrates the complete understanding of the parties hereto, and no warranties or representations have been made by either party hereby to the other party except as specifically set forth in this agreement. There shall be no subsequent alteration, amendment, change, or waiver or additions to this agreement unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed and attested by their proper officers thereunder duly authorized, as follows: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLII`IGAME: CITY OF MILLBRAE: By: City Manager City Manager ATTEST: By: City Clerk City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Attorney City Attorney 6 Sent 28. 2005 Draft Attachment"G" JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE BURLINGAME AND MILLBRAE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES ON SHARED RECREATION SERVICES laimak I onnflom BVRIA". E Tuesday,June 7, 2005- 7:00 p.m. Burlingame Recreation Center 850 Burlingame Avenue,Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7300 MINUTES ROLL CALL Present: Burlingame: Joe Galligan, Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony, Councilmember Millbrae: Marc Hershman,Mayor Daniel Quigg, Councilmember Staff Ralph Jaeck,Millbrae City Manager Jim Nantell,Burlingame City Manager Randy Schwartz,Director of Parks and Recreation Pat Crilly,Administrative Assistant CALL TO ORDER Mayor Galligan called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. On motion by Hershman/2nd O'Mahony, the minutes from the meeting on March 23,2005, were approved as submitted(4—0). Mayor Galligan asked all those in attendance to introduce themselves. SUMMARY OF APRIL/MAY COMMISSION AND STAFF MEETINGS Director Schwartz gave an overview of the information gathered through meetings held with staff members and Parks and Recreation Commissions from both cities. Agreement points were formed as a culmination to the discussions that took place in staff and commission meetings. A packet with specific discussion items gathered during those meetings is available. Schwartz reviewed agreement points as follows: 1. Time Frame 5. Personnel 2. City Responsibilities 6. Adjunct Services 3. Recreation Budgets 7. Commissions/Councils 4. Recreation Programs Clarification of Ajueement Points #14—Layoffs/program reductions would come from the city unable to provide funding. 1 #16—Impacted programs/resident priority. Both Burlingame and Millbrae consider City employees and their immediate family members residents for registration fee purposes. Millbrae offers the resident rate to non-resident students who attend Millbrae schools. Burlingame does not. #17—Money received from the general fund is taken out of the City's budget. A trust fund is revenue received through donations, grants, etc. #23 —Location of staff will be related to needs of facility(i.e. aquatics staff will be located in Burlingame because of pool location). #25—Regular evening position(Millbrae) would add consistency. #27—Specifics regarding how administrative services will be calculated have not been determined. Mayor Galligan asked to have agenda item#5 (Public Comments)moved up to agenda item#4. PUBLIC COMMENTS K. Rosales (Burlingame)complimented staff on their efforts to inform the public about the meeting. However,she feels that the time(4:00 p.m.) is not conducive to the schedules of working residents and parents of young children. She commented on#10 regarding the ratio of spending for individual cities. Unless funding is based on a per capita basis,she doesn't feel Burlingame will benefit. Regarding#17, she questioned how revenue placed in a trust fund would be allocated. Schwartz responded that the formula for this process has not been determined — it could be based according to ratio or net cost. He suggested that funds may be allocated according to priority by staff. Ms. Rosales is also concerned about personnel resources related to single city funded programs-#18. The City sponsoring a single event will be responsible to fund all expenses, including personnel resources. It was also pointed out that some programs that do not have enough participants avert cancellation by combining participants—a benefit to both cities. M. Colapietro(Millbrae)if the director and administrative staff are based in Burlingame, will more funds be necessary for administrative services in Millbrae? Schwartz gave examples of financial or legal services, which would be compensated by the city using the other organization's service. J. Nantell indicted that a figure based on percentage would have to be determined or it is possible that each city may take on equal responsibilities. Regarding 417, Schwartz indicated that the amount returned would be figured on what is best for the program (not for capital improvements). L. Tully(Millbrae)—parents, who are Burlingame residents, appreciate the programs they attend in Burlingame. She feels it is difficult to go through the details of a merge. It's really about people wanting to do the right thing. We should just make sure that in the end it is better for both cities than what it would have been if we stayed independent. J. Root(Burlingame) feels that it is important to put together a proposal that is positive for both communities; need to develop trust. He suggested keeping the Commissions in tact to serve as a"watch dog" group. 2 D.Dambrosio(Millbrae)—Sounds like the proposal is to combine the two departments,but operate separately. He doesn't agree with the 50%of excess revenue being put in a trust fund. The goal of the cities should be to provide recreation programs at no charge other than for special programs. J.Nantell explained how recreation programs were reduced after Prop 13. Fees are charged for recreation programs to ease the draw on the general fund The current practice is that all extra revenue is returned to the general fund at the end of the fiscal year. Itis hoped that the option of returning 50%of excess revenue will be an incentive for the department to purchase supplies,etc. K Simpson(Burlingame)—had questions regarding the difference in the amount each city subsidizes from the general fund. She voiced concern about changes in youth programs. R.Schwartz explained the difference in funding for the two cities(Millbrae offers some fee based aerobic classes and also rents the building to outside agencies, i.e.Jazzercise,who operate classes).He indicated that youth programs would not change. A merge would allow both departments to replace efficiencies that were lost with budget reductions. Schwartz read a letter from D.Fawcett(Burlingame)who voiced concern about a merge. She does not want to lose the small town charm of Burlingame,which makes it more desirable than large cities. He also relayed a correspondence from M.Waterman(Millbrae resident/Burlingame School District employee)who compared a merge to that of operating several schools under one district—she feels a merger would be more efficient. DISCUSSION WRAP UP Labor units will be conferred with if staff is directed to go to the next step. J.Jaeck indicated that two or three Recreation staff members from Millbrae are represented by a labor group. Staff is concerned in maintaining their benefits—current and retirement. Staff asked for direction—next level involves a large time commitment. U Hershman suggested scheduling a study session to obtain consensus from the City Councils. The financial element still needs to be worked out. Both Millbrae and Burlingame City Councils will address the issue of the merger in July. M.Colapietro—Public needs time to consider proposal;later meeting time would be better;feels Council will want to know if the Parks and Recreation Commissions have taken a position on the merge proposal. R.Schwartz pointed out that agreement point#19 would address the process of figuring out the "nuts and bolts"of a merge and determine how the two divisions would operate as one. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pat Crilly,Administrative Assistant Millbrae Parks and Recreation Department 3 Attachment "H" AGREEMENT POINTS for Shared Recreation Services between the cities of Burlingame and Millbrae May 24, 2005 Draft Time Frame 1. Three year agreement, with additional three years extensions. 2. Written notice to amend or terminate Agreement to be given by Dec 31' and effective July 1" of any year. City ReMonsibilities 3. Each City to provide and maintain existing facilities for recreational programs. 4. Each City to provide and maintain existing working offices. 5. Each City to maintain existing Agreements with school districts for recreational opportunities. 6. Each City will retain ownership of property and facilities. 7. Provisions to be developed for future joint ownership of property and/or facilities. 8. Joint hold harmless/indemnification clauses and insurance policies for personnel, facilities, vehicles, etc. 9. Cities will contribute by predetermined percentage to risk management fund. Recreation Budgets 10. Cities will establish a ratio to be used to share expenses and revenues. Potential factors to determine ratio are historical percentage of expenditures, historical percentage of net cost to General Fund or other. 11. Prepare annual report and budget for review by both City Managers. 12. City Managers will consider adjustments to funding formula annually as part of budget process. 13. Special funds (donation accounts, special revenue accounts, trust funds, etc) to be continued independently of jointly funded recreation budget. Scholarship accounts to be shared. 14. Staff will work with City Managers to ensure that an inability on the part of either City to fully fund the Recreation programs will not affect the services provided to the other City. Recreation Pro ams 15. Programs will be open to residents of both Cities at the established resident rate. 16. Programs designated by Director as impacted (examples: preschool or senior special events) will be initially open only to residents of host City. Residents of other City will have next priority for registration before program is opened to residents of other cities. 17. 50% of any expense savings or excess revenues to be placed in a trust fund for capital outlay for the Recreation programs. 18. New non-self supporting programs, or existing programs that need additional General Fund support, will be offered to both Cities. If only one City approves program, that City will need to fund program and will retain control. Attachment"I" Notes from Burlingame Recreation Staff Meeting Shared Services w/ Millbrae - - May 18, 2005 Additional Concerns s Mechanism for reviewing"impacted" status of programs—Deal Breaker ♦ Logistics of three registration periods for impacted programs ♦ Which agency would hire new employees during first three years? o Workload issues—Are there going to be a sufficient number of efficiencies found to help ease load? Or are we just"robbing Peter to pay Paul"? a Can we combine items such as staff trainings to be more efficient, or are the logistics of working w/the larger numbers of people going to make the scheduling too difficult? ♦ Are we spreading ourselves too thin? e Are we able to continue the current level of quality programming? ♦ Can we handle the increased capacity at registration? ♦ Can we meet the needs of Burlingame residents (continue at the same level of service, maintain the same quaintness of small town, etc)? Would like to see long term personnel issues detailed more fully o The human element of changes in job duties or locations ♦ Program staff may not be available to office staff due to other commitments ♦ Will we lose customers if the merger does not work out? ♦ People come to City because of small town feel—ability to meet with staff ♦ We have a great staff and specialize very well—fear that we will lose staff who enjoys working in that environment ♦ Get the issue to Council and let's see where it goes ♦ With a six-month buyout in place,there is no huge commitment Attachment"J" Cities of Millbrae and Burlingame Parks and Recreation Commission Joint Meeting Tuesday,May 17,2005 Comment/Concerns: • Senior fundraising efforts are for many senior activities—not just for senior van • Location of staff work sites • What are the P&R Director's responsibilities • Need for additional staff • What is the future status of the existing Commissions • Timeline is too aggressive • Need for more public outreach • Staff costs vs program costs • What is the per capita spending for each city • Concern about priority registration for impacted programs(ex.Village Park Pre-School) • Abuse of#16—who decides about money spent on capital outlay projects • Need more specifics—report on efficiencies • Burlingame has more to offer than Millbrae • Move forward with the timeline • Process is moving too fast • Place merge on the ballot • Not enough information to make a decision • Need budget,handbook,and bylaws indicating specifics on how the merge would work • Concern about#12—groups fundraising for their own programs • Staff programming efforts inhibited—unsure of the future • Some residents are under the impression that departments have already merged • Recreation needs a director 100%of the time • Millbrae and Burlingame have different circumstances • Problems with logistics for the proposed merge • Apprehensive about the director being a Burlingame employee and where loyalties lie • Extra costs to hire a Recreation Superintendent • Try an in-house solution by using existing staff in Millbrae • Affect of processing fee funding Burlingame Teen Coordinator • Benefit of the Burlingame Driving Range • Benefit of the Burlingame Aquatics Center Attachment "K" Notes from Millbrae Staff Meeting May 12, 2005 ADDMONAL CONCERNS Special fundraisers for senior programs should be placed in a senior citizens donation account Allowing for "Impacted Programs" keeps cities separate. Citizens from each City need to have a fair shot at registration. This should be dropped or possibly phased out of the Agreement points. Include along w/ #17, existins programs that need extra funding, such as the senior van in Millbrae Administrative fee needs to be clarified and 15% needs to be reconsidered Which Commission would approve or recommend items to the City Council, such as reconciling registration fees, refund fees, senior discounts, etc. Pay equity needs to include benefit value, such as medical or dental coverages How will we communicate with the Parks Divisions Need to add a Building Attendant position for the Millbrae Community Center ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS Establish a "Recreation Commission" that oversees the joint operation and make the existing P&R Commissions "Parks Commissions". Develop a transitional team now to work on #18's Would like to keep union affiliation and membership Need to keep morale high— skeptical of being relocated Millbrae needs more than 1.5 positions in the Front Office Attachment"L" Commission Notes MILLBRAE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (April 19) Potential Merge of Millbrae and Burlingame Parks and Recreation Departments R. Jaeck gave an overview of the current situation regarding shared services in the Parks and Recreation Department. The City is currently investigating the possibility of merging the Recreation Division with the City of Burlingame. A merge of this nature would make it possible to enhance programs by operating on a larger scale than the two cities can afford by operating alone. The Commission/community members expressed concern regarding oversight, logistics, efficiencies,budget and timeline. Ralph suggested that staff come back to the Commission with specifics. The merge was compared to larger cities that provide different programs at more than one community center within their boundaries. After much discussion, the consensus was that the Commission would like more information. The City Manager suggested that the timeline set is a general guideline and will return with a more specific plan. Ralph also addressed many questions from the Commission/community regarding the proposal from the Sheriff's Department to operate police services in Millbrae. BURLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION (April 21) Shared Parks &Recreation Services with Millbrae Manager Nantell gave an overview of the proposal to share Recreation services with the City of Millbrae. The two cities have shared a Parks & Recreation Director for the past two years and should move forward with a long-term decision. Although finances are a key,this is not only driven by financial issues and should not be considered as a short term money issue. Nantell cited several examples of issues in the County,such as the"woefully inadequate infrastructure"and$30 million a year that is spent on salaries for City Managers and Department Heads. The impact on citizens and employees of shared services for the short-term is not worth the struggle. Nantell discussed the benefits of Recreation programming specialists, rather than generalists. Similar to doctors,the recreation now has more professionals specializing in one area of recreation programming to improve the quality of the services provided. Department heads need to be up to date on the rules and regulations of their professional areas and cannot also be expected to be experts in HR regulations. Such specialization can exist with larger program staffs. Nantell spoke of the efficiencies that could be gained through a merger,citing brochure productions and budget preparation as two examples. He noted the amount of time spent by the Director in meetings each month that could be reduced. Becoming more efficient will allow the staff to be more creative in their programming for the community, but also stated that staff needs to balance control with the quality of services. Schwartz pointed out several examples where a larger staff serving the two cities could be more efficient. Having two staff members attend league meetings representing two middle schools in Burlingame and Millbrae is not as efficient as having one staff member attend the same staff meeting representing three middle schools in South San Francisco. Nantell discussed the reasons such mergers do not happen, such as loss of control,residents wanting 1 their own identity or the loss of contact with staff if the community is expanded. He stated that there are always trade-offs; that things are not necessarily better or worse,just different. Commissioner Lawson asked for a more specific definition of what we are now considering. Schwartz replied that the current proposal only includes merging the Recreation Divisions of the two cities. Because of the difference in operations and types of special projects between the two Parks Divisions, they are not being considered at this time, but nothing in the current proposal would preclude a future Parks merger. Commissioner Heathcote stated that he has attended all of the meetings on this topic so far and has many concerns including loss of personnel,which City Council would oversee the merged operation, would commissions be merged, are the benefits the same for each city and does a larger staff mean better programs. He also said that he does not think the salary for the Director of the merged Department should be reduced from the current level. Heathcote asked if the pay scales of the two cities are the same and stated that any merger should not focus upon potential savings,but on the quality of the programs. Commissioner Muller asked if this merger may result in a loss of front office personnel. Schwartz stated that both departments have already lost staff to budget reductions and no further positions will be lost because of this merger. However, both cities still have difficult budget situations in the future and may face further reductions. Staff will need to ensure that any budget reductions in one city do not affect the services provided to the other city. Muller asked how policies between the two divisions would be set,such as equating the prices of classes and senior citizens discounts. Schwartz replied that these decisions would be made by staff recommendations to whichever commission oversees the merged division. Muller asked how this arrangement could be undone by either party, if need be. Nantell stated that this is fully described in fire merger where it would be more difficult because of the capital items shared between the cities. Schwartz stated that this would be more difficult for the parks division because of the equipment that would be purchased for the cities to share. Also,if the two cities were ever to jointly construct a facility—such as a gymnasium and/or teen center—provisions for use and terms of use would need to be spelled out in the agreement. Muller also asked about resident/non-resident fees and the number of people that would sign up for classes. Schwartz replied that these would be other items that staff and the commission would have to discuss in more detail Commissioner Erickson illustrated the need to look down the road 30 years and plan for the future. Chairman Larios is not keen on the idea of a merger. Larios asked if Burlingame would be supplementing Millbrae and stated that this merger would mean our top Parks and Recreation administrator would not always be available because of commitments to Millbrae. He asked how the benefits of such a merger compare for each city and said that Burlingame is doing things so well, others are attaching themselves to us. He shared a concern of our staff resources being taken away. Nantell agreed that we need to maintain the quality of the programs,but pointed out that Millbrae's recreation operation is slightly more efficient than Burlingame's. He stated that we are all good people doing good things, but Larios' concern of subsidizing an under-funded community is one shared by some council members. Larios also expressed concern over separating the Parks and Recreation divisions. Schwartz agreed with the cooperation between the two divisions, cited the improved coordination since the Burlingame Parks Department was relocated to the Recreation Center several years ago and pointed out that Burlingame's Parks and Recreation divisions would 2 remain in the same department. In response to Larios' question about how much control would a consortium have over each city, Nantell explained that each city would have control over their assets, but would contribute to a joint budget. Commissioner Heathcote commented that the Millbrae Parks&Recreation Commission requested that the City Managers and Director draft a proposal and bring it back to the Commissions. Nantell pointed out the "Catch-22" that, if such a proposal had been drafted and presented, some would complain that it was done without public input. He also relayed the frustration of staff, citing one Supervisor who exclaimed"just make a decision". Heathcote said the proposal should have a two to five year test cycle and that he has more confidence of Millbrae's ability to recover after seeing City Manager Ralph Jaeck's 5-year pian. Schwartz discussed the process to date and planned. A process planning meeting was held in March with Burlingame Council members Galligan and O'Mahony,Millbrae Council members Hershman and Quigg,City Managers Jaeck and Nantell,Director Schwartz and approximately 20 members of the public. The Council members asked staff to meet with staff, commissions and the public and develop a timeline for the process. Last week,the Managers and Director held meetings with staff from each Recreation Division. The Millbrae Parks&Recreation Commission meeting earlier this week discussed the potential merger, as will the Millbrae Senior Advisory Committee meeting on April 27ffi. The schedule after that was left open to take into account the progress at the Commission meetings. Schwartz suggested that staff draft a proposal and bring it to each Commission for their May meetings. Larios suggested that the May meeting be a joint meeting of the Commission. Heathcote expressed concern for a joint meeting, stating that the Millbrae Commission did not get far into the discussion because of the lack of details and the feeling of being betrayed by the Millbrae Council in the past. He wondered if the Millbrae Commission needed more time before having a joint meeting. After discussion, it was agreed that Schwartz will work with the Commission Chairmen to arrange a joint meeting at a time/place/location that is acceptable to both. Chairman Larios then opened the discussion to members of the public. Marge Colapietre stated that she has been a Millbrae resident for 35 years and owns a small business in Millbrae. She spoke of the huge volunteer effort in Millbrae and agreed with Heathcote that Millbrae's Commission did not get far in the discussion;that Burlingame's meeting was much more efficient. Millbrae is a tiny community that has accomplished a lot because of their volunteers and asked the Burlingame Commissioners not to discount the fact that Millbrae residents are personally invested in their community. She pointed out that things in Millbrae got bad because of the City's management; that past Councils micro-managed the community and City staff. She stated that before a j oint meeting is attempted,the Millbrae Commission needs to be brought up to par,but the meeting should be held sooner rather than later. Nantell spoke about the differences in the City Administrator and City Manager forms of government—pointing out that Millbrae's current City Council made a switch to the Manager style only a few months ago. John Root said that he has lived in Burlingame for 28 years. He complimented the Millbrae City Manager's presentation of the five year plan and stated that the Director appears to be held in high esteem in Millbrae. He likes the idea of the merger on the face of it,but said that proposed savings would be important to many Burlingame residents. He suggested a series of FAQ's would be helpful to the Commissioners and the public; that people need to see something in writing. Larios stated that a merger needs to have benefit for Millbrae as well as Burlingame. He asked staff to arrange for the next meeting and pointed out that the joint meeting would save time, avoid a duplication of questions and would stimulate the discussion. Colapietre said Millbrae has been told that this merger is because of the money situation and thought the first meeting would be to learn how to cut costs. Millbrae does not want the topic to drag on, but, at the Millbrae Commission meeting, Jaeck suggested that time is not a factor. 4 Attachment"M" Notes from the Joint Staff Meetings of the Millbrae and Burlingame Recreation Divisions Support Staff (April 12,2005) Concerns -one or two finance departments -classes: more, same?? -where will work stations be -who will we be employed by -What if Millbrae goes to 2.7%at 55 -Will there be pay equity -Can people register for classes in both communities -Will there still be non-res fees for those in the other city or will we switch to single fees? -How will we set up a system of communications -Who gets registration priorities -Are there union concerns -The rules&policies need to be combined -How will we handle communication between front office staff and the supervisors -Right now we are comfortable where we are—why do we have to change -There may be a need for more staff Program Staff(April 13,2005) H We have been sharing(Softball/Golf Tourney/Golf classes/Legos)-this is a win for community MB Had fear 2 years ago, now ready to go w/merger-We are not working in our areas of expertise-This would benefit both communities-disheartened by Millbrae meeting and the expressed fear of loss of control, changes, and being eaten up—we have had time to work together—this is a winning opportunity LM 2 years ago had fear—we are never going back to our little Rec. department w/Randy—We need to use our expertise/specialties—in favor of a merger also GM What will happen 6 months from now?Who will handle softball?Recreation and the community is 99% same in Millbrae-Who will handle teens? Camps?Trips? Where and when will these programs be held? AC Which programs will be held where—has worked well w/shared transportation—Howard, Mike W& Charlene have been great—working w/van LC City of 50,000 is small—has worked in San Jose—for shared services—could use Mills' pool for Summer programs TB Share Softball for the past 1.5 years—People have fear,will need to learn new quirks,programs, etc.-There is a huge benefit for sharing. TP There is more apprehension than is being stated here—Burlingame has a strong program-Millbrae can benefit more by working with us—We have been working more together- seniors do not accept change easily—The Burlingame brochure is complete-our residents will not see a benefit to a merger—Has apprehension of how it will play out—We could be more efficient. MW Millbrae is small,but we know how to do things-Millbrae residents are territorial&afraid of losing their identity-w/o Randy there will be a need to backfill from underneath—that will be less efficient—we need to focus on programs KH The financial benefits not worth hassle-Haven't seen benefits for Burlingame—The benefits all seem to be for Millbrae because Millbrae is short staffed- Small may not be efficient, but big is not better—Explained a snafu on a preschool field trip to the Fire Station-preschool parents would go wild if Village program was open to Millbrae residents at the same time as Burlingame residents-Services will get watered down- Change is not easy-whatever happens,happens,but is sick of sharing -Wants to be done with the discussions—Is least in support of merger and sees no benefit for Burlingame—there is negligible duplication TP We should continue to share with each other after separating the two cities LM Sharing often creates more work—advocates for merging to become more efficient KH Expressed frustration at the loss of Randy's time—Randy is an outstanding leader and supervisor,but has watched Randy age&get worn down Group discussions about productivity, revenue growth w/increased visibility, lack of Randy's time,Loss of connection with community KH Devastation—the Devil takes us from excellence to very good,makes our standards slip just slightly Attachment-N- Long-Term Plan for the Burlingame and Millbrae Parks & Recreation Departments Committee Meeting Minutes —March 23, 2005 — 5:00 pm Millbrae Community Center, 477 Lincoln Circle, Millbrae Introductions/Attendance Committee: Galligan(Burl), Hershman(Mill), O'Mahony(Burl), Quiqq(Mill) Staff: Jaeck,Nantell, Schwartz Guests: All in attendance introduced themselves Current Status of Parks & Recreation Departments Hershman asked Director Schwartz to give an overview of the current status of the Burlingame and Millbrae Parks &Recreation Departments and the efforts to work together. Schwartz stated that sharing of the Parks& Recreation Director, originally a six-month experiment, has now extended over two years. In that time, there have been questionnaires of staff and commissions;joint meetings of commissions, program staff, parks administrators, front office staff, combined recreation programs; a combined effort to fund a teen center; shared transportation programs; etc. Discussions of Committee Process Nantell stated (1)that it would be easier to combine the Recreation Divisions of the two cities than the Parks Divisions because of the scope of services they provide and(2)there is only a $300,000 maximum savings in a potential merger of recreation administrative services. Galligan said shared services could result in a better product at a cheaper price. Jaeck added this may be an opportunity to restore programs that were cut due to budget reductions. Galligan noted his concern that asking the Director to operate each Department independently would lead to burn out and suggested we should decide on a long term course of action quickly. He stated there are a couple of major hurdles in the future and used union representation and differences in employee compensation as examples that occurred in the Burlingame-Hillborough Fire merger. Nantell and Jaeck both stated the need to establish a timeline of meetings and goals necessary in the process of these discussions. This would include the process for gathering input from staff, commissions and community members. Nantell stated the Managers would meet with the Commissioners to explore why the Managers see positives in going forward with a joint operation. Quigg said that together the cities are still smaller in population(50,000)than many other cities in the County. Galligan noted that San Mateo has a population of 90,000 with one Fire Chief, that efficiencies can be achieved by combining and that no positions were lost in the Burlingame- Hillsborough Fire merger. Hershman stated that Schwartz has been in place for the past two years and has the skills and knowledge to operate a joint department. He then agreed that Nantell, Jaeck and Schwartz should create a timeline for the decision making process. O'Mahony noted the fire merger was successful because of the many years put into the process,but shared Galligan's concern that a lengthy process will burn out Schwartz. Jaeck noted the inefficiencies of operating two separate departments. Public Comments GEORGE LYNCH: Schwartz is doing great job, but we need to take care of Millbrae first and Burlingame second. Don't jump into something—Commission wanted to be met with Council first. Recreation is not a business; that Councils should look to other areas to make money. The Burlingame Recreation Center is too far from other end of Millbrae. Why do we need to merge? If we don't merge can't the two staffs still talk and work together? Council has already made up their minds. We should not do this just to make it easier for Schwartz. HARRIETT LARSON: The Millbrae Sr. Coordinator is like a mom and seniors need a mom here at home. Seniors come here because of Charlene's warmth and caring. Harriett has directed a Senior Center& understands those come to be loved& nurtured. Schwartz stated that the senior citizens coordinators would continue to work with their current programs under any administrative models. MARGE COLAPIETRO: Is glad to hear both the coordinators and programs would not change and that seniors are a special group. Are we doing this for short time savings? Reinforced Lynch's comments that we need to consider more than the effect this is having on one individual. MARILYN COONEY—Millbrae has worked hard to preserve parklands and those decisions should in no way be handed over to another group of people. It would be great if a merger could take care of Millbrae's maintenance issues that have not been addressed. Hershman pointed to the Pewaukee, Wisconsin case study where two Parks agencies merged,but continued to have local control of their natural assets and facilities. Gallligan agreed by stating the need for community ownership and the importance of preserving open space. JOHN COONEY: Need to maintain local control over parks. Galligan stated there are not enough fields now in the two cities; a shared administration would not reduce the amount of open space or parkland. KIRK HEATHCOTE: Are we talking about answering to one Council or having a cooperative arrangement? He would advocate for a cooperative arrangement. Hershman noted that is the process that we need to address. MIKE SULLIVAN: Echoes the statement made by all. Recreation functions can be combined easily; it would be more difficult with parks structure because of physical aspects. GALE GRINSELL: Working together should be a way to emphasize programs for both should benefit all of us; enhance all of our lives. It would be helpful if we can have these preliminary meetings in each City. LOU SANDRIlTI: This could be positive process for all. Run Parks &Recreation programs for all without Schwartz. Seniors are a special program. Need to look at costs for participants (travel, time, etc). We have discussed higher service levels; where do we need higher service levels? The criteria for a solution can be quantifiable or non- quantifiable. The coordination between Parks and Recreation divisions is important for scheduling of maintenance of physical assets. Not sure why would Burlingame want to take on financial burden of Millbrae Parks. STEPHEN HAMILTON: Commended group for having meeting and looking at ways to operate more efficiently; to deliver greater service. Change is difficult and communication is the key. He hopes to have another meeting in Burlingame. GARY NORTH—Echoes Hamilton's comments; need for program &parklands meeting for each city. Council needs to show courage and keep land management autonomous. TERRY BAUER: Discussion of need for closeness to participants in senior citizens programs, which portions of recreation programs don't need that closeness? Why are seniors different than other programs? Because of other issues from the past, he is afraid of back room politics. It's almost as if you are ready to go ahead. Schwartz explained the shared services discussions in recreation only relate to recreation programming. Seniors are different because the coordinator is part of the administrative staff, unlike other programs where a contractor or part-time staff member works directly with the participants. Next Steps Hershman asked for committee agreement that we ask staff to take a look at the time sequence,talk to staff and commissions and then set a future committee meeting. The other committee members agreed. Collapietro asked for diversity in scheduling of future meeting times. Lynch would like to know earlier of the next meeting date and time. Respectfully submitted, Randy Schwartz Attachment"O" Report on the Potential Merger of auRLINGaME the Burlingame and Millbrae < Parks & Recreation Departments F°R •�' - March 16, 2005 - Recommendation Staff's recommendation is for representatives of the two City Councils to meet and determine a plan for the future of the Burlingame and Millbrae Parks &Recreation Departments. Background For the past 25 months,the two departments have shared a Director of Parks &Recreation. While each agency has maintained autonomous in its operation from the other,the two have combined efforts on several programs. Jointly operated community golf tournaments, community nights to SBC Park, adult softball leagues and trips have all gone smoothly. Millbrae residents are encouraged to join aquatics programs at the Burlingame Aquatic Center and Burlingame's theme park discount program has been expanded to Millbrae. Staff shares equipment to allow movies in the park and tree lighting ceremonies. Local merchants can buy advertisements in both cities' Recreation brochures. While most of the collaborations have happened in Recreation, a few instances of cooperation(shared equipment, labor or expertise) have occurred between the Parks Divisions. During this time,the two cities have both undergone budget cutbacks and staff reductions. Each city has seen signs of a return to normalcy, with slight increases in Transit Occupancy Tax and Sales Tax. Additionally, Millbrae has successfully passed a Fire Assessment District measure, realized savings from a Pension Obligation Bond and appointed a permanent City Manager. For the first time in many years, each City is looking ahead to recovery strategies for the upcoming years. There have been dozens of meetings and conversations with City Managers, staff from both Departments, commissioners and community members regarding the relationship and future possibilities. Notes from the formal meetings are included in this report, in addition to the results of a questionnaire that was distributed. Please note that combining these two Departments has some financial benefits (as shown below), but is more of a philosophical question than a financial one. In the long run, does it make more sense for each city in San Mateo County to have their own Parks &Recreation departments, each with its own administration and commissions, or are there efficiencies that can be gained by working together? Staff Input Meetings to discuss the pros and cons of a merger were held with many levels of permanent staff and their counterparts in each City; Parks administration, Recreation Supervisors/Managers, front office staff. Notes from each of the meetings are attached to this report. The City Managers and Parks &Recreation Director agree that the first potential merger to consider is that between the Recreation Divisions, while still leaving the door open for Parks Divisions to consolidate in the future. Beside the fact that the Recreation Divisions share more similar workloads, this step offers greater potential for savings,shared workloads and customer service benefits. A few items were identified by each of the staff groups and should be clarified before any shared services are finalized. They are: 1. Differences in salaries and benefits for both part-time and full-time employees 2. Appointment of a Recreation Superintendent 3. Different union representation 4. Reorganization and staffing levels of City Commissions(Parks&Recreation,Arts, Beautification,Community Preservation,Senior Advisory,Youth Advisory) 5. Acknowledgement of partnership agencies(example:school districts) 6. Shared software systems for class registrations,brochure production,website capabilities,facility scheduling,etc. Identified Potential Benefits • Potential efficiencies,due to critical mass allowing for staff specialization(brochure production, contracting w/class instructors,adult/youth sports,special events,bill paying/time cards,budget preparation) • Financial savings to both cities by only having one Director • Potential to streamline commissions • Strengthen programming for special populations(example:teens,senior citizens) • Improved preschool programs • Improved relationship with SMUHSD • Shared use of equipment and facilities • Wider variety of classes offered to community • Accessibility to all facilities • Less duplication;more efficiencies • Potential to attract larger tournaments/special events • Potential savings with long-term reorganization in staffing levels • Opportunities exist for potential new revenues • Avoid duplication of costs on large expenses(examples:registration software,staff training) • Potential for additional participants in all recreation classes&programs • Critical mass for staff specialization • Broader base to spread overhead expenses Identified Potential Challenges • Cities have different philosophies&personalities • Merger would force employees to learn new operation and shift areas of responsibility • Merger would necessitate some employees'work stations to be transferred to the other City • Need to bring all parties on board before implementation—Councils,commissions,staff,public Existing Facilities and Contractual Obligations Each City would be responsible for the care and condition of the facilities they currently own,program or maintain. Examples include Recreation Centers,fields and Agreements with school districts. Superintendent position will allow for a more smooth transition and better delivery of Department services. An alternate approach to the Superintendent position would be to have one Manager at each Recreation Center. The Managers would be a slightly higher position than the Supervisors and would receive an additional compensation. The costs for the Managers' salaries should come from Millbrae, while the costs for the Superintendent should be split between the two cities on an agreed upon cost/savings ratio. Attachments A. Scenarios of Potential Financial Savings — March 12, 2005 B. Budget Breakdown for the Burlingame Recreation Division — 2004-05 C. Budget Breakdown for the Millbrae Recreation Division — 2004-05 D. Sample Organizational Chart for the Burlingame and Millbrae Recreation Department E. Joint Pewaukee Park and Recreation Department (a May 2002 Wisconsin case study) F. Notes from the Recreation Supervisors/Managers Meeting, November 16, 2004 G. Examination of Potential Merger (Recreation Supervisors/Managers Meeting Notes — 2003) H. Front Office Staff Meeting Notes — 2003 I. Notes from Parks Administration Meeting on Shared Services — December 3, 2003 J. Discussion of Potential Merger — Questions and Goals — a survey of Dept staff and Commissioners, June 2003 Burlingame — Millbrae Attachment"P" Recreation Supervisors/Managers November 16, 2004 - - 12:00 to 4:00pm Topics Operational Computer system(registration program, facility scheduler, email) Registration forms,rental forms&processes(bldg rentals, field reservations,picnics, etc) Phone lines(not necessary—investigate for future) Links to joint website Activity guide production Liability issues Payroll,bills,pony service, contract payments,mail-in&out(impact on Finance Dept) Close out cash registers-Banking Each city is responsible for maintenance&capital improvements to own facilities Budget Office equipment Programs Discussions of programs&possible combining programs(youth classes, adult classes, 4`h/5 h sports, 6t -8h sports, adult sports: leagues/classes,youth camps, teens,preschool, aquatics, operations, seniors,brochure, afterschool classes, special events) Discussion of joint division organizational chart—Should there be a Superintendent? Should there be two Managers—one to oversee each site? Timeline(Length of time, preferred time of year) From point of decision to merge: need 30-60 day transition—time to separate from one Finance Dept& some City departments—ease into merger: one year to complete Preferred time of year: September to March(not summer) Start-up costs Computers(registration/facility scheduler) Pay differential&benefits(full-time&part-time employees) Stationary, business cards, etc. Websites,logos Phone lines Political(Council, Commissions, Committees) Combine P&Rec Commissions&YACs Combine Millbrae CPC w/Downtown Process&Arts w/P&Rec Need for Director or rep to attend both Councils&DH mtgs Relationships w/other City Departments Assumption of continuing Parks&Recreation relationship Largest impact: Important to work with only one Finance Dept(payroll, contracts, bills, etc.) Interaction w/Public Works, City Attorney Attachment"Q" Burlingame-Millbrae BURUNGAME Parks & Recreation Departments 3 e x• � Examination of Potential Merger (Recreation Supervisors / Managers Meeting Notes) 2003 Pre-Stated Goals ■ Service levels should not be reduced. ■ To provide the best quality programs and services our community members deserve. ■ Become more efficient and continue high level of customer service. ■ Capitalize on each other's strengths. ■ Evaluation of the shared Director position to date Working well in Millbrae Burlingame states Director's lower accessibility impacts ■ What deterrents to a potential merger do you see? Political concerns(Council, Commissions, etc.) Public desire of ownership over programs Computer hardware/software (registration, wiring, etc.) Department policies & procedures need to be aligned Employee issues (equity in salaries,benefits, etc.) City ordinances &policies need to be aligned ■ Potential efficiencies Brochure production Contracting w/class instructors Adult/youth sports Special events Bill paying/time cards Budget preparation Streamline commissions (1 P&Rec, eliminate Arts) Recreation programming for teens ■ Questions regarding benefits/barriers Effect on community partnerships (non-profits, schools, etc.) Effect on customer service Are there efficiency savings other than personnel? Are there more revenue opportunities? Benefits to Millbrae Residents Improved facilities (pool, fields) Improved preschool programs Improved relationship with SMUHSD Stronger budget Director advocating for Parks&Recreation Benefits to Burlingame Residents Senior programs (van& sr. wing) Benefits to Residents of Both Cities Wider variety of classes Accessibility to all facilities Less duplication; more efficiencies Potential to attract larger tournaments/special events Organizational Structure ■ What would organizational structure look like? ■ Funding ■ City of employment ■ Job guarantee ■ What will be the political structure of our combined departments? ■ If a merger is not possible, should the Director continue to serve both cities? Many staff members stated a preference to not merge, although some stated that a"sharing of tasks" would be acceptable. It was also stated that the current arrangement may not be able to be continued because of Millbrae's budget situation. Staffing levels was identified as a long-range source for potential savings Directors (Potential savings: $28,000) Current 1.2 Directors Combined 1.0 Director Program Staff (Potential savings: $55,000) Current Burlingame 4.2 Supervisors (1 frozen) 3.0 Coordinators Millbrae 2.0 Managers 0.8 Coordinators Total 6.2 Supervisors/Managers 3.8 Coordinators Combined 4.0 Supervisors 6.0 Coordinators Saport Staff (Potential savings: $55,000) Current Burlingame 1.0 Secretary 1.0 Account Clerk 1.5 Typist Clk Millbrae 1.0 Secretary 1.0 Account Clerk Total 5.5 Support Staff Positions Combined 4.5 Support Staff Positions Total: $138,000 Director: $28,000 Program Staff $55,000 Support Staff $55,000 Potential Savings—Staffing Levels Current Status Potential Savings Burlingame Millbrae Combined Combined Director($28,000) 0.60 0.60 1.20 1.00 Program Staff($55,000) Supervisors/Managers 4.20 2.00 6.20 4.00 Coordinators 3.00 0.80 3.80 6.00 Support Staff($55,000) Secretary 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Account Clerk 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Typist Clerk 1.50 0.00 1.50 2.50 TOTALS($138,000) 11.30 5.40 16.70 15.50 DUTIES/RESPONSIBILITIES Director Dept.Administration(budget,personnel,programs) Liaison to City Council,Commission(s),Dept.Head team Program Staff Supervisors:Program administration(budget,p-t staff,contracts,supplies,etc.) Coordinators:Conducting programs Support Staff Secretary:Operation of division,support for commissions&staff Account Clerk:Balance revenues,pay bills,instructor payments,etc. Typist Clerk:Customer service,registration,etc. Attachment "R" IRL Burlingame-Millbrae C=T BUMINGAME Parks & Recreation Departments N C`tLIFOR� P* FRONT OFFICE STAFF MEETING NOTES Concerns about Finance Depts. - - separate / different operating practices (example: waiver signatures) Similar time is spent on payroll duties - - little efficiencies anticipated Bldg. Rentals: agreements to refer rentals to other City when unable to accommodate If Merger: need for common computer system for bldg. rentals, class registrations, brochure All agreed to shared services — mixed opinions on merger - "comfortable with existing systems" No expenses can be saved unless positions are lost Look for new revenues Cities have different philosophies & personalities Attachment"S" Notes from Parks Administration Meeting on Shared Services - - - December 3, 2003 Attendees: Bob Disco,John Marshall, Tim Richmond,Randy Schwartz Areas of Greatest Potential Playground Safety Inspections (Burlingame) Medians/Islands (Millbrae) Highly Potential Areas Irrigation(Burlingame) CalSense Computer System (Millbrae) Possible Areas Tree Maintenance (Burlingame) Spraying(Millbrae) Mowing/Detailing Ballfield Areas not worth exploring Tree Contract Pesticide Recommendations Other Areas Grants Assistance Bulk Purchases Sharing of Equipment NOTE: It was agreed by all that none of the above possibilities can be implemented without prior discussions with City Manager/Administrator, line staff, union representatives and Councils Attachment"T" Burlingame-Millbrae ��, CITI, BU k_. ME Parks & Recreation Departments L- � w W a MEMORANDUM °g1,F°R `A To: Burlingame&Millbrae Parks&Recreation Staff Burlingame&Millbrae City Commissioners(Parks&Rec.,Beautification, Community Preservation) From: Randy Schwartz Date: June 29, 2003 Re: Discussion of Potential Merger Thank you very much for your feedback about questions and goals you have related to a potential merger of Burlingame and Millbrae Parks&Recreation Departments. As you can see from the listings below, the quantity and diversity of responses was plentiful. The list is allowed to grow, so as you read, please let me know of other thoughts you may now have. As you can see, I have chosen to categorize the feedback into a few major categories: process,benefits, organizational structure,funding,job status,workload, miscellaneous,programs, goals/values, comments. In compiling the list, I included all items submitted; only excluding items that were complete duplications of items already placed on the list. Within the next few weeks, I will begin having meetings of similar groups of both cities to discuss the listed items. Employees will be encouraged, but not forced,to attend and contribute to these meetings. The idea is to explore as many different options as we can generate. Please let me know of any questions, concerns or comments you may have. Thank you. Questions & Goals Summarized Process ■ Is our input going to be heard? How will it be weighted? ■ Are we going to evaluate the shared Director position to date? How are we going to evaluate? How are we going to gauge whether it was a success or not? ■ Can an outside Financial Consultant be hired to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a merger? ■ Will a"needs assessment"be done with community input from both cities? ■ Will there be specific models or scenarios of possible merger situations for us to review? ■ What deterrents to a potential merger do you see? How can these deterrents be overcome? ■ Should the public have a say re: the merger? Their services will be reduced, response time longer& maintenance levels lowered. Benefits • How would the residents of each community benefit from a merger? ■ How would merger help bring out staff's individual strengths to benefit both cities? ■ What strengths/weaknesses do each department/division bring to the table? ■ What are the pros&cons of this merge? ■ What are the two cities' goals by doing this? ■ What amenities or services would Millbrae be bringing if there was a merger? ■ Will Burlingame residents want to go to Millbrae for activities? ■ With the potential increase in workload on this department,how will that impact us and our ability to serve our Burlingame residents, who come first? • What is Millbrae offering us that we don't already have or offer? ■ Would combining resources/staff allow the city without tree service ie Millbrae,the opportunity to tap into the tree service that Burlingame currently enjoys. ■ What benefits do you see for each city? ■ How would this benefit the City of Millbrae? ■ What are the benefits to Burlingame? ■ What are the benefits to Administration? ■ What are the benefits to Staff? ■ What&where will the savings be? • Would Millbrae people be considered residents for programs in Burlingame and vice versa? ■ Would they each have equal status for programs or would the resident of the particular city the program is in have preference? For example would a program like the Burlingame aquatics program be accessible to Millbrae residents as community residents? ■ Would Millbrae people be able to rent or reserve a Burlingame park and vice versa under resident status? ■ How would a merger with Millbrae benefit Burlingame since Millbrae's financial situation seems to be worse than ours? ■ Would it be desirable to Millbrae residents to have better enforcement of tree protection in the city? ■ Would services be maintained or perhaps improved? ■ How does this idea fit with the Commitment to the citizens of Burlingame statement that was part of the Organizational Compass? ■ Are the desires to merge only generated by the budget situation? ■ When the economy changes and the cities are more financially sound,will there still be a need or desire to merge? Organizational Structure ■ What would organizational structure look like? ■ What will be the political structure of our combined departments? ■ Will a new political structure eliminate the need for a parks and recreation commission? ■ If it is determined that a merger is not possible,will you continue to serve both cities? If not,what would your recommendation be for Millbrae in terms of an organizational structure? ■ Are we looking at complete or partial merge: 1.Payroll;2.Brochure; 3. Computerized Registration;4.Programs; 5. Initial start up cost;6.Equipment; 7. man/people power • What do other county JPA's look like and how do they work? ■ Where will I report and to whom? ■ When would the merge take place and,would it be temporary or permanent? ■ Could Hillsborough be considered as a possible merger partner? ■ Would both City Councils have to sign off on Department issues? ■ How would the decision making process change or alter with a merger? ■ If a district is formed,will there be a tax levied that the residents of both cities would have to pay? ■ Would both city's residents become residents of the other city for registration purposes? ■ Would the Commissions, if merged,be equal in number from each City? ■ Will there be a combined city council as well as combined services and staff covering both cities. This one is tougher as we will be territorial and want to keep that with which we are familiar. ■ Would each city have equal representation? I.e. would it be 5 Millbrae and 5 Burlingame or would it go by population and have something like 4 Millbrae and 6 Burlingame. ■ Would there be separate commissions for each city and another commission for both? ■ Would the role of the commission change?—Why would a Burlingame Commissioner care about an issue in Millbrae and vice versa? ■ Would two commissions be needed? If only one commission was needed who would appoint the commissioners? Can the current ordinances of the respective cities be applied by one joint commission? ■ What happens when department policies, e.g. safety practices,conflict? Funding ■ If we merge,how will we be funded? ■ Can a merger save money for both cities without layoffs? ■ Where are the savings by doing this? ■ Is cost savings sole reason to look at a merge?What happens if merge+reorganization=no cost savings but more efficiency? ■ What fiscal advantage is this for Burlingame? ■ Is it a worthy enough venture to offset a portion of the additional$1 million deficit we are facing or is it more work than it's worth? ■ How similar are the two Department Budgets? If Burlingame's budget is greater than Millbrae's(assumption)—then how can departments be merged w/parity? ■ How are monies for the 2 departments handled?Personnel costs, equipment maintenance and replacement costs? ■ Will there be a set-aside from both cities for equipment maintenance and replacement costs for equip shared-and how will this be calculated? Job Status ■ If more full-time positions are eliminated due to a merger,what will determine who is laid off? ■ Can loyalties to current employer and colleagues be meshed into a merged organization? ■ Will we lose seniority to someone from another city? • Will we lose opportunity for promotion? ■ If layoffs were to occur,would that be done by each City's seniority list, and if so,is seniority by years of service or level of employment? • If a merger happens, and jobs are lost,who will be making the decision of who goes and who stays? What criteria will be used to determine who stays or who goes? Would new positions be created? ■ If the merger happens will there be interviews held for the new combined Park and Recreation Director? • There are different pay scales that currently exist between the two cities. How will salaries be handled? There are concerns about park supervisors making a higher salary than the recreation supervisors. Due to the increase in responsibilities,the Recreation Supervisors would like to be reclassified as Community Service Managers. ■ There are different labor unions in each city. How would that be dealt with? ■ Will our retirement/compensation package and benefits change? • Will we become employees of both Millbrae and Burlingame? ■ Are there going to be any additional golden handshakes offered? ■ Would Burlingame employees have to work in Millbrae?Would Millbrae employees in Burlingame? ■ Classifications and the difference in the duties and salaries and benefits between the two cities? ■ With our salary freezes and positions at risk,why are we willing to sacrifice Burlingame staff/positions for Millbrae's benefit and visa/versa? Workload ■ Will we continue to have the opportunity to attend various training classes(ie chemical/pesticide application)? ■ Will Millbrae staff continue to rotate personnel to cover the needs of Public Works or will Burlingame assist with that rotation? ■ Millbrae&Burlingame are under staffed. How will these cities take on more tasks? ■ Does this mean more retraining(knowledge of parks, streets,water,etc.)? ■ Does the merger guarantee my current employment and title? ■ Where are we going to be based? • Where do we store our equipment,vehicles,etc.? • Would Millbrae employees work in Burlingame,and visa versa? ■ How are we going to maintain the current levels of service with additional budget cuts? ■ Will a merger affect employee's workload? ■ When Burlingame is about to lose our Superintendent, why are we not gaining back our full time director? ■ Would staff that is duplicated be eliminated? ■ Would we combine programs, such as seniors, Sunshine,etc.? ■ How would Taylor after school sport program work? Would it still be run by Millbrae staff? ■ Would Burlingame park personnel actually be working in the City of Millbrae? ■ How would our management structure in the Burlingame Parks Department be affected and would we have to work under Millbrae's management, which is reputed to be quite eccentric,to say the least? ■ How would a merger affect advancement and promotions in our Department? Would the Burlingame employees have to compete with Millbrae's employees for advancement or promotion? ■ How will unions react? ■ Will employees(managers or maintenance workers)lose their jobs or have to compete with Millbrae employees to keep their jobs? • Would street tree and/or private tree code enforcement in Millbrae(under the above scenario)draw staff time away from existing Burlingame and/or Millbrae departments to deal with illegal pruning/removals/sidewalk replacement issues? Would the above scenario be feasible given budget constraints? Misc. ■ What obstacles/challenges do council and commission see? ■ What division(Parks/Recreation)benefits more by a merge? • What opportunities are there to contract services can we offer to other Cities, School Districts, etc,to bring in more revenue to merged department?Do we have more to offer as a bigger department? ■ Did other cities do this? And, if they did, did they fail or win? Check with other cities that merge their parks and rec to find out what problems they had ■ How do we prevent—with the merger—the formation of a large department evolving into a sort of"super department" with a highly paid management structure at the top and a large number of per-diem workers at the bottom? ■ Where did the stipend from Millbrae go? How were those funds used/distributed? ■ Millbrae uses PC computers and Burlingame uses Macs. What are the costs of combining to one use? ■ Staff morale has been low in both cities for some time. What steps will be taken to assist staff moral? ■ Will buildings in both locations still be used if rec services are combined, if not what will be done w/the buildings not in use. If some buildings are not used, can they be rented out?(However, in this economy,how realistic is this?) ■ Where would commission meetings be held? • Would a park and rec merger allow us to legally use Burlingame tree ordinance in Millbrae jurisdictional area? Programs ■ Will programs be cut that cannot be self-sustained in both cities? ■ When having days like Arbor day, would each city have one? If not,how would it be determined where and which. ■ Does the City of Millbrae have the same standards/regulations/requirements when considering the removal of a City tree? If Burlingame was more restrictive,would they have to lower their standards to make the two equal or would Millbrae need to higher theirs and visa versa. ■ I understand that Millbrae homeowners are responsible for the removal,trimming and care of City tress in the parking strips adjacent to their homes.By merging the City departments,would that mean that Burlingame homeowners would then be responsible for the above? Is this what they're trying to accomplish by merging the two? • This could adversely effect some of Burlingame's activities. One example would be preschool since we are currently not able to accommodate all the residents and Millbrae cannot offer a program with the same type of facility. ■ What is Millbrae's part-time pay scale, contract instructor percentages and cap if any, hours of operation,rental fees and how many part-time employees and contractors do they have? Do they offer a senior discount on class fees? Goals/Values ■ Service levels should not be reduced. ■ To provide the best quality programs and services our community members deserve. ■ Become more efficient and continue high level of customer service. ■ Keep each city's sense of identity. ■ Capitalize on each other's strengths. ■ Continue to collaborate with others to bring services to citizens ■ Equal compensation for like jobs ■ To preserve the integrity of the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department. • To keep as many Burlingame jobs as possible. ■ To maintain the Burlingame standard of excellence. ■ To maintain(or enhance)the current scope and variety of programs. • To keep the merger process transparent with a high level of communication with staff and the community. ■ To maintain the small community culture that we currently have in Burlingame. ■ Evaluate every 12 months—always on probation, never make permanent ■ Get opinion from citizens or vote • Continue to provide services to the communities that are currrently enjoyed(trouble with giving something,taking away is the hard part) ■ Use the volunteer commissions(unpaid,valuable resources)to garner ideas and possibly help in providing the services ■ Provide representation from both communities on commissions if the commissions/committees are combined(needless to say on council if councils are combined) ■ Due to the current economic and budget crisis,perhaps combining facilities and not having the expense of maintaining, running the buildings will allow for hiring of additional staff that will help provide current services ■ This will benefit both communities. ■ No interruption of services, it will only get better. • Equal representation for each city. Comments ■ Would a future merger with Millbrae be confined to just the Park and Recreation Departments,or would it be part of a grander plan(Jim Nantell's vision of a tri-city structure)? • I think that any group discussion or information-gathering process should proceed only with the full participation of AFSCME. ■ I can't help but feel, at this point,that the merger is a foregone conclusion and that the staff/worker participation is merely solicited as a courtesy,providing us with the illusion of contributing to a decision-making process. ■ Jim Nantell has already been in the newspaper saying there will be a merger between Burlingame,Millbrae& Hillsborough. This is already set. ■ We might as well merge with Public Works with our own city. Attachment"U" d CITY o� STAFF REPORT BUI�.INGAME AGENDA ITEM# MTG. °A••.n gym' DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: January 11,2003 APPROVED FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY suB,IEcr: PROPOSAL FOR SHARED PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITIES OF BURLINGAME AND MILLBRAE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council authorize the City Manager to enter into negotiations with the City of Millbrae for shared Parks&Recreation Director services. BACKGROUND: The City of Millbrae has approached Burlingame with a proposal for Burlingame's Parks &Recreation Director to temporarily assume the Dept. Head duties of the Millbrae Parks &Recreation Department upon the retirement of Millbrae's current Director on February 1, 2003. Burlingame's Director is being asked to provide 20 hours per week of service on Department administration and attendance at City meetings. Millbrae officials anticipate this arrangement lasting approximately six to nine months, enough time for the City to hire a new City Administrator, adjust to his/her position and determine the long-range plan for the Parks and Recreation Department. Upcoming major projects requiring the Burlingame Director's involvement include: support for the Teen Center Fundraising Committee, preparation of the Department 2003-04 budget, adjustment to new personnel levels and the potential closure of the Burlingame Golf Center. While this agreement is being considered as temporary,the question of a merger between the two Departments has been raised. One benefit to the City of Burlingame during this period is the opportunity to determine the benefits of a permanent merger. The Director and both staffs will identify and assess any areas of collaboration between the two Departments that could result in increased efficiencies or cost savings. At the end of this six to nine month period, if both cities are interested in pursuing a merger, the Director will prepare a report and recommendation. Burlingame Parks &Recreation staff will be asked to assume some of the duties currently being done by the Director to allow the assistance to Millbrae. Because the impact that this collaboration will have on the Parks and Recreation programs is uncertain, staff recommends that a 30-day termination clause be included into any agreement between the two cities. TIMELINE: January 14th Discussion by Millbrae City Council January 21St Discussion by Burlingame City Council January 22-25 Negotiations between Millbrae and Burlingame January 28th Millbrae City Council adoption February 3rd Burlingame City Council adoption February 4th First day of shared service BUDGET EVIPACT: No terms have been discussed to date of an appropriate amount for the City of Millbrae to pay the City of Burlingame during this agreement. ATTACHMENTS: "A Conceptual Plan for Shared Parks and Recreation Director Services Between the Cities of Millbrae and Burlingame", a report prepared for the consideration of the Millbrae City Council (report attachments are not included). Attachment"V" Joint Pewaukee Park and Recreation Department May 2002 Compiled from interviews with Chair of the Park and Recreation Board Bob Rohde, Village of Pewaukee Administrator Jennifer Sheiffer, City of Pewaukee Administrator Harlan Clinkenbeard, and Park/Recreation Director Dawn Thomson. Research and writing by Dan Elsoss, Local Government Specialist, and Amy Zeman, graduate student, LaFollette School of Public Affairs. History In 1995, the Village of Pewaukee and the Town of Pewaukee began discussing merging their recreation departments. At the end of 1996, both parks departments were added to the merger discussions at the recommendation of a merger study taskforce that was headed by Bob Rhode. The two municipalities were pleased with the successful merger of their fire and rescue services and saw another opportunity jointly to improve a public service. Prior to the merger, the Village's recreation program was a summer only program, led by a public school teacher, which provided basic sports and some arts and crafts opportunities for children. The general consensus of the Village was concern with the level of recreational programs and maintenance of the parks. The Town of Pewaukee already had started year-round recreation programming in 1995. It was using the schools as a way of contacting children and it also was using facilities of both the Pewaukee School District and Waukesha School District for activities. At this time, a Village resident would have to pay a non-resident fee to participate in any Town recreation activities and Town residents paid a non-resident fee to participate in Village activities. The Village had seen its population quickly grow from 5,000 to 7,000, yet was not providing full time recreation programming. The Town had an approximate population of 10,000 and just had hired Dawn Thomson as a three-quarter time Park/Recreation Director. Both municipalities felt the desire to provide better programming on a more efficient basis and they wanted to attract children and senior citizens year-round. They also wanted to improve maintenance within the parks and expand the existing park lands. Precipitation of the Merger The Village and Town adopted ordinances approving consolidation of services in November of 1996. Harlan Clinkenbeard, Town of Pewaukee Administrator, drafted the ordinance, which then went through the Joint Pewaukee Park and Recreation Committee and both municipalities' attorneys. There were a few original points of major discussion and debate. The first was related to shared equipment. The wording of the ordinance allowed each municipality to keep ownership of currently owned equipment. At the time that something needed to be replaced, it would be owned 42 Merger of City-Village Services: Best Practices jointly only if it could be used in both municipalities. Any piece of equipment or permanent park fixture was to be owned, and sometimes maintained, by the host community. Any issues over "joint" versus "sole" ownership are settled by the joint board, which makes a recommendation to both governing bodies. Both municipalities have been very responsive to these recommendations. The other major discussion focused on the possibility that the merger could dissolve and possible ways to protect each municipality's assets, should this occur. In this case, jointly owned equipment is divided equally. In the case of a dispute over value or ownership, each municipality must hire its own appraiser, with a third appraiser chosen by the two hired to broker any differing opinions. Land, equipment, and fixtures brought to the merger by either community would revert back to that community. One aspect of the merger that went very smoothly was the combining of each municipality's recreation director into one position. The teacher who was managing the Village's summer program graciously stepped aside to allow Dawn Thomson from the Town to take the position of the Park/Recreation Director for the joint program. Both municipalities were satisfied with the ordinance, but a transition period occurred as the plan was implemented in 1998- It took about a year for the joint board members to completely put aside their "us and you" mentality. Dawn Thomson noted that adding new programs has been easy, while dealing with pre-existing conditions, programs, and equipment has been .more difficult.' Details of the Consolidation The joint Park and Recreation Board is comprised of seven voting and two non-voting members. There are one Trustee and two citizens from the Village of Pewaukee and one Council Member and three citizens from the City of Pewaukee. This ratio is based on the populations of the municipalities. The non-voting members are the Administrators from the City and the Village. Dawn Thomson, Park/Recreation Director, provides staff support to the joint Park/Recreation Board. Initially, there was some concern about only having two Village citizens compared to three City citizens, but, according to Dawn Thomson, "the make up of the board has been great. There is good cooperation with everyone's number one concern being what is best for the community as a whole." This Board is the overseer of policy decisions such as program or use planning. It, along with the Park/Recreation Director, prepares the budget for presentation to the City and Village governing bodies. A budget formula based on population and value for each municipality is used to determine the percentage of operational and capital expenses bome by each municipality. Specifically, 50% of the total budget is divided according to respective percentages of combined 'Please note that in 1998 the Town of Pewaukee incorporated and became the City of Pewaukee. From this point on, it will be referred to as the City of Pewaukee. Merger of City-Village Services:Best Practices 43 equalized value and the other 50 percent of the total budget is divided according to respective percentages of the combined annual official state population estimates. Revenues are also divided in this manner. This year, the formula resulted in 31% of the budget being covered by the Village and 69% by the City. The City of Pewaukee is the fiscal agent for the merged service. The joint board is heavily involved in the planning of structures within the parks. The goal of the Board is to be the major entity in these decisions, but it only can advise on issues, not approve the financing of projects. Capital improvement expenses for specific parks are the responsibility of the municipality that owns that park. The Park/Recreation Director serves both communities and participates in staff meetings of both municipalities. It is still a 0.75-time FTE position. Under the director is a 0.75-time FTE recreation supervisor. Dawn Thomson estimates that there are about 90 part-time recreation supervisors helping out with the various programs. The Park/Recreation Department has two full-time and one part-time maintenance personnel with additional college students hired in the summer. Employees are paid from the City's payroll and the Village is invoiced each month for its share of these costs. It is the responsibility of the maintenance personnel to do all of the maintenance on the parks, except weeding of the Village's lake. Also, any major repair or building construction is the responsibility of each municipality. The Director also may call upon the public works departments of both communities for additional park maintenance and upkeep as needed. Currently, there is no formal process for the evaluation of programs developed, actions taken, or employees under this ordinance. To date, changes have occurred as a result of the Joint Board's verbal dissatisfaction with a specific aspect of the program. This may be a weakness that could have been prevented by including an evaluation process of the merger within the ordinance. The joint Board does have the authority to hire directly and fire employees of the two park and recreation departments. The 2002 operating budget for the Joint Pewaukee Park and Recreation Department is about $695,000 with about $134,000 to be collected from program fees, field trips, and club fees. In comparing the per capita spending for Park Maintenance and Recreation with other villages and cities in the state, this joint operation fares well from both communities' perspectives. The Village's net cost of providing park and recreation services is about $202,000, or approximately $25 per citizen. This compares to a statewide average for all villages (population 2,500 and above) in 2000 of about $49 per capita. Meanwhile, the City of Pewaukee spent about $40 per capita in 2002, compared to a 2000 statewide average of $63 per resident for cities in the range of 10,000-25,000. 44 Merger of City-Village Services: Best Practices i Outcomes of the Merger Positive outcomes of this merger abound. As a result of the merger, there is no duplication of park and recreation services between the communities. Also, according to Bob Rohde, "the parks never have been in better shape and the recreation programming has never been as large or diverse. The majority of the recreation programs are running at capacity. Both municipalities are getting more efficient use of shared equipment and they are providing a higher level of service to their residents. The joint Park and Recreation Department currently is mailing out brochures for program registration bi-annually and it also is considering creating a website that would allow for online registration. It also is working on its first official new park, Simmons-Woods, on 43 acres purchased from the Department of Transportation. The Village acquired the land in 1998. A grant from the Department of Natural Resources covered half of the acquisition costs and the other half came from the Village. The joint Park and Recreation Department has been working with a number of local athletic clubs to coordinate park use. There is a youth soccer club, youth baseball club, and the Pewaukee Athletic Association (PAA), which is an adult softball club. Prior to the merger, the PAA had invested about $200,0004250,000 in a Village park to develop softball fields and lighting. The joint Park and Recreation Department maintains a good working relationship with it. Overall, the joining of the two municipalities' services has led to the clubs crossing community boundaries and the opening up of their previously restricted membership. Currently, there is not enough park space to fully satisfy all of the clubs. New land purchases ` could lead to further partnerships with the clubs. There have been some recent developments related to the merger. The Village has had some issues with park maintenance, which resulted in the creation of a maintenance manual. The success of this merger has aided in discussions about merging the City and Village of Pewaukee into one city of the third class. Bob Rohde, Chair of the joint Merger Commission, states, "if the fire and rescue (merger) and the park and rec hadn't been successes, I don't think we'd be where we are right now as far as those discussions." Consolidation talks were. stalled when an original advisory vote of each municipality scheduled for the fall of 2002 was postponed at the request of the city. Approval of a total consolidation would require majority approval of both sets of voters and a two-thirds vote from each governing board as required by state law. Final State aproval of the consolidation is also required. i Merger of City-Village Services:Best Practices 45. i, Gf �i� ':ft" }=asp, k5i OW ?M.i =s f r.�.. L4 r +.e"�.Yt 'k4 " K� n � x �� a �� s L�ess� .s err y WIN Tri, kms'' "- that° stin _cai} merrt5 and errrployees mast afl~ef t "� ;' �� � eager'pro is be ynvolvecf'�rrt f l nr xng..an negot<atro lea#rn er ear � par tce,:rt tfie directors of tfie seate Rai is aswas { I s rffRM �rs departments , i � xr rxatxrg the merger, have a vi'sron of what'you v ant to �- �` cion as a guide when encorinterring contfoversies and drsak ai.�.a+` "7' �F`a .k - �} Or W- 4 er the commurnfieswan ci to pfovrde.better pr-'g; a ere efficient, 'have a larger. user.`base,which included es, improve Park'_maantenance These goals should be kq Of h t ry -xt`~�"� zr.+„�.a�, avi•>�5,-�.t - e'E ..: u �wwg e er shouId''include an evaluation process to revisit forrncrlaszl,, x ` aT � z I � c+ rtrrrg administration, etc. to trigger adjustments. This ordrrraneees �a.Fk-`�iT, ss�.u� a^~M`yPM^S 1r'i } a � �rnot s ecrfr an evaluation process. At this point, it is hard to irrstrtute, . u .'�'MiN `"Y3-- Sys ` 'S' „ j...�,�ir �`''�. :a 5 b aus h`f a community has an advantage in an area they are upw ting �( t negotiate or.agree to a re-evaluation.MAN - -0- -M ;-e .11 be easier to merge than others will. Park and �i 4 - artmients may be an easier service to consolidate because there r i ! �e rec ro(itical"and legal barriers to navigate, than exist.surrouo i I A�r A, M es such as police and fire. � �tter committee consisting of strong leaders with common sens � �� -gRI& ; W;, rinds is an,enormous advanta a to the mer er rocess Tfirts ,,� � �. �c of.1-cl presented by all of the interviewees. Officials in both cdc nR ti 5. Xi Ak I �HHH 4t of the success of.this merger was aided greatly by the gua(Ity -virga 1 fav-'i ershe merger comrnrttee � rWAI �ortant to have a drsfxtidrng clause; do nofihrride� i succs Verge ► to x�ema 'separate entities in ceaa�ea � �- ' � stad��` af°U. ` # enhrr°rf�l�Ct goal,t(thti�k thtxrnAIR 's��r'� �r- b.a t x..� f�L'^o..�'# ::'` r�'��` '�,Fsx 'E-3F .� RNAR '° t► r�,�r �rrr�e trovtde f¢c a� �su� f . ' t ° tis ' t*x�ra. .,.t � pa��� fute :`_.may Y,,•:` €*- .A, kip "s,.,�`, e f �ortte air ursron�rs* ee� vim" .��+ } i � 4�� � ��t�STrC�- �'�* 'h'.r'�'�+�'•"�.rr r�� % y 46 Merger of City-Village Services: Best Practices .,�92a.+,s1 ;2..., a"ot ,, r VAM 1 �Etrces n lessens Le'MAW C� -•f {{�� i a`�: f � Y L wQ� oarci only can recommend that the City orl�ilfage stag, 'tia p tid ��ot:its own land acquisition' but it does not have direct pth..�" ¢x:54 - -�. � s ..SSthis could.-be improved by granting the Jo1nao x. Per Capita Parks and Recreation- City of Pewaukee and Village of Pewaukee $100 - - -- -- - ----- --- -- ---- - - ---- - ---- ------ ----- - ----- $90 _ $s0 - --- -- - - ----- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - ----- ----------- -- ---- --- - ------- $70 -- -- - - ----- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - ----- $70 - ------ --- -- --- - ------- --- --- -------- ------- -- -- -- --- ------ $60 - --- - -- - --- - - ---- ---- - - - - - ----- -- --- -- - --- - -- ---- -- --- ----- $so - --- - ------ - -- - - ------ - - ---- = ------ ---- ------- - -- - - ---- - - -- --- -- -- ------ --- -- - -- -- - ----- ---- f $30 - - - - -- - --- - - -- --- -- - - -- ---- --- $20 - -- ------- -------- --- --- - --------- $10- - ------- --- --- - ---------$10- - --- - -- - ----- - - --- - - -- --- - - - --- -- --- ----------- -- -------- $0 \O 110 \10 \10 110 %O \10 %�O O O 00 CO 00 \O \O \�O �10 %O \O \10 O O V 00 N W 4:1 O\ V Co 110 O -- Villages Village ofF A, Cities between City of over Pewaukee 10,001 and Pewaukee 2,500 25,000 people people Merger of City-Village Services:Best Practices 47 Appendix E Section 5 Section 1.06 (d) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Pewaukee is hereby created to read as follows: 1.06 (d) Dissolution Either the Town Board or the Village Board may dissolve the joint Park and Recreation Department and Board at any time by giving six (6) months prior written notice to the other Board addressed in care of the Clerk of that unit of government and to the joint Board. From and after the date of dissolution, each unit of government shall own those assets and liabilities which are solely titled in each unit of government. Parks, park buildings, park equipment and fixtures shall not be subject to division and shall belong to the municipality in which the park is located. The value of jointly owned vehicles shall be divided in an amount equal to the average of the pro rata share of contributions from the date of the written Agreement between the Town and Village to the date of dissolution. In the event of a dispute in valuation of assets or liabilities, each . Board shall hire an appraiser at its own cost, the two appraisers shall choose a third appraiser and the three appraisers shall value the assets and liabilities and allocate the assets according to the ownership percentage aforementioned, and allocate the liabilities to each municipality according to the same percentage. Upon dissolution, either of the units of government may provide the other unit of government the opportunity to purchase its interest in the assets of the joint Department at the value fixed by agreement or by appraisal as described above. In such case, the other unit of government shall have a period of sixty (60) days from the date of such provision within which to decide whether or not it desires to purchase such assets. If one unit of government desires to purchase the interest of the other, it shall have a period of time, not exceeding one (1) year from the date of its election, within which to pay the total due the government unit selling its assets. If both units of government choose not to purchase the assets of the other unit of government, each shall keep its percent of the assets as established above. The written notice of election by the selling unit of government shall be deemed adequate and sufficient security for the other part as a binding commitment during this period of time. Merger of City-Village Services:Best Practices 65 Appendix F. Term of Agreement This agreement shall take effect upon the effective date stated herein after the adoption by the governing body of each municipality of a resolution approving the Agreement and authorizing its execution. This Agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity subject to the following: 18.1 All municipalities shall participate in this agreement for a minimum of five (5) years. 18.2 After the expiration of the initial five (5) year period, any municipality wishing to with draw from this agreement may do so on at least two (2) years written notice addressed to the clerk of each of the other municipalities, provided however, that no such notice be given until expiration of the initial five (5) year period set forth in the prior paragraph. 66 Merger of City-Village Services:Best Practices BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY Burlingame Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes August 16, 2005 I. Call to Order President McCormack called the meeting to order at 5:34 PM. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Nancy Brock, Bruce Carlton, Deborah Griffith, Katie McCormack, Pat Toft. Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian Staff Absent: Sidney Poland, Recorder III. Warrants and Special Funds The Trustees unanimously approved the warrants after clarification. M/S/C (Toft/Carlton) IV. Minutes The Trustees unanimously approved the minutes of the July 19th meeting. M/S/C (Toft/Griffith) V. Correspondence and Attachments Correspondence and attachments were noted. Trustee McCormack urged the Trustees to attend the PLS Orientation on September 28t at the PLS offices in San Mateo. Also noted was a letter of appreciation for "excellent services" from Burlingame resident David H. Studebaker. VI. From the Floor There were no members of the public present. VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report- Highlights of Report 1 Online Migration a. Go Live Date. The online migration is underway and hopefully the library should be up and running on the new system Wednesday, August 17, 2005. It's been a rough few months of training and gearing up for the migration, but things seem to be very close. b. PIN Numbers. All patrons will need to get new pin numbers for their library cards; as their old pin numbers will not migrate to Millennium. C. Public Relations. Press releases have been distributed and bookmarks have been distributed to the public at both branches 480 Primrose Road,Burlingame,CA 94010-4083 Phone (650) 558-7474-Fax (650) 342-6295•Email:www.burtingame.org/library . A 2. Children's Summer Reading Clubs - The Clubs have been popular this year and we have approximately the same number of children completing the club as last year, slightly over 650. 3. Personnel - The City Librarian spoke of the several personnel currently out on extended leave. This is a loss of 2 FTE on the sick list. We are backfilling with on call staff. 4. Annual Statistics - A first look at annual circulation statistics show them up 14% over last year. This is on top of three steady years of growth averaging 10% per year. More statistical analysis will follow. B. Burlingame Library Foundation Report - The Library Foundation is planning for the Foundation Fundraiser "Birthday Bash" on Friday, October 7, 2005. Already scheduled are: Walden Marionettes, Magic Dan and others. There will be opportunities for families to donate to children's programming for 2006. VIII. Unfinished Business Statue Honoring Gloria Barton. The Statue is being fitted to the base and a bronze plaque has been ordered. We will have a dedication when the statue is returned from the cabinetmaker. IX. New Business A. Employee Achievement Award Task Force. The Trustees appointed Deborah Griffith and Pat Toft as the task force for selection of the Employee Achievement awards. Katie McCormack will assist. M/S/C (Brock/Carlton] B Employee Recognition Dinner Coordinator Katie McCormack will work with the Foundation on the dinner for December 4th, Doubletree Hotel. X. Announcements A. The Trustees requested a list of phone numbers and addresses, and e-mail for the Board. The City Librarian will forward this information to each Board member. B. Trustee McCormack distributed information on a Trustees' event on new technologies to be held at the new Santa Clara City Library on October 29, 2005, 9:30- Noon. XI. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 PM. The next meeting will be held Tuesday, September 20, 2005, 5:30 PM in the Conference Room. R ,?ectfully,Si4braitted, r� sco City Librarian 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 26, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the September 26, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg and Osterling Staff Present: Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the September 12, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with one correction on Page 14 regarding Item 7 as follows: Generally 2 to 3 story buildings have FAR of 04 0.6 with parking at grade. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Diane Mason, 1451 Balboa Avenue, wanted to speak to Commission and neighbors about the tear down of existing houses and the impact on the neighborhood during the construction process, during the hearing process for the project at 1453 Balboa, had submitted letters of concerns about privacy, livability, now under construction looks like it is shoved against our home; Planning Commission should ask for story poles, when a project is sent to a design review consultant, they work for the developer not for the neighbor, no one came to see the impact, as a resident, you need to consider changes to grade or drainage caused by the project, how it will affect your trees or shrubs, it's a good idea to take "before" pictures; expressed concern with windows looking into living spaces, told to put up shades. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN: DRAFT ROLLINS ROAD DISTRICT REGULATIONS CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE/CITY ATTORNEY LARRY ANDERSON Chair Auran noted that this is a study item and asked Commissioners if they had any comments on the proposed ordinance. Commissioners asked for clarification for what is meant by"day rooms" for ambulance services. CA Anderson clarified that this is a waiting area for use by ambulance personnel waiting to respond to calls for service, similar to what is found at a fire station. Commissioners noted that the hours of operations for incidental food establishments should be expanded to accommodate the different work schedules of employees in the area; it was recommended that the hours of operation should be from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Commissioners noted that the proposed zoning regulations discuss unified signage `-- approaches in the Auto Row overlay, would that be anew process. SP Brooks clarified that the signs would be reviewed under the sign code regulations as they are now. Commissioners asked if there would be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 26,2005 standards for enclosures for outdoor storage areas. CA Anderson noted that the design guidelines and conditional use permit process offer tools for review. Commissioners noted the proposed ordinance is in good shape, should be brought back for action with the minor changes noted. This item concluded at 7:11 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. 2. 1524 COLUMBUS AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONVERT A PORTION OF AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE TO ACCESSORY LIVING SPACE (HOME OFFICE) (MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARK & SULLIVAN, ARCHITECT) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER / MAUREEN BROOKS Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Keighran noted that she lives within 500 feet of 1524 Columbus Avenue so she would recuse herself from that vote. C. Deal moved to approve the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-1-2(C.Keighran abstaining;Cers.Brownrigg and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 1021 CORTEZ AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (FARSHID SAMSAMI, APPLICANT;SAMUEL KWONG,ARCHITECT;KWANG PAK,PROPERTY OWNER)(46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report September 26, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Samuel Kwong, architect, was available to answer questions, thanked staff for assistance with processing this project,noted that the design review consultant was very helpful, Commission's comments and concerns have been addressed on the revised plans; most notable change is on the front fagade with the addition of a covered porch,which adds articulation along the front of the house,second floor deck at the rear of the house was eliminated,an additional tree was added in the rear yard for additional screening,window trim was reduced and landscaping was modified. Commission noted that the front porch is a big improvement to the project but that there are several concerns which still need to be addressed. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 26, 2005 Virginia Wiemers, 1469 Bellevue Avenue #506, representing a property directly behind this project on Cabrillo Avenue,concerned with the back wall of the garage being so close to property line,appreciates the removal of the second floor balcony at the rear of the house. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted the following items to be addressed: • concerned with the depth of the front porch,only 2'-10",it is very narrow and should be made more substantial;porch should be revised to be at least 5'-0" in depth; • concerned with the size of the knee braces proposed,they are appropriate to this design but appear too small,house will look odd with miniaturized knee braces,should look at the proportion,feel they should be bigger; • knee braces should also be added to the gable end at the stairway on the North Elevation; • clarify if glass panels are proposed in garage side-access door;if so,a conditional use permit will be required for a window within 10'-0" of property line; • consider adding mullions to the sliding doors on the West Elevation consistent with the proposed mullion patterns on the windows; • concerned with proposed half-timbering on the gable above the front door,seems out ofplace for the proposed style, consider using a specialized knee brace, the diagonal design is not compatible; • concerned with the design of the chimney on the North Elevation,still looks short and stubby,should make it proportionally taller, stone veneer works well; ■ vent on the rear wall of the garage needs to be eliminated to comply with building code requirements; and • it appears that the garage eaves adjacent to the side and rear property lines do not comply with the building code requirements, may have to pull eaves back, can use barge rafters to create the same look as an eave. Commission comment: feel that house can be revised to accommodate a larger porch,project is now 141 SF below maximum allowed FAR, there is enough room to enlarge the porch. C.Auran made a motion to continue this item to the October 24,2005,consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 4. 1416 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CATHERINE ANDERSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CLEMENT&EVA HUNG PROPERTY OWNERS)(67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report September 26, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff to clarify the proposed building height,is it 32'-2"or 31'-11"? Staff verified that with the revised plans,the proposed height is 32'-2". There were no further questions of staff. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 26, 2005 Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Catherine Anderson,designer,was available to answer questions. Commission noted that the project has improved,overall design concept has always been good,but that there .� are several concerns which still need to be addressed. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,Mrs. Sperman, 1417 Balboa Avenue and Mrs.Leri,2701 Hillside Drive, expressed concerns with the project;there are a number ofneighbors here tonight that are concerned with the proposed height of the building, read and submitted letter expressing concerns from Donna Cerna, 1457 Balboa Avenue,concerned about new development changing the face of Burlingame,urge Commission not to approve special permit for height, proposed house is located on the highest point of Balboa Avenue, discussed the project with a friend who is a contractor and felt that the house will be massive, concerned with drainage from the increase in amount of roof area,most of the flat roof is over a hallway and laundry room, don't think a 12'-0" high ceiling is needed above these areas, roof looks like it was chopped off, proposed house is three times as large as the existing house;concerned that many new houses being built are not owner occupied but rather proposed by developers,would like to see story poles installed showing the envelope of the building,this is a modest block,the street is narrow and therefore the houses appear closer to each other,this street is a Fire Department emergency route but is rarely used because the street is so narrow; would like to see the second floor pushed further back despite its'20'front setback,complicated roofpattern and rolling roof at front of house will be in your face,could move bulk of second floor towards the rear since there is more open space at the rear of the lot;house is so tall and will be close to side property line there is not enough room to use a ladder to clean gutters; look at all other Tudor style houses in the neighborhood and none of them had this much roof area; live across the street from this house, this block has changed dramatically with all of the recent construction, feel like we have been living on a construction site for the last 2-3 years, houses in Burlingame are getting bigger and taller,new houses are not compatible with the existing houses; developers are building big massive houses, living in a building bonanza, seems to be -� construction on every block in the city, houses being built are too big for the lots, there should be a moratorium on building new houses to stop and evaluate what is going on,it is getting out of hand;the 1400 block of Balboa has a potential of four houses to be built at the same time, this should be taken into consideration; talked to the property owners about the project, would not object to the project if no exceptions to the code were requested. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted the following items to be addressed: • concerned about the amount of flat roof on the building,there is something wrong when there are so many flat roofs on a Tudor style; • there are still discrepancies between the floor plans, for example at staircase with windows,check roof plans and building elevations,need to review all plans again to make sure all inconsistencies are corrected; • shading technique on building elevations hides the details in the design, there is a lack of information, can't see the details on the exterior of the building,need more delineation; • concerned with having a consistent plate height in an English Tudor style,makes the second floor appear more massive, should consider varying the plate height for a more authentic look; • height,mass and bulk can be diminished by reducing some plate heights; and • front and rear elevations work well,but side elevations are too massive. Commission comment: noted that the same set of rules apply to a property owner or developer, cannot differentiate between the two; we have special permits for building height for situations where the lot slopes upward,it is appropriate in this case,the architectural style of the house could be negatively impacted if this house were to be restricted to 30'in height. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 26, 2005 C.Deal made a motion to send this project back to a design review consultant with direction provided. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.Brownrigg and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. C.Vistica thanked the neighborhood residents for coming to the public hearing and for being involved in the process. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1461 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(JERRY WINGES,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT,MARK&ILKA HOSKING, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mark Hosking,property owner,and Jerry Winges,architect,were available to answer questions, property owner noted that he has been a Burlingame resident since 1962, would like to build a new house and maintain large rear yard for his children, would also like to preserve trees on site, a detached garage would reduce the rear yard space and would eliminate several trees. Architect provided a handout with neighborhood information, summarized how the project complies with the five aspects of the residential design guidelines, feels design is compatible with the neighborhood and fits in well, footprint is smaller than other houses on the block, proposing smaller footprint to preserve greenery on site, giving up 400 SF with this project because a detached garage is not proposed,using steep roofs with dormers to get more light and air,this is an eclectic neighborhood,using varying plate heights to keep the scale and mass down,using true divided light windows throughout;requesting a special permit to preserve the steep roof design, feel that the proposed landscape design enhances the property,the rear yard landscaping was designed around the existing oak tree; property owner would like to have an attached garage,attached garage will have two separate carriage style wooden doors,each door is slightly different in style and are offset by 3'-6", plate height at the garage is brought down to reduce impact of the attached garage, left side of house is set back further to reduce impact on that neighbor, driveway on the adjacent property to the right provides separation between the houses,noted that there is a neighborhood pattern of 8 foot separation between houses. Commission comment: architect has done a good job with the design, handout references several newer houses built with attached garages,these houses with attached garages caused design review to come about, concerned that this proposal is still a two story house with an attached two-car garage facing the street and that it sets a precedent for future development, the massing is the same whether an attached or detached garage is proposed, also noted that several of these houses in the handout are smaller houses with attached single car garages; feel that the attached garage has been designed to fit in with the house and works really well,rationale for using an attached garage is strong,will preserve trees and backyard space,impact of this house is much less than the previous house reviewed tonight. Commission asked the architect if he found anything in the zoning code which was troublesome to work with? Architect noted that he feels a nice house was designed within the zoning code,it was a challenge but ended up with good results. Commission asked why two different style door are being proposed for the garage? Architect noted that he looked at many 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 26, 2005 options,this seemed to work best. Commission noted that the staggered garage doors and each door being a different style makes the garage fit in well,not usually a proponent of attached garages but this design works .� really well,house is articulated well,varying plate heights makes the house appear less massive,appreciate the large amount of landscaping proposed and that the driveway is single-wide at the entrance and widens to double-wide near the garage;use of two different style garage doors looks odd. Commission asked if garage doors will be natural wood?Yes. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: Concerned with plain front entry opening,needs to be articulated better, add more detail and show front door on building elevation. This motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: attached two-car garage dominates the front fagade, concerned that houses with attached garages change the neighborhood, do not want to set a precedent, what do we say to the next applicant with a similar proposal,in the past many project with attached garages were denied and they were steered in a different direction;do not usually like to see attached garages,but in this design the garage doors are staggered, traditional carriage style doors are proposed and landscaping is incorporated well, zoning allows for staggered garage doors, the design is well executed and a substantial front setback is provided. 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 4-1-0-2 (C.Deal dissenting; Cers. Brownrigg and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:41 p.m. 6. 2412 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JAMES WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, ALVIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. James Wong, architect,was available to answer questions. Dr. Hsiao Lieu, 2415 Hale Drive; Susan May,2408 Hale Drive; Faina Medzonsky,2414 Hale Drive; and Stan Clark, 2501 Poppy Drive, expressed concerns with the project; moved to this block because of its charm,this house will take the charm away,lot slopes upward from the sidewalk,concerned with the bulky front fagade, it will be monstrous,house design and height does not blend in with the neighborhood;there are no trees on the lot to screen the addition; concerned that the garage will not be used for parking, cars parked in driveway will diminish the front yard space; City has changed from a modest town to one of the most desirable places on the Peninsula, concerned that the addition will eliminate natural light into our kitchen and master bedroom, design is not in keeping with the existing houses on the block, there is no landscaping proposed to mitigate the addition,concerned with the new front door location along the side of the house being 10'from our window,concerned with drainage because our house is downhill,respect the right to improve the property but want to make sure it is compatible with the neighborhood, also want to 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 26, 2005 make sure tree on property line will remain;would like to know what the purpose is for having a door on the rear of the house, does not allow access to the rear because of the railing,why are more windows proposed at the rear of the house? There were no other public comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted the following items to be addressed: • have serious concerns with the project and consistency with the neighborhood; front fagade,design style,massing and details are inappropriate; • front fagade is very vertical and does not match the rest of the house,this looks like an addition,does not blend in well; • proposed handrail is contemporary and not compatible with the traditional style in this neighborhood; • concerned with the relocation of the entry from the front to the side; • concerned with the lack of windows on the right side elevation on the second floor,too many blank walls, need to add more windows and break up the mass; also concerned with the small section of roof extending to right of chimney; • window treatments on front elevation don't match the side and rear elevations;window style needs to be consistent throughout; • concerned with gables ends on the front facade while the rest of the house contains hip roofs; existing house is a sequence of hipped roofs working up the hill; • want to make sure that architect understands that a major redesign is required to address Commissions' concerns, do not want to see this project come back with minor changes; • concerned with 9'-0"plate height on second floor, gives extra height and creates a layer cake look; • would like to see additional large scale landscaping at the front,at least 1-2 additional trees chosen from the city's tree list, should consult with the City Arborist on the appropriate species; • gently sloped roofs are not appropriate, concerned with the vocabulary of the arched windows; and • discourage use of stucco trim around windows, should use a traditional wood stucco mold. C.Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the direction given. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: have noted a lot of the concerns on the plans, staff should forward these plans with notes to the architect and design review consultant, suggest design review consultant also listen to the meeting tapes to make sure he understands all comments, design approach is not cognizant of the design review guidelines, need to carefully study these guidelines and incorporate them into the project. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with direction. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 7. 1604 CHAPIN AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GARAGE WIDTH AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SIZE OF GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE(RANDY GRANGE,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT,GORDON&RANDI MURRAY,PROPERTY OWNERS) (36 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 26, 2005 Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange,architect,was available to answer questions,noted that this is a large lot,more than twice the size of a standard lot size,new property owners like the large lot and its proximity to downtown, decided to build a new house because the existing house is in bad shape, tried not to make the house too massive, looks more like a 1%2-story house, wanted to keep the existing bungalow feel but also vary the style a little,proposing more of an arts and crafts bungalow style;lot is over 70 feet wide, feel that the three-car garage with staggered doors is appropriate to this larger lot and is compatible with the style of the house; owners wanted to keep the existing maple tree at the front,but the arborist report recommends that it should be removed. Commission comment: architect has done an excellent job,massing has been handled well, and this is an appropriate design for the neighborhood. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C.Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • Suggest that the architect consider adding a clipped gable over the set of three windows along the right side elevation towards the rear of the house to match the other clipped gable on the same elevation; and • Landscaping in front yard needs to be enhanced,should add one large scale tree in front yard,consult with landscape designer to choose a species which would be most appropriate. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. 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 5-0-2(Cers. Brownrigg and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:13 p.m. 8. 1123 EASTMOOR ROAD,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(RANDY GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, MARK & CAROLYN QUILICI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, Mark and Carolyn Quilici, property owners,were available to answer questions,architect noted that this is a difficult house to add onto,addition will be an improvement to the house,the front fagade will be enhanced,side setback variance to extend an existing nonconforming wall would be a minor modification if no other Planning Commission review was required,3'side setback is common in this neighborhood,others have extended their nonconforming walls similar to what is proposed. Commission asked the applicant if they had considered eliminating the side setback variance by jogging the new wall in to meet the side setback requirement. Applicants note that they feel strongly about keeping the 3'setback rather than extending further into the rear yard,the additional foot would provide the needed space in the living room,felt it wouldn't be a problem since so many others in the neighborhood have built similar additions. Commission noted that in order to approve the variance there has to be a hardship, but also noted that the request to encroach into the side setback is typically a minor modification,is only a variance because Commission review is required for design review. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 26, 2005 Commission comment: side setback variance is for an extension of an existing side setback which would be considered a minor modification, this is a minor encroachment into the side setback, proposed addition compliments the existing architecture; the existing garage is 18'-2" in length and can still accommodate a car, would be a hardship to the property owners to ask them to increase the existing length. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with no changes recommended. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: staff should include a condition of approval which states that the side setback and parking variances shall only apply to this residential building and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar as the project is proposed with the added condition regarding the variances. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2(Cers. Brownrigg and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. 9e 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT,ZONED M-1—ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN REVIEW STUDY FOR AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY AND SPCA(KEN WHITE,PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA, APPLICANT, GEORGE MIERS & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT, HENRY HORN& SONS, PROPERTY OWNER) (14 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked about the determination that the aviary count in the floor area ratio, is it just netting over a frame. Plr Hurin noted that it is fixed netting supported by a painted tube steel metal frame. Commissioners noted that they understood that there are CC &R's which cover this area that do not allow metal on the building and require fire walls within twenty feet of any structure. CA Anderson noted that CC&R's are not something that the City is concerned with,City is not a party to the CC&R's so it is a matter between property owners to resolve. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Ken White, President of the Peninsula Humane Society and George Miers, architect made a presentation, displayed a model of the proposed building and presented a materials board showing the proposed building materials. It was noted that this is not like a typical "dog pound"of the past,it would be one of two facilities operated by the Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA, animal control would not occur at this site; there are similar facilities in Walnut Creek, Oakland and San Diego,most of the activities are indoors, there will be no spay/neuter clinic; the habitat for animals are in individual rooms. Regarding the height, the conditional use permit is required for the screen wall being placed around the mechanical equipment on the existing building, it will not be any higher than the equipment which it will screen. The initial analysis of parking was done based on the overall floor area, however,based on similar facilities and actual space occupied by people,believe the facility won't need as much parking. The construction methods used will attenuate the noise of dogs barking,shouldn't be able to hear them from the adjacent sidewalk,special mechanical equipment is used for the animal areas which will reduce the emission of odors. Commissioners asked what types of locations are typical for these types of facilities. The architect noted that the facility in Walnut Creek is located in a business park which includes high tech labs, a college and a 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 26,2005 daycare facility and they coexist well,in Dublin,there is housing directly across the street and in San Diego, it is in a residential area. Commissioners asked how noise will be attenuated,what precautions do you take,.� what about odor control? The architect noted that they use a two-fold approach; in this environment, the dogs are not as stressed out;the dogs are in individual rooms,there is very little barking;second,there are a series of features,such as sound walls and glazing,designed into the construction to provide soundproofing, there will be sound walls between each animal room as well,all dog handling facilities are interior and have their own HVAC system,there are twelve air changes per hour,all animal areas will use outside air and there will be no recirculation of air,all air will be exhausted to the roof where it is screened and the air is filtered with either carbon or HEPA filters;animals are in sealed rooms with insulated glass,only two dog rooms are next to an exterior wall, and double glazing is used there and elsewhere. Commissioners asked about traffic, how many cars do you expect at various hours,how many people at a time will come to events,how does this facility compare to other facilities as far as the parking demand and what is provided. Mr.White noted that most of the uses which generate heavy traffic such as the spay/neuter clinic and lost and found will stay at the existing facility near Coyote Point,in addition to the volunteer and staffing needs of 30 parking spaces at peak hours,there are expected to be at most 20 additional cars in the lot,for a total demand of 50 parking spaces and 62 spaces are proposed. The Dublin site is most comparable and has 30 parking spaces,most of the time there is available space, one of the other sites has 80 parking spaces,but there are more events held at that site than there will be here;the public hours at the existing site are 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,propose that the hours at the new site will be 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,the peak hours on weekends are 11:00 a.m.to 2:00 p.m.,and on weekdays they are between 4:00 p.m.and 6:00 p.m. Commissioners asked about the classes,will buses be used to shuttle the children to the site from schools; the plans show an area for special event planning,what will that be used for? The applicant noted that the programs will be after-school and parents will drop of the children,the people working with the children will be trained professionals; the special events planner will work on fund raising, however the special fund raising events will not take place at this site, except for some minor, 15 person events. Further Commission questions: How will the dog/habitat areas be cleaned and how will the waste be dealt with? The waste is taken care of in the same way as human waste,there will be a built in cleaning system with a recessed connection in the wall, a hose plugs in and the area is power sprayed using chemical cleaners,the surfaces are epoxy resin and are durable. The animal rooms are under negative pressure,so air goes into the room when the door opens, the chemicals used are similar to household bleach. Commissioner questions continued: The model shows the same color glass in the existing building and the new,will they match, are the use of angles to differentiate the new from old,how important are they to the design;wonder about use of corrugated metal,would you consider using textured metal similar to what was used on the Moscone Center,what will the finish be on the animal shapes? The architect noted that they are not proposing to change the glazing of the existing building, the new building will have green tinted windows,the lower portion of the existing building will be clad with sandstone to match the new building. The architect noted that the angles are very important to him as a designer,angles were used because it felt better by connecting and yet pulling away the massing. It is proposed that the corrugated metal will be painted three colors; the finish on the animal shapes will be a durable shop painted finish such as powder coating. Public Comments: David Moutoux, 1400 Rollins Road; Herman Christensen, 1429 Rollins Road; Gary Goldberg, 25 Edwards Court; Albert Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road/1400 Marsten Road; Steve Porter, 887 Mitten Road; Eric Lundquist, 1384-1390 Rollins Road; Jack Kuechler, 40 & 50 Edwards Court; and Geraldine Leri, 2701 Hillside Drive, spoke and expressed the following concerns with the project: have 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 26,2005 concerns about the project relocating to Rollins Road,should verify the number of animals passing through this facility, the Peninsula Humane Society web site states that 20,000 animals per year pass through the Coyote Point facility,projections for this site are 5000,need to account for difference in numbers;question if �- this is a use that is compatible with the balance of uses in the M-1 District, seems to exclude boarding facilities,this is a unique use in Burlingame and is not in keeping with others in the area;regulations state that uses should be contained in a structure and noise levels should not increase by more than 5dba at property line,but the sound of a dog barking is 70 decibels,seems that it will certainly exceed standards;dog barking would be aggravated by noise from ambulances and fire trucks which operate in the vicinity. Public comment continued:need to look at on-site parking,feel more spaces are needed,concerned about the amount of animal waste which will be disposed of via the sewer system; served on a committee to revise zoning regulations,this is not an appropriate use,not what was envisioned,pictures shown are of facilities on larger parcels,there are outside uses proposed close to the street,will contribute to problems with noise, odor and parking; it is already difficult to park on Edwards Court, with the project it will be a bigger problem, the model shows tall trees, it will take many years for trees to grow to mask the building; concerned about the height of the building,concerned about safety,there is a lot of traffic on Rollins Road and it is difficult to get to the proposed parking area,people may park on Rollins Road and it is not safe for children;if you look at the housekeeping at the SPCA today,can see chemical storage,debris boxes,debris at front door,didn't see any of the other facilities that had animals outside;when dogs are walking through the parking structure and bark,it will echo,the hard surface proposed will make it worse;employees in this area like to eat outside, now get smells from Guittard chocolate that come across the freeway, Planning Commission should consider odors and noise;concerned with the lack of parking spaces on site,there could be 100 people in the classrooms,there was a fatality on Rollins Road this year,it is very unsafe,there are no stop signs; concerned with aesthetics,it is not compatible,should consider adding to their existing facility; operate a manufacturing facility adjacent to the north of this site,have many delivery trucks which use the shared access easement between the two properties, will be traffic conflicts with parent arriving with children when workers are leaving businesses,they won't be looking out for children and animals crossing the street;plans look nice,but it looks like more thought was given to people than to animals,animals need fresh air,might want to look at another, larger site. Chair Auran noted that a petition had been submitted with about 40 signatures,as well as letters from David Moutoux,Albert Guibara,Henry Kuechler,Joe Gurkoff and James Hannay. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that the following issues should be addressed in the environmental review process: • Add an analysis of the chemicals used,the amount of waste generated and the impact on the sewer system; ■ Would like to see comparative information regarding noise levels and odors at the facilities mentioned in the presentation; • Comparison of floor area and lot coverage of the other examples shown; and • Parking analysis should look at the other facilities,compare parking provided and size of facilities as well as comparison of programs and services offered. C.Deal made a motion to defer comment on the design of the project until after the environmental document is complete and questions are answered. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 26,2005 Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to defer design review comments until the environmental studies are complete. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Osterling absent). The —� Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:15 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of September 19,2005. SP Brooks reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of September 19, 2005, noting that there were several zoning items acted on by the Council on the consent calendar,including Anza Point and Anza Point South zoning, amendment to Broadway Commercial Area to allow real estate uses, and Trousdale West Zoning. In addition,it was noted that the Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision regarding the off-premise signs at 1400 Burlingame Avenue. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Acting Secretary I 12 09-15-05 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: AUGUST, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change % Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 0 1 1 4 -3 -75.00 Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Robbery Firearm 2 0 6 4 2 50.00 Robbery Knife 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 1 2 5 -3 -60.00 Robbery Strong-Arm 0 0 7 2 5 250.00 Assault - Firearm 0 0 2 0 2 Assault - Knife 1 1 6 5 1 20.00 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 0 5 12 14 -2 -14.29 Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 0 3 4 10 -6 -60.00 Assault - Other (Simple) 12 17 121 139 -18 -12.95 Burglary - Forcible Entry 5 7 60 60 0 0.00 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 3 5 41 70 -29 -41.43 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 2 0 2 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Shoplifting 3 5 29 25 4 16.00 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 17 16 155 196 -41 -20.92 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 12 5 94 41 53 129.27 Larceny Bicycles 5 5 24 19 5 26.32 Larceny From Building 15 3 75 12 63 525.00 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 1 0 16 11 5 45.45 Larceny All Other 4 32 78 189 -111 -58.73 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 5 8 51 80 -29 -36.25 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 0 6 0 6 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 1 1 5 -4 -80.00 ------- ------ ------- ------- 85 115 793 892 85 115 793 892 09-15-05 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: AUGUST, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change W Change All Other Offenses 45 40 325 314 11 3.50 Animal Abuse 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Animal Nuisance 0 0 4 0 4 Arson 0 0 8 4 4 100.00 Assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Threat 0 0 2 0 2 Bribery 0 0 0 0 0 Check Offenses 0 0 4 3 1 33.33 Child Neglect/prot custody 3 3 24 15 9 60.00 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 0 0 0 0 0 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 2 2 0 0.00 Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 2 0 2 Death Investigation 1 0 34 19 15 78.95 Disorderly Conduct 0 3 24 13 11 84.62 Driver's License Violations 0 1 5 3 2 66.67 Driving Under the Influence 5 4 49 55 -6 -10.91 Drug Abuse Violations 4 5 21 31 -10 -32.26 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Drunkeness 7 5 35 39 -4 -10.26 Embezzlement 3 1 7 15 -8 -53.33 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 0 0 False Police Reports 0 0 0 0 0 False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Forgery and Counterfeiting 3 4 33 29 4 13.79 Found Property 5 12 75 77 -2 -2.60 Fraud 2 1 18 23 -5 -21.74 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 2 3 21 30 -9 -30.00 M1 09-15-05 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: AUGUST, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual. - Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change v Change Hit and Run Accidents 5 3 25 39 -14 -35.90 Impersonation 1 2 3 3 0 0.00 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 0 3 3 0 0.00 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00' Liquor Laws 0 0 6 5 1 20.00 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 3 2 14 18 -4 -22.22 Mental Health Cases 6 5 52 68 -16 -23.53 Missing Person 0 3 34 38 -4 -10.53 Missing Property 13 10 60 66 -6 -9.09 Municipal Code Violations 9 7 52 45 7 15.56 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Offenses Against Children 1 0 3 1 2 200.00 Other Assaults 12 17 121 139 -18 -12.95 Other Juvenile offenses 1 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Other Police Service 4 10 51 51 0 0.00 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 1 0 2 -2 -100.00 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 1 0 1 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;.picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 1 0 2 3 -1 -33.33 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Prowling 0 0 2 0 2 Resisting Arrest 1 0 2 3 -1 -33.33 Restraining Orders 0 10 12 36 -24 -66.67 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 1 0 2 1 1 100.00 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 -0 1 -1 -100.00 09-15-05 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: AUGUST, 2005 Current Preva Last Actual -•'Actual YTDYTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change Statutory Rape 0 0 2 0 2 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 1 1 4 2 2 100.00 Suspended License 6 3 22 32 -10 -31.25 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Terrorist Threats 0 2 5 22 -17 -77.27 Towed Vehicle 38 44 276 286 -10 -3.50 Trespassing 0 2 7 10 -3 -30.00 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 1 3 -2 -66.67 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 15 18 167 135 32 23.70 Vehicle Code Violations 5 3 23 21 2 9.52 Violation of Court Order 4 5 8 16 -8 -50.00 Warrants - Felony 1 2 9 11 -2 -18.18 Warrants - Misd 7 3 50 41 9 21.95 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 2 2 7 14 -7 -50.00 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------- ------- 217 237 1,722 1,797 217 237 1,722 1,797 09-15-05 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: AUGUST, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Parking Citations 2959 4 , 353 22 , 859 33 , 634 Moving Citations 183 244 958 2 , 177 3142 4 , 597 23 , 817 35 , 811 3142 4 , 597 23 , 817 35 , 811 Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 09/15/2005 at 03 : 39: 57 PM Reported On: All Officers Report Range : 08/01/2005 to 08/31/2005 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids 8 All % officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAZA-QUIROZ 634 439 15.36 5 20.83 98.87 FEITELBERG 508 1222 42.74 10 41.67 99.19 HARRISON 506 815 28.51 8 33.33 99.03 KIRKPATRICK 502 295 10.32 1 4.17 99.66 MORAN 201 85 2.97 0 0.00 100.00 ROSCOE 503 3 0.10 0 0.00 100.00 Total 2859 24 Page 1 of 1 Ccomcast, Comcast Cable 12647 Alcosta Boulevard Suite 200 San Ramon,CA 94583 September 9,2005 Office:925.973.7000 Fax:925.973.7015 www.comcast.com Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr.Jesus Nava: In response to reactions from our customers to our recent decision to remove the FM services from our offerings and in an effort to provide the Bay Area residents with the telecommunications products and services that connect people to what is important in their lives, Comcast is implementing Digital FM services in your community. Comcast plans to launch this service on September 28,2005. Our regional engineering team has developed a digital solution to deliver approximately 30 FM broadcast stations throughout the Bay Area. Our regional marketing team has conducted research through Arbitron market ratings by county; results of a subscriber survey; direct customer requests and; the desire to provide a wide and diverse range of radio formats to determine the best possible product offering which will include a mix of commercial and listener supported programming. We will offer the product with the purchase of our lowest level of video service plus the cost of a digital converter. In addition to the FM services, customers who choose this product will receive our Music Choice product; have access to Pay-per-view and our interactive cable guide; as well as receive all the Video-On-Demand corresponding to the level of service to which they subscribe. Current video subscribers with a Digital Control Terminal(DCT) will receive the service at no extra fee. Attached please find the detailed Digital FM Line-up and channel location information. Customers will have the ability to connect their DCT directly to a stereo system without a Television by connecting to a home theater receiver (depending on the capability of the receiver). If a customer connects their DCT to their television, the screen will be completely black, no words, no graphics whatsoever whenever accessing the FM channels. We will be notifying our customers of this exciting addition via billing inserts, bill messaging, DCT messaging,DJ Endorsements,Public Relations announcements and press release. As always, if you should have any questions or concerns regarding the matter, please feel free to contact your local Government Affairs Director, Kathi Noe at(650)289-6794. Sincerely, Mitzi GiverRussell on behalf of Kathi Noe Director of Government Affairs and Franchising West Bay Peninsula Area Enclosure(1) Digital FM Line-Up Call Letters Freq. Format Ch Position KQED 88.5 Public Radio 960 KRCB 90.9 Public 961 KCSM 91.1 Jazz 962 KSJO 92.3 Spanish 963 KNGY 92.7 Dance 964 KRZZ 93.3 Spanish 965 KJZY 93.7 Smooth Jazz 966 KPFA 94.1 Variety/Berkeley 967 KBAY 94.5 Adult Contemp 968 KYLD 94.9 Hip Hop 969 KRTY 95.3 Country 970 KZBR 95.7 70's,80's,Variety 971 KOIT 96.5 Adult Contemp 972 KLLC 97.3 Hot AC 973 KISQ 98.1 Urban Contemp 974 KUFX 98.5 Classic Rock 975 KSOL 98.9 Spanish 976 KFRC 99.7 Oldies 977 KZST 100.1 Adult Contemp 978 KBRG 100.3 Spanish 979 KIOI 101.3 Hot AC 980 KDFC 102.1 Classical 981 KBLX 102.9 Urban Contemp 982 KKSF 103.7 Smooth Jazz 983 KFOG 104.5 Album Alternative 984 KRPQ 104.9 Country 985 KITS 105.3 Alternative 986 KMEL 106.1 Hip Hop 987 KEZR 106.5 Hot AC 988 KSAN 107.7 Classic Rock 989 co m ca st Comcast Cable c� 12647 Alcosta Boulevard Suite 200 San Ramon, CA 94583 September 9, 2005 Office: 925.973.7000 Fax: 925.973.7015 www.comcast.com Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: In an effort to ensure that your office remains informed of the programming services offered to our customers who reside in your community we are sending you this letter. This letter is Comcast's notice of our intention to adjust the current programming line-up in your community. Effective September 28, 2005 we will add MoviePlex to the Digital level of service at channel 149. MoviePlex is a compilation channel of the various Encore themes—Action, Westerns, Drama, etc. The channel highlights a different Encore Thematic channel each day. Effective October 5, 2005 we will add SPROUT to the Digital level of service at channel 119. SPROUT offers all of your child's favorite program such as Sesame Street, Barney and Friends, Angelina Ballerina and much more. As always, if you should have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact your local Government Affairs Director, Kathi Noe at (650) 289-6794. Sincerely, Mitzi Givens-Russell on behalf of Kathi Noe Director of Government Affairs and Franchising West Bay Peninsula Area